any /enlightened/ here?

[Anonymous No.7104744]

specifically, anyone else realize that the whole science obsession, STEM movement, and worship of scientific authority is JUST as cringeworthy as the counterpart retardation in organized religion and philosophy? I feel alone in my knowledge of the untrue

There are just so many somewhat intelligent people that think they are superior for realizing the assumptions in religion that they find something else to latch on as an authority figure (scientific consensus)

[Anonymous No.7104751]

You're just fleeing from the fact that you are a biological puppet.

[Anonymous No.7104758]

>>7104744
who /sixteen and ready to mingle/ here?

[Anonymous No.7104762]

>>7104744

No, it has more to do with the fact that science tends to be more interesting than religion, in the same way that history is infinitely more interesting than mythology.

OP is that fat chick who reads meme greek mythology, but has never heard of Thucydides. Boring, one dimensional, and engages in magical thinking.

[Anonymous No.7104764]

>>7104762
fucking blown the fuck out. I endorse this post.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7104769]

>>7104744
What is this, some kind of "dark enlightenment" tenant?
Or are you just a poet rusing anons for kicks?
"My knowledge of the untrue" Pffbb. Should have capitalized that, "Untrue"

Science will never supplant the arts, dear. No worries

[Anonymous No.7104771]

>>7104744
>please validate my hippie thoughts

Why does a scientific worldview scare you? Not enough precious special feelsies and being at the centre of things?

[Anonymous No.7104780]

>>7104771

a scientific worldview is a belief, just like any other. No more, no less.

>>7104769
>Science will never supplant the arts, dear. No worries.

the arts have lost much respect, but yes, I hope so.

[Anonymous No.7104784]

>>7104762
probably more interesting to you, since you may have an attachment to your belief in it

[Anonymous No.7104792]

>anyone else realize that the whole science obsession, STEM movement, and worship of scientific authority is JUST as cringeworthy as the counterpart retardation in organized religion and philosophy?

No, you're just a whiny contrarian faggot

[Anonymous No.7104796]

>>7104744
Look at what you've done, you've made me resort to posting a comic drawn by a science-obsessed STEMtard

[Anonymous No.7104801]

>>7104762
Either bait or a dullard.

[Anonymous No.7104802]

>>7104792
>>7104796

I'm not contrarian, just unattached to beliefs.

For what it's worth, I'm actually a STEMtard with an advanced degree. I don't take much stock in it, however.

[Anonymous No.7104816]

>>7104762
>science tends to be more interesting than religion

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it's very much a comparison of apples to oranges. Science and religion may seek to explain our existence, but they do so in totally different ways, with different perspectives and objectives. To say that one or the other is inherently better in a comment consisting of three sentences is naive at best, considering how much of western philosophy has consisted of a back and forth between these two factors (e.g., the exaltation of science in the Enlightenment, the questioning of it in Kant).

History and mythology are different just like that. I definitely enjoyed Herodotus' tales, Thucydides' speeches, and Xenophon's Socratic shit-talking; but that doesn't preclude my enjoyment of the different proposed male ideal forms manifested in Hercules or Perseus. Myths are not just bed-time stories.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7104824]

>>7104780
It isn't a belief. It is a system of finding what is true. Theories can go on beliefs, but only fools hold onto theories proven false.

I was just reading about the scientific advances that too place during the first 50 or 60 years of the industrial revolution. Lots of good stuff came out of the scientific boom, but some of the "sciences", some from the hobbyists but not all, were such crap. This is your only legitimate gripe. Some so-called science is garbage (Climate change denial, phrenology) some too iffy to be completely trusted (Sociology, psychiatry) but you can't blanket judge them all as a kind of cult. It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7104829]

>>7104824
Are you seriously trying to suggest that science does not rely on theory? Calling science a belief system is just as ridiculous as calling it a rigorous system of truth.

[Anonymous No.7104839]

>>7104780
>a scientific worldview is a belief, just like any other. No more, no less.
Babbies first scepticism. Of course it's ultimately a belief, but an empowering one that allows us to predict and manipulate phenomena, which is something alternative approaches lack.

[Anonymous No.7104850]

when will edgy retards who're angry at dawkins stop with the le science is just another religion meme. go read a textbook and learn something instead of shitposting your stupid opinions

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7104857]

>>7104829
It continually tests itself. Theories that have come along so far that they could hardly ever be proven wrong are pretty much fact.

>>7104850
Here here.

[Anonymous No.7104858]

>>7104762
>science tends to be more interesting than religion
>in the same way that history is infinitely more interesting than mythology.

How conceited do you need to be to go on a Taiwanese fresco forum and spout lies?

[Anonymous No.7104862]

Yeah
But I believe philosophy is mostly archaic; any paradigm found need not remain abstract for long

The thing about science is it's tends to forget that anything outside of what's known exists

>>7104816
The end result of science is religion and vice versa
They're parallels much moreso than polars

[Anonymous No.7104866]

>>7104857
There are many fields of science that haven't tested themselves in a long time

[Anonymous No.7104870]

>>7104802

Yes, o how enlightened you are. Surely you're the only one in history ever who's ever tried to express such daring ideas. Maybe we should rename the prophet Smughammed and pray into the direction of your house. Maybe we should all be required to go on pilgrimage to your house and encircle it seven times while farting black smoke out of our assholes. Maybe you're the Seal of the Thinkers, and we should all bow our heads in submission to Smug, and repeat the phrase 'There's no smugness but Smug, and Smughammed is his Messenger'.

Or maybe you're just a smug prick

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7104878]

>>7104866
Name some. And explain how our "faith" is wrong or harmful.
No economics please. You know I hate that bs.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7104883]

>>7104744
NICE SURF PICTURE BTW, OP.

[Anonymous No.7104904]

>>7104816
>Science and religion may seek to explain our existence

What about more mundane concerns? It gets tiring talking about existence all the time. What if you like things in real life?

Few will claim that religion explains the mundane as well as science, and yet that is the world in which we reside.

"If you wish your children, and your wife, and your friends to live for ever, you are stupid; for you wish to be in control of things which you cannot, you wish for things that belong to others to be your own. So likewise, if you wish your servant to be without fault, you are a fool; for you wish vice not to be vice," but something else. But, if you wish to have your desires undisappointed, this is in your own control. Exercise, therefore, what is in your control. He is the master of every other person who is able to confer or remove whatever that person wishes either to have or to avoid. Whoever, then, would be free, let him wish nothing, let him decline nothing, which depends on others else he must necessarily be a slave. "

Science is something which we can control, although it helps us discover what we cannot. Religion is an attempt to impose order on that which is chaotic, it is an attempt to control what we cannot control, and to describe what we cannot describe.

[Anonymous No.7104938]

>>7104904
>Science is something which we can control, although it helps us discover what we cannot. Religion is an attempt to impose order on that which is chaotic, it is an attempt to control what we cannot control, and to describe what we cannot describe.

You're giving science a lot of credit, and religion not enough. How can you scientifically, logically, explain the concept of infinity? On one hand we can not reason our way into imagining something that goes on forever. On the other hand, we can not reason that space/time have a finite end, because we CAN imagine a single step further out, or a single second beyond, that finite boundary.

Science attempts to describe (i.e., control) these things, but has its limitations, just as does religion.

Please read Kant if your dick is this hard about science trumping religion. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you clearly have some very hard-and-fast ideas about the innate superiority of science, which are as yet unchallenged in your mind. Maybe you'll reject Kant and stick with reason (and therefore science), but at the risk of sounding admonishing (when really I think you would find it interesting and provoking), I really think you should pursue that.

[Anonymous No.7104956]

>>7104878
>wrong
>harmful

nice morals you got there

[Anonymous No.7104957]

>>7104883

thanks :)

[Anonymous No.7104960]

>>7104870

nice butthurt you got there :) How's that working out for you?

[Anonymous No.7104967]

>>7104938

>How can you scientifically, logically, explain the concept of infinity

I think Susskind explained it best, I'll paraphrase. When performing quantum calculations, one runs into infinite sets. What physicists do is transform the infinite set into the pseudo-infinite set, that is a finite set that we just pretend to be infinite.

Surprisingly, the results of the calculations are amazingly accurate. Approximations are good enough to get by with.

Everyone is perfectly happy with assuming a year is 365 days long, even though that is strictly false.

For your perusal:

>"Have there always been things?"
>LieZi said: "If once there were no things, how come there are things now? Would you approve if the men who live after us say there are no things now?"

>"In that case, do things have no before and after?"
>–"The ending and starting of things have no limit from which they began. The start of one is the end of another, the end of one is the start of another. Who knows which came first? But what is outside things, what was before events, I do not know"

>"In that case, is everything limited and exhaustible above and below in the eight directions?"

>–"I do not know" ...It is Nothing which is limitless, Something which is inexhaustible. (2) How do I know this? [textual lacuna] ... (3) But also there is nothing limitless outside what is limitless, and nothing inexhaustible within what is inexhaustible. There is no limit, but neither is there anything limitless; there is no exhausting, but neither is there anything inexhaustible. That is why I know that they are limitless and inexhaustible, yet do not know where they may be limited and exhaustible".

[Anonymous No.7104976]

>>7104744
if you were truly enlightened, you would know that the paths to enlightenment are as many as there are people.
these many paths include obsessions with science and religion.

[Anonymous No.7104978]

>>7104878
I don't know you, you god damn faggot namefag; don't act like I do

I can name a few
Evolution is a big one, though I offer no solution
It's recently come to light that "wellness meditation" (read feeling good) can preserve telomere length; everything we feel has a biological correlation and this kind of thing should be common sensical - but it's not. We can literally control things like our serotonin. If there were any advancement in biofeedback technology we'd know this

There's beenpretty much no work with in nutrition in a few decades and not enough on our biology in general

[Anonymous No.7104982]

>>7104967

Well that translation is shit, here's better:

T'ang of Yin questioned Hsia Ko, saying: 'In the beginnings of antiquity, did individual things exist?'

'He suspected that there was only Chaos, and nothing more.

'If things did not exist then,' replied Hsia Ko, 'how could they be in existence now? Or will the men of future ages be right in denying the existence of things at the present time?

'Things in that case,' pursued T'ang, 'have no before nor after?'

Hsia Ko replied: 'To the beginning and end of things there is no precise limit. Beginning may be end, and end may be beginning. How can we conceive of any fixed period to either?

'That which we call an end at the present moment may be the beginning of a new thing, and that which we call a beginning may, contrariwise, be the end of something. End and beginning succeed one another until at last they cannot be distinguished.'

But when it comes to something outside matter in

{p. 76}

space, or anterior to events in time, our knowledge fails us.'

'Then upwards and downwards and in every direction space is a finite quantity?

Ko replied: 'I do not know.'

'It was not so much that he did not know as that it is unknowable.'

T'ang asked the question again with more insistence, and Ko said: 'If there is nothing in space, then it is infinite; if there is something, then that something must have limits. How can I tell which is true? But beyond infinity there must again exist non-infinity, and within the unlimited again that which is not unlimited.

Lieh Tzu means that in this universe of relativity there must be contraries, even to a negative. We are only brought back, however, to our starting-point, for, as the commentator points out, that which is not infinite and not unlimited really stands for that which is finite and limited.

It is this consideration--that infinity must be succeeded by non-infinity, and the unlimited by the not-unlimited--that enables me to apprehend the infinity and unlimited extent of space, but does not allow me to conceive of its being finite and limited.'

[Anonymous No.7104988]

>>7104978

there's no money in that sort of awesome stuff, so nobody funds it

And yeah, I feel your frustration in how shitty our knowledge of nutrition is

>>7104976

honestly I get more and more out of touch with how I used to be when I was younger. I had obsessions with religion and atheism and science as well for a time. It's weird how different I am now

[Anonymous No.7105001]

>>7104988
so now you've contented yourself with anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.7105017]

>>7105001

Some aspects of my character might have that, but overall he doesn't really have much attachment to anything.

He likes CS and biology though. Pretty well-versed in it, as a matter of fact.

Not talking in third person just to be an edge-lord, this is just legitimately how unconcerned I am with most things in the world, so it's a good way to describe the experience.

[Anonymous No.7105070]

>>7104858
>mythology
>not a part of the bigger picture, which is history
>being this stupid
Nigga, the whole point of history is that it's literally everything that has ever happened. (where we can find source material to draw conclusions from)

[Anonymous No.7105975]

>>7105070

This. Historians don't skimp on the mythology of the times they describe, but the mythology definitely skips on the history. Mythology is but one drop out of the overflowing wine-cup of history.

[Anonymous No.7105996]

if you were really "enlightened" you wouldn't talk about it you'd just enjoy it. science is cool, religion is cool, if you want to have the most fulfilling life just appreciate and try to take something away from everything.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7106326]

>>7104978
Evolution is pretty much fact now. This isn't a faith. The details of everything aren't fully known, but you can never tear it down. On the whole it's not a theory anymore. Knowing it has done no harm to anything but organized religions.

The second part of your post is more pointing out the lack of research and development in a field of medicine. This is likely caused by markets meddling. Drug companies do this shit all the time. Well now you know part of why I hate capitalism, Anonymous-faggot.