/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6872760]

Thoughts on this comment? It was on a guardian article about genes influencing intelligence but I want to hear the official /lit/ approved view on the below text.

Modern reductionism and determinism based official natural science (following the lead of classical mechanics and physics) has its own priorities. Any specific study or research must have a precise definition, have a narrow or limited boundary for the sake of empirical “completeness”, and must have some causality-defined and quantitably related parameters that allows for facile prediction and/or conclusion (acceptable by the established order); no matter how complex and dynamic the system under consideration is! Only these criteria would make a research paper suitable for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Any nuanced or less defined or less definitive outcome of a study is not science, but mere verbiage.

Enormously complex systems like society, economics, biology, genetics, neuroscience etc. can attain the honour of being “scientific” only when the above criteria are fulfilled. And of course, in a vastly complex system it is always possible to find a niche area of order where some parameters will have some temporary casual and quantitative relation. The approach of modern official science is to first conceive of some possible (but desired) “a priory” idea based on good old common-sense; develop a model (preferably mathematical) for the system and then try to find some empirical evidence to fit that model - no matter how spurious it is! The following link is another example of this kind:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/jun/26/building-bigger-brains#comments

Reductionism and determinism are inseparable twins. In this specific study, once the possible role of genes in (conveniently) determining the development of intelligence is thought of, then the genes forever must determine or seal the academic potential of a person; independent of his/her actual historical development or circumstances!

[Anonymous No.6872788]

>>6872760
>facile prediction and/or conclusion (acceptable by the established order); no matter how complex and dynamic the system under consideration is!

Stopped reading right there, this person is an ignorant buffoon who has no idea what science is.

[Anonymous No.6872802]

>>6872788

SCIENTISM

[Anonymous No.6872804]

what a poorly written passage.

The only valid point made is that sometimes scientists find what they want to find. this danger is well known and accounted for by proper scientists.

[Anonymous No.6872809]

>>6872760
Holy shit, based Reagan BTFO Marxists there. Now watch all the Marxists on this board get buttmad.

[Anonymous No.6872810]

>>6872802
How is it scientism to acknowledge that science is a far more useful tool to gain knowledge, than simple opinion?

He seems like a person who is invested in the idea that scientific rigidity is a sign of it's weakness and not it's strength, which is pants-on-head retarded.

[Anonymous No.6872847]

Chance, self-reference, and history disrupt much of the dominant scientific metaphysics. The notion of process is foreign to the the traditional Newtonian framework.

Read A Third Window: Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin