/sci/ - Science & Math

oh, that thread again

>science is an ideology

come on /sci/, let's have a sage party!

>>2182884

I figured I'd give you guys a second chance to come up with a cogent argument instead of bitching and moaning and calling me a hypocrite

>mfw science is just a hegemonic tool of domination over man and nature by the executive committee of the high bourgeouis class

I laughed hard with this one, bless you OP.

>Science is a method

>Justice and Freedom are superior, because they allow for less constrained use of said method

>The Economy is a human invention, and isn't as important as society makes it seem

>wat

>I'm glad you majored in Philosophy too, because you would make a horrible scientist

lay off the drugs, dude

>>2182890
>claims this sewious thread
>tripfags as "deep&edgy"
yeah we are certainly going to fall for that

mfw OP looks like a faggot, act likes a faggot and is a faggot

>mfw science is an ideology
duh

>mfw science is disgusting instrumental reason which cannot tell you whether justice and freedom are better than injustice and oppression
nope, science is fully capable of telling if one thing is better than the other, you just have to define "better" first

>mfw the value of science in society is either positive or negative according to its role in economy
nope, always a net positive (notice is used the word net, science can fuck shit up occasionally just like anything else)

>mfw science is just a hegemonic tool of domination over man and nature by the executive committee of the high bourgeouis class
well i would hope so, any decent government should use facts and truth as their primary means to influence decisions

>mfw I'm glad I majored in Philosophy and developed as a Human being rather than alienating myself from Being by engaging in the abstract, narrow-minded dogmatism of "science" and technology
Philosophy class was one of my favs, except i got news for you, philosophy is also an abstract field of study which is full of dogmatism.

>>2182881

> science is an ideology

Did this guy seriously major in philosophy?

>>2182898
>science is a method that is invested with and a part of Ideology
fixed

>Justice and Freedom are superior, because they allow for less constrained use of said method
Non sequitur

>The Economy is a human invention, and isn't as important as society makes it seem
You don't really understand what I'm saying about the role of economy in influencing science

If there's no balance between philosophy and science, there is not much humanity in either...

Philosophy != religion here btw

>>2182910
>nope, science is fully capable of telling if one thing is better than the other, you just have to define "better" first
Which is something that Science cannot do. You're missing the point.

>nope, always a net positive
"net" is a good way of saying "positive so far". Good try though brah.

>>2182915
Never gonna bump you up, always gonna sage you down

Eventually going to run around and desert you

I'm gonna make you cry It's time to say goodbye

Never gonna tell a lie and FUCK YOU

>>2182924
Also, science isn't about morality. Science is only concerned about physical things.

>>2182920

So Niggerothian why do you namefag, since I've been here I've never see a single thing either controversial (and thus generative of productive debate) or insightful

>>2182936
>science isn't about morality
That is kind of the point. It is instrumental reason unconcerned with ethics, ways of living, values. It can thus be appropriated for the domination of man in concert with economic systems. This was all made clear in the rise of Fascist states and their consequenting tragedies, due in no small part to the linguistic term and its abstract alienation from man.

>>2182915

>It's called the Scientific method for a reason brah

>Not sure how that's illogical, makes sense to me

>True Science isn't affected by the economy, and instead goes forward without a care

>Now stop trollin', or else NASA might shoot you into the Sun

>>2182937
Why do you namefag? Why does anyone namefag?

Anyways, you're in /sci/ accusing science of being inferior to philosophy. Please leave.

>It's called the Scientific method for a reason brah
noise, if you have nothing to say don't bother bro

>>Not sure how that's illogical, makes sense to me
putting words in my mouth

>
>True Science isn't affected by the economy, and instead goes forward without a car
there is no such thing as "true" science, which would be something like a platonic form of science or a science completely removed from its material conditions and socio-cultural-economic-political context, and if you pull this idiotic shit again I will ignore you

OP didn't you say that you would rather suicide than have a philosophy major yesterday?

>>2182898
>>Science is a method

A method to what end? To truth? if science is that which you use to discern truth then it is the methodology of an ideal.

>>2182944

>It's called the Scientific method for a reason brah
pure unexplained noise, if you have nothing to say don't bother bro

>>Not sure how that's illogical, makes sense to me
putting words in my mouth

>True Science isn't affected by the economy, and instead goes forward without a care
there is no such thing as "true" science, which would be something like a platonic form of science or a science completely removed from its material conditions and socio-cultural-economic-political context, and if you pull that idiotic shit again I will ignore you

>>2182944
>Why do you namefag? Why does anyone namefag?
to anon is subhuman, to namefag is human, to tripfag is divine

>>2182943
You moron, the reason science isn't about morality (with some exceptions like psychology) is because it's about things that don't make moral decisions, or any sort of decision for that matter. We're studying the mechanics of particles, chemical reactions, and other things that don't give a shit about anything, much less right or wrong.

>>2182954

It's a method to discover how things work. That's it. Calling how something works truth is outside of science.

>>2182924
>Which is something that Science cannot do. You're missing the point.
No, i know what you mean. Youre making the assumption that there is some universal truth that = better. That simply isnt true, its a vague term that varys wildly depending on what your talking about. Just define what youre talking about and you can do all the science you want.


>"net" is a good way of saying "positive so far". Good try though brah.
Yep, youre right on this one, but you also know that I'm right too. Science provides more opportunities and thats all it really does, what we do with these opportunities is really up to us, we could make the world a living hell with science if we wanted, but we dont want to. Most people want to make things "better" and as such, the majority of things that come from science end up making things "better"

>>2182944

>It's called the Scientific method for a reason brah
pure unexplained noise, if you have nothing to say don't bother bro

>>Not sure how that's illogical, makes sense to me
putting words in my mouth

>True Science isn't affected by the economy, and instead goes forward without a care
there is no such thing as "true" science, which would be something like a platonic form of science or a science completely removed from its material conditions and socio-cultural-economic-political context, and if you pull that fucking idiotic shit again I will ignore you

>>2182944
>Why do you namefag? Why does anyone namefag?
to anon is subhuman, to namefag is human, to tripfag is divine

Sam Harris would like to fill your ears with disgusting instrumentality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

>>2182954
No. Not truth. Science can say nothing about truth. Science is a methodology for forming models to fit observations. Those models are then useful for technological purposes.

People who use science as an ideology or philosophy are full retard.

ok science,
what's the opposite of politics?

>>2182962
>spend 10 minutes explaining how science is an ideology, how instrumental reason can be appropriated for ideological ends and can never be objective
>WE DONT CARE ABOUT MORALITY

U a lil bit dense dude?

>>2182960
>to anon is subhuman, to namefag is human, to tripfag is divine
>to tripfag is divine
>divine
RAGEFACE.JPEG
>>2182973
I dunno go be an martyr and ask your so called god lol

>>2182952

>This is a text conversation, there is no noise other than the clacking of keyboards.

>Non Sequitur means it does not follow, and is used when a phrase is illogical. Thank you, and have a nice day

>Kay
>>2182954

Eh...okay fine you have a point. But that doesn't make it a bad thing.

Honestly, if people took the time to justify their views these threads would end much faster.

>>2182964
>It's a method to discover how things work.
>how things work

How is this incongruent with truth?

>>2182972
>No. Not truth. Science can say nothing about truth. Science is a methodology for forming models to fit observations. Those models are then useful for technological purposes.

How are those technological purposes justified? Certainly science has nothing to do with it. Science ideological grounds lie in empiricism: the view that knowledge arises from sensory experience. These models to which you refer are also painfully idealistic in their conception.

>>2182979
>hurr

>>2182980
>>Non Sequitur means it does not follow, and is used when a phrase is illogical
It's a logical fallacy actually, and your conception is retardedly broad. You fucking moronic asshole, please stop talking about things you have absolutely no grasp on

>>2182990

...logical fallacies ARE illogical.

>>2183006

so is zxfghjerpsoityqwoy. You really don't know what you're talking it's painfully obvious.

Troll thread trolling trolls.

illogical to what?
illogical how?

>>2183006

>>2183013

Your conclusions; how do you arrive at them? No really, I'm curious.

>>2182881
so basically what your saying is that you are glad you majored in an almost useless degree so that you can get paid 30,000 or less per year all while wasting your life never improving or changing the world you live in due to the fact that your degree is based on ideas?

>>2182988
Look pal. Science is impartial to good and evil. Sure technology can be used for evil, but even technology designed for evil can repurposed for good. As for empiricism...well, what's wrong with empiricism?

>>2183021

Illogical in that there is no discernible connection between start and end. It's like saying 1 + 1 = 2, because 3/3 is 1.

>>2183025
>Philosophy PhD
>can talk about anything in the world due to its inevitable foundation in Philosophy
>any job I want
>300k starting

>>2183024
I ask God

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

wikipedia sums this up pretty well I think OP is trying to sound intellectual, smart or something.

>>2183032
But 1 + 1 = Trinity
And something can only be illogical if it has standards of logic to keep to, what are these 'standards' you are referring to?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/?cid=hp:
mainpromo7

Sam Harris, bestselling author of The End of Faith, is back with a new book that argues science has a universal moral code and there’s no need for religion. In an exclusive essay, Harris lays out his argument. His new book, The Moral Landscape, is out Tuesday.
The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called “Kanun”: If a man commits a murder, his victim’s family can kill any one of his male relatives in reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of being the son or brother of a murderer, he must spend his days and nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care, and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and boys live as prisoners of their homes even now. Can we say that the Albanians are morally wrong to have structured their society in this way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil? Are their values inferior to our own?
Most people imagine that science cannot pose, much less answer, questions of this sort. How could we ever say, as a matter of scientific fact, that one way of life is better, or more moral, than another? Whose definition of “better” or “moral” would we use? Scientists generally believe that answers to questions of human value will fall perpetually beyond our reach—not because human subjectivity is too difficult to study, or the brain too complex, but because there is no intellectual justification for speaking about right and wrong, or good and evil, in universal terms. While many scientists now study the evolution of morality, as well as its underlying neurobiology, the purpose of their research is merely to describe how human beings think and behave. No one expects science to tell us how we should think and behave. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion.

>mfw science is an ideology

Science is a process and the scientific method is a way of thinking specifically intended to filter out bias and error when properly utilized

>mfw science is disgusting instrumental reason which cannot tell you whether justice and freedom are better than injustice and oppression

Science tells us the most accurate information we can have about the universe at the time. One of those subjects happens to be human psychology and neurology. Science doesn't TELL you which is better because science isn't dogmatic or authoritarian. Pretty hilarious coming from you, hipster scum.

>mfw the value of science in society is either positive or negative according to its role in economy

mfw when you don't understand the importance of science and look at it through the eyes of the society and economy that you hate. If the progress of science was free from economic partitioning and had unlimited funding, then I'm 100% sure your retarded opinion would change.

>mfw science is just a hegemonic tool of domination over man and nature by the executive committee of the high bourgeouis class

mfw science is just a tool. You can use a hammer to build something to help people, or you can use it bash their skull in. Stop being a faggot.

>mfw I'm glad I majored in Philosophy and developed as a Human being rather than alienating myself from Being by engaging in the abstract, narrow-minded dogmatism of "science" and technology

mfw you failed to realize the importance of science. If you hate science so much, then get off the internet, throw away your computer, stop taking medicine and go back to living in a tree without the use of even simple stone tools.

mfw your just an unappreciative brat

>Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

lol, also
>natural world
As opposed to what, the non-natural world? LOL
did a 12 year old write that?

Are there two aethers?

>>2182913

PhD, bull shit.
why the fuck would you be lurking 4chan

>>2183041

>1 + 1 = Trinity

I...what?

And I didn't say 'standards' but okay: the 'standards' of logic is that you can follow the path of rationalization from beginning to end. If there is a misstep in the process, then the logic is flawed.

>>2183036

>He thinks everything is based on Philosophy
>laughingphysicists.jpg

>>2182924
Which is something no one can do, better is subjective and as a result is defined with subjective goals and preferences. Humans and in extension scientists may only define their subjective view of better, and in most cases that goes along with social and societal norms of what is considered better.

So, what kind of useful stuff did you learn in philosophy class OP? I'm choosing between physics and philosophy.

>>2183044
Sam Harris has never heard of language-games

>>2183046
>Science is a process and the scientific method is a way of thinking specifically intended to filter out bias and error when properly utilized
Thx bro we are all aware of what the role of science is. Is everyone on this board a myopic fucking retard who doesn't understand the concepts of ideology, hegemony, etc or what?

>Science tells us the most accurate information we can have about the universe at the time. One of those subjects happens to be human psychology and neurology. Science doesn't TELL you which is better because science isn't dogmatic or authoritarian.
>most accurate
According to some subjective standard
>Science doesn't TELL you which is better because science isn't dogmatic or authoritarian.
Science suppresses the language games of religion and occultism, etc. It is incredibly dogmatic and authoritarian. It even tries to suppress its own nature as subjective for chrissakes.

>mfw science is just a tool. You can use a hammer to build something to help people, or you can use it bash their skull in. Stop being a faggot.
It is a tool of domination used by the capitalist bourgeouise.

>As opposed to what, the non-natural world? LOL

natural world is a phrase used to describe physical world, nature, shit that exists etc. fucking retard.

>>2183055
>in most cases that goes along with social and societal norms of what is considered better.
Which is encapsulated by the false consciousness of capitalism and as such something we should strive to emancipate ourselves from

>>2183066
>natural world is a phrase used to describe physical world, nature, shit that exists etc. fucking retard.
That would be, like, everything ever?
Lol, natural is pretty fucking redundant

>mfw when OP has never heard of bioethics or biomedical ethics.

>>2183070
>Which is encapsulated by the false consciousness of capitalism and as such something we should strive to emancipate ourselves from
>Which is encapsulated by the false consciousness of capitalism
>the false consciousness of capitalism
>consciousness of capitalism
>implying capitalism has a consciousness
>implying any system has a consciousness

>That would be, like, everything ever? Lol, natural >is pretty fucking redundant

i believe this is what we are trying to explain with science. everything ever, sorta seems like the main goal yeah?

>>2183072
MFW OP talks like a valley girl

>>2183070
Okay, so your problem isn't with science. Would you have the whole world stand still because we can't answer unanswerable questions like "what is better?"
Many scientists take a logical outlook on life and do what they do with the goal of long term survival of the human species, some not so much. Science is a tool and any who choose may use it, to try to condemn a form of logical thought is absolutely ridicules

>>2183077
>Naggarothian doesn't know what 'false consciousness' refers to

You're kind of a dunce though aren't you
I mean, what do you actually talk about here

>>2183084
Fuck the survival of human species.

>>2183089
Well of course not. I didn't waste 4 years my life getting lectured about shit that can't be proven.

However, to suggest that any system has a consciousness, whether it be true or false, is outright retarded.

>mfw when my medical license has saved more lives than OP's worthless phd

>>2183079
don't waste my fucking time, where are you going with this? I've already pointed out that the term 'natural' is redundant and see my original post for my issues with science

>>2183084
Science needs to learn its place as an equivalent language game along with religion. In fact, if we were liberated from false consciousness we wouldn't even need the framework of science.

>>2183058
Unless you want to go into academia, stay away from philosophy. Depending on how it's taught (and this depends whether you're in the US/UK or continental Europe), you'll become very good at constructing and evaluating arguments and learn a lot about philosophy..


OP hasn't really learned a whole lot judging from this thread. Trolling, for sure.
>BLALA EVYRHTINGS HISTORICYLLY CONDITIONED AND SO IT'S ALL ONEB BIG IDEOLOGY HUR ALSO SUBJEcTive LOL CAPTIALISM!1

>>2183102
Again, you don't know what false consciousness refers to

>>2183101
>>2183101
Why?

>>2183106
>>BLALA EVYRHTINGS HISTORICYLLY CONDITIONED AND SO IT'S ALL ONEB BIG IDEOLOGY HUR ALSO SUBJEcTive LOL CAPTIALISM!1

lol straw man

>>2183060

Pffft

You just pretty much restated your original retarded points.

Enjoy your shallow view of reality and how science operates.

But seriously, if you hate science, then stop using the byproducts of science and technology. How can you expect to have any credibility when you constantly use the things which you hate?

>It is incredibly dogmatic and authoritarian

If this is true, then why is there such a controversy over the NASA press conference concerning extremophiles in arsenic? NASA seems to be in a position of authority on many fields of study, yet there are many independent scientists coming out against NASA's claims and saying that its simply bad science. Tons of researchers blogs have come out against this 'authoritive' source and the open peer review process seems to be watering down the sensationalized claims by NASA and their shitty science in this case.

So, how can you explain away the open peer review process?

For a philosophy major you really seem to be confusing Science with the institutions which currently facilitate it.

>>2183029
>Science is impartial to good and evil.

It obviously considers itself good.

>>2183107
And I don't give a fuck. All I know is that you came onto /sci/ and started to throw terms of the decidedly unscientific sort around in an attempt to make science look bad. Go back to /lit/

>>2183113
Nah, just some charitable interpreting.

>science is just a hegemonic tool of domination over man and nature

And boy, thats why I love it, what are you gonna do about it?

>>2183113
No, OP, you are the strawmen!

And then OP was a scarecrow.

>>2183121
It's just a tool for whatever purpose mankind decides to use it for, nothing more, nothing less. We talk about it like a good thing because we're using it for (hopefully) good ends.

>>2183105
LOL. I just realize you have no clue what you're talking about. hahaha.

>>2183114
>But seriously, if you hate science, then stop using the byproducts of science and technology. How can you expect to have any credibility when you constantly use the things which you hate?
I never said I hated science. How I feel is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing.

>If this is true, then why is there such a controversy over the NASA press conference concerning extremophiles in arsenic?
politics

>So, how can you explain away the open peer review process?
I really don't give a shit about some institutional process that originates in simple power relations and is nothing more than a product ideology. Do be a bit more abstract here.

>For a philosophy major you really seem to be confusing Science with the institutions which currently facilitate it.
Science is inseparable from the institutions which currently facilitate it. You're a bit like that True Science retard back there.

>>2183133
>butthurt, can't prove me wrong or point out any flaws, no response

>>2183138
>How I feel is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing.
translation:
>I'm trolling and admitting it.

>>2183146
>translation: I know how to argue

>>2183138
>Science is inseparable from the institutions which currently facilitate it.

Silly philosopher. Even you should know that science is a pile of knowledge obtained by the scientific means. That sounds pretty separable to me.

Oh shit what i lost?

>>2183143
No, I'm seriously laughing. There is no point arguing with a zealot. It's obvious from the various stances you've displayed that you have such an immense amount of private prejudice that your opinion lacks all credibility in my eyes. You completely contradicted your entire position in my eyes.

>>2183143
Well you haven't really offered much in the way of argument.

>>2183138

>Science is inseparable from the institutions which currently facilitate it

Hi, True Science guy here; just back to inform you that you are an idiot. Science is not intrinsically tied up with NASA, or CERN. Because Science isn't some mystical entity that is made a slave to these locales. It's a process which is separate from those who use it. You're basically saying that Science is biased because people who use Science are biased. (By the way, these are not equivalent statements.)

>>2183105

>Science needs to learn its place as an equivalent language game along with religion. In fact, if we were liberated from false consciousness we wouldn't even need the framework of science.

false equivalence

Also, for someone claiming to be so understanding of how things work, you sure like using your ignorance to label me and others here. Go take your false consciousness marxist bullshit elsewhere, because you don't know me, where I am from or my personal backgrounds. But seriously, go fuck yourself, if you cannot see that Science is in direct competition with capitalism and corporatism then you are just a fucking retard. Get the fuck off this planet and anhero.

And if science is so bad, then what do you propose in its place? Eternal stagnation?

>>2183152
>knowledge
there is no such thing as knowledge

>>2183155
>There is no point arguing with a zealot.
Everything I have said is the product of reasoned argument. You haven't refuted a single point I've made.

>>2183167
>implying there's no such thing as knowledge
>implying he's made any points

>>2183163
>false equivalence
wrong. All language-games are neither better nor worse than each other, that is the nature of a language-game.

>And if science is so bad, then what do you propose in its place?
Not my problem

>>2183167
>There is no such thing as knowledge.
Define knowledge.

>>2183173

Ooh, ooh! Teacher, TEACHER! I has a question...the FUCK is a language-game?

>>2183167
No, everything you said is a blindly stated, irrelevant statement masquerading as fact that is entirely unsupported by your argument or otherwise. You're a very shitty philosopher, who does more for attention than thought.

>Read OPs post
>Bah poorly disguised liberal arts hipster troll
>90 posts omitted

*clap* *clap*, /sci/, good job once again

>>2183175
There can be no defining knowedge that does not incur counter-examples. Nice try though.

FWIW, the majority of professional philosophers value science highly.

>>2183173
>LAIN-GOO-EDGE GAYYYYY-MMMMS!
>science is wrong on every moral level. I don't care that's it's necessary, or that there's not anything out there to replace it. We must get rid of it!

Don't come onto /sci/ if you're not here to talk about scientific advancements.

>>2183177
>blindly stated, irrelevant statement masquerading as fact that is entirely unsupported by your argument or otherwise.
>blindly stated
pure nonsense, misues of the word blind
>irrelevant
example
>fact
There is no such thing, and I never said there was
>entirely unsupported by your argument
example

>>2182881

Obligatory rage. Would rage again. Please die in a fire.

>>2183184
>advancements
There is no such thing as advancement, what amounts to advancement is nothing more than a veiled claim to objectivity presupposing subjective viewpoint

>>2183173
>>2183173
ok, you can recite all the books you want. But I have my plebian logic:

Religion is based around a space-jew. There is nothing in the universe supporting this space-jew theory. It resembles a completely random thought. It is probably bullshit.

Anything wrong within this train of thought?

>>2183138


>If this is true, then why is there such a controversy over the NASA press conference concerning extremophiles in arsenic?

>politics

>So, how can you explain away the open peer review process?

>I really don't give a shit about some institutional process that originates in simple power relations and is nothing more than a product ideology. Do be a bit more abstract here.

This isn't a place for abstract thoughts, this is a place for rational thought and debate.

This has nothing to do with politics. If someone started passing out 'medicine' to sick very children, then another person found out that this medicine was just a placebo and then pointed them out on being wrong, would you consider this a move on politics?

By this reasoning, shouldn't your own arguments and views now be nothing more then politics? Your trying to prove a point, so obviously from your perspective you don't care about the facts at hand, but rather more concerned with the entities involved and not details.

If you look at a scientific controversy and all you can take away from it is 'politics', then you are the reason why western society is failing at the moment. You have no care or concern for the reality of the situation and only care on nonsensical bullshit that will no one will ever benefit from.

>>2183184
>advancements
There is no such thing as advancement, what amounts to advancement is nothing more than a veiled claim to objectivity, ultimately a presupposing subjective viewpoint

captcha: glaught effect
what is this

Only on /sci/.

Fuck, I could make the same troll thread every single day, and /sci/ would every single time answer to it, without anyone noticing we already had the same discussion the day earlier. What's the matter, faggots? Is it because you still have so much newfag flowing in your blood or because you only visit 4chan once a year? I'm not even mad, just fucking disgusted by the amount of faggotry /sci/ is full of.

Keep on being awesome.

>>2183179
No need to give a definition in terms of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. Such a definition would indeed be prone to "counterexamples "(appeals to intuition or common sense, really, just like Gettier's stuff).
You made a claim, surely you can give some meaning to the key term in that claim. On the commonsensical view of knowledge, your claim is of course ridiculous. Your misusing the term "knowledge" in such a language game.

>>2183138


>If this is true, then why is there such a controversy over the NASA press conference concerning extremophiles in arsenic?

>politics

>So, how can you explain away the open peer review process?

>I really don't give a shit about some institutional process that originates in simple power relations and is nothing more than a product ideology. Do be a bit more abstract here.

This isn't a place for abstract thoughts, this is a place for rational thought and debate.

This has nothing to do with politics. If someone started passing out 'medicine' to sick very children, then another person found out that this medicine was just a placebo and then pointed them out on being wrong, would you consider this a move on politics?

By this reasoning, shouldn't your own arguments and views now be nothing more then politics? Your trying to prove a point, so obviously from your perspective you don't care about the facts at hand, but rather more concerned with the entities involved and not details.

If you look at a scientific controversy and all you can take away from it is 'politics', then you are the reason why western society is failing at the moment. You have no care or concern for the reality of the situation and only care on nonsensical bullshit that will no one will ever benefit from.

Pic related, because OP only thinks its for politics and control through his narrowly tweaked blinders

>>2183201
>implying that people browsing /sci/ do so on a half hourly basis all day everyday

>>2183197
>This isn't a place for abstract thoughts, this is a place for rational thought and debate.
loldogmatism

>If someone started passing out 'medicine' to sick very children, then another person found out that this medicine was just a placebo and then pointed them out on being wrong, would you consider this a move on politics?
Yes, because this has ocurred under a capitalist economy, the whole thing is couched in a certain unescapable ideology which you are simply not capable of perceiving.

>By this reasoning, shouldn't your own arguments and views now be nothing more then politics? Your trying to prove a point, so obviously from your perspective you don't care about the facts at hand, but rather more concerned with the entities involved and not details.
Maybe now you are getting somewhere, because it is all ideology. Some ideology is less harmful to the individual than others though. Ideology is inescapable.

>>2183198
>There is no such thing as advancement, what amounts to advancement is nothing more than a veiled claim to objectivity, ultimately a presupposing subjective viewpoint
>There is no such thing as advancement
Every time our knowledge expands, we consider it an advancement.

>>2183218
>wanting to conform the discussion to only ways you can understand
loldogmatism

>>2183218
>rationality = loldogmatism
fucked up worldview, bro
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
>ideology
This is /sci/, not /ide/. You have no place here. GTFO.

>>2183212
>implying it is even theoretically possible to visit 4chan only 30 minutes every day
>implying 4chan isn't shit because of people who do that or even less
>etc etc

>>2183218
Really? So you do have a set of objective criteria for ranking the harmfulness of ideologies? Didn't think so.

Free market ideology is the best ideology. All voluntary transactions are ex ante pareto efficient.

>>2183202
>On the commonsensical view of knowledge
I'm not interested in the commonsensical view of knowledge. Common sense is not the be-all end-all. Neither is ordinary language.

>You made a claim, surely you can give some meaning to the key term in that claim.
There is no problem, everyone understands what I mean by the term 'knowledge'.

>Your misusing the term "knowledge" in such a language game.
There can be no such thing as 'mis-use' because any action can be made out to be in accordance with a rule (of a game (language-game).

>>2183198

If your objective is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible then you would want to develop faster means of transportation.

From this context, going from walking, to a bicycle to a high speed rocket are all progress in achieving the desired goal.

Without the goal, all you have are things that are just moving faster. We attribute progress to when there is a proper frame of reference.

lol, philosophy.

>mfw all opinions and arguments are both legitimate and pointless since reality is subject to the eyes and mind of the beholder, and logic only begins with postulates

Deep&Edgy did good work here; science fanboys got buttmad trying to defend their opinions. However, OP is nonetheless a faggot.

>>2183238
>LAIN-GOO-EDGE GAYYYYY-MMMMS!
>GUYS, LAIN-GOO-EDGE GAYYYYY-MMMMS!
>LISTEN TO ME TALK ABOUT LAIN-GOO-EDGE GAYYYYY-MMMMS!
No place for you here. This isn't the philosophy board, this isn't the ideology board, this is the science board. Leave, and never return.

>>2183239
>We attribute progress to when there is a proper frame of reference.
This is utterly arbitrary and subjective

>things that are just moving faster.
also relative to perspective

>>2183231
>Really? So you do have a set of objective criteria for ranking the harmfulness of ideologies?
Why, of course I do! Whether it facilitates the inevitable arrival of the Global Proletariat Revolution and the End of History!

>>2183219
I don't really give a shit what you consider it bro (stop using 'we' to mean 'what I think I and other people think')

>mfw /sci/ falls for the same shitty obvious troll threads day after day after day

>>2183218
>Yes, because this has ocurred under a capitalist economy, the whole thing is couched in a certain unescapable ideology which you are simply not capable of perceiving.

Wrong. This was not a stated premise. It sounds like you have a deep seeded hatred of capitalism and you are letting it skew your views of reality and the latter portions of your reply simply seem to be a reflection of yourself.

>>2183250

Okay guys I'm pretty much done here.

/LIT/: 2
/sci/: 0

I guess that's what happens when you have a shitty single-minded education and are a shallow human being who can't appreciate the arts

HEART /LIT/

H8 /SCI/

>>2183253
>Perspective! Perspective! Perspective!
>Arbitrary and subjective!
No shit, ever hear of Einsteins Relativity Theorem? Tell me something I don't know.

>Why, of course I do! Whether it facilitates the inevitable arrival of the Global Proletariat Revolution and the End of History!

But this board is not about that.

>I don't really give a shit what you consider it bro (stop using 'we' to mean 'what I think I and other people think')

Hey guys, do we consider an increase in the amount of scientific knowledge to be an advancement?

>>2183250

Okay guys I'm pretty much done here.

/LIT/: 2
/sci/: 0

I guess that's what happens when you have a shitty single-minded education and are a shallow human being who can't appreciate the arts

HEART /LIT/

H8 /SCI/>>2183269

>>2183275
Well, somebody doesn't realize how retarded the arts are.

Never return, faggot!

>>2183275
What, did I let some cat out of the bag? You know it was dwelling in the back of your mind during this entire thread.

>>2183238
>There is no problem, everyone understands what I mean by the term 'knowledge'.
Everyone understands the commonsensical view of knowledge. This is a problem because on that view, what you say is obviously ridiculous. If you are not interested in this view of knowledge, then you need to explain what it is you are interested in and why your claimed that there is no knowledge.
>There can be no such thing as 'mis-use' because any action can be made out to be in accordance with a rule (of a game (language-game).
So you subscribe to the sceptical solution to the rule following paradox..well. There is probably nothing to discuss.

>>2183288

just for closure, I would subscribe to a family resemblance view of knowledge

Why does this troll always declare he's won and leave when we manage to get his back into a corner? It's as if he's afraid of being defeated in an argument or being exposed to arguments that might change his point of view.

>>2183253

>We attribute progress to when there is a proper frame of reference.
>This is utterly arbitrary and subjective

No, you can't do this. Just because opinions and ideas are subjective that does not mean that a point of reference is useless.

If you want to get from location A to B in as short of time possible, any decrease in time spent travelling can be considered progress by the one who working on this problem. The universe does not consider this progress. Monkeys, Lions, tigers and bears do not consider this progress. But we CAN and are able to consider it progress because we are able to communicate this information to each other in ways we can understand. It is progress because we make it so. I don't care if its not objective through your interpretation because it is not relevant.

All you do is warp the facts at hand and try to sow seeds of confusion. If you cannot separate the human condition from ideologies and social constructs then you are just a waste of brain matter.

>>2183305

Ask yourself why organized religion still exists. Then your question will be answered

>>2183301

...
Just to let you know, I've read the tractatus as well as the investigations and the brown and blue books (though not completely), so this throw away reference doesn't impress me. What's more, it doesn't address any of the points I've been trying to make.

Well I guess you really just wanted to troll/deconstruct so I'll stop

Shame, because there are actually some really good arguments undermining the "objectivity" of science that are along the lines of some of what you've mentioned here.

fwiw foucault just makes me sad and devalues my degree.

OP is that you in the pic?
You look hot.
Also am gay.