/sci/ - Science & Math

Qualms about science as religion and obvious troll aside, I can only say, "If only..."

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. You should feel bad for participating.

No.

But the government works in the service of science often through grants and things like that.

herp derp imma troll /sci/ with science vs religion thread

unsuccessfultrollisunsuccessful.jpg

Also saged.

science is the derivative of knowledge
all knowledge of the state must be eradicated

I don't think that you could really call it a religion. Whereas religions rely on the belief that a greater power exists without the need for concrete evidence, science demands tangible facts. Also, science is not limited in it's scope and more open to all ideas....btw, if this was a dig at scientology then well done!

Government shouldn't be in the business of science. That's for business. NASA should not be publicly funded but privately funded. So .. yes to OP

>>2856353
> he would deny universities public funding
fullretard.jpg

>>2856355

Yes, I would. Fuck universities, buncha corrupt businesses.

>>2856353
>>2856386

Just a question:

What if no one privately invests in a space program?

>>2856353
>Government shouldn't be in the business of science.
So what should government be in the business in? The absence of facts?
>That's for business.
No. Science is for people. Not business or government. Science is for everyone.

>>2856404

Whats this garbage about science not being for something?

What do you want some central intelligence agency to regulate who can engage in science?

>>2856415
>What do you want some central intelligence agency to regulate who can engage in science?
>>2856404
>No. Science is for people. Not business or government. Science is for everyone.
Wow you're fucking stupid.

>>2856321
Yes this is true for the scientists, which have direct access to the science. However for the public, they don't really know any better than what people present them as "science".
The general non-scientist populace actually had to accept "science" dogmatically.

>>2856435

Admittedly that was pretty hard fail.

>>2856281

>>2856404
Governments proper role imo is simple: Sit the fuck down, and shut the fuck up. You have my taxes for simple shit like roads, not fucking grandiose orgies of spending. NASA is going down and good riddence. Imma start my own business OP, I'm gonna do moon flights. Competing against Richard Branson here, any investors?

This is relevent:
>Greece developed and progressed because it could rely on the services of unwilling slaves. We shall develop and progress with the help of the numerous willing slaves in universities and laboratories who provide us with pills, gas, electricity, atom bombs, frozen dinners and, occasionally, with a few interesting fairy-tales. We shall treat these slaves well, we shall even listen to them, for they have occasionally some interesting stories to tell, but we shall not permit them to impose their ideology on our children in the guise of 'progressive' theories of education. We shall not permit them to teach the fancies of science as if they were the only factual statements in existence. This separation of science and state may be our only chance to overcome the hectic barbarism of our scientific-technical age and to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized. Let us, therefore, review the arguments that can be adduced for such a procedure.

Source: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66456

>>2856469
>You have my taxes for simple shit like roads, not fucking grandiose orgies of spending.
I suppose that wouldn't include consumer protections, protections from workplace discrimination, law enforcement, fire fighters, food inspection, emergency health services or national parks would it?

I know philosophy talks about a lot of stupid shit, but really?

>>2856492

>>2856492
> RAGE

>>2856506
Welcome to post modernism...
Where causality doesn't mean anything and science isn't fair because everyone has their own idea of reality and every hair brained idea is valid.

>>2856353
Hardly. Imagine if science was completely privatized. Remember the controversy surrounding CRT screening and lung cancer? Turns out those that published the studies were paid by big tobacco to make their products seem less dangerous?

Or wait, how about that time Eli Lilly suppressed and manipulated their clinical trial data to make Prozac look safe for market?

Just two examples off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more examples out there.

Science with a conflict of interest runs on a collision course with the very impetus in devising the scientific method. Instead of benefiting society and getting mankind closer to truth, whoever has the most money will just use science to legitimate and maintain authority. Technological progress would be stifled in the name of corporate money and power.

>>2856500
This would be it: Non-interventionist military (Congress approved war), voluntary social welfare programs, maximum protection of individual liberty (no discrimination because everyone is being treated fairly) for every citizen both businessmen, and workers. Most importantly, protecting property of individuals, and against fraudulent acts against individuals. The courts would be loaded as fuck too. With the excess budgetary tax monies, the government would actually place it into its treasuries for future infrastructure.

>>2856526
Implying government and the bureaucracy (revolving door of gov colluding w/ big business and banks) doesn't exist.

>>2856397
Then we wouldn't be forced to spend billions of dollars to take some overpriced pretty pictures of the Universe. If you want to pay for that go ahead. Don't make me pay for it if I don't want to.

It sounds incredibly stupid as you put it and the comparison to religion in that regard is asinine. However, if we consider that since modernity kalokagathos satisfies absolutely nothing, we need to clearly differentiate between that which is true and that which is good (and that which is beautiful, but this has no bearing in this discussion).
To put it in Kant's terms: there's such a thing as pure reason and there's such a thing as practical reason. They influence each other, but they can never truly exist as one. AKA: The modern problem of fragmentation.
Science falls within the realm of pure reason. Politics, law, ethics within practical reason. They are separate entities and that which is true (universal) is not necessarily good (social). As evidence of this: neoliberal market practice, the arms race, the species proclivity to rape, etc.
Politics needs to take science into account, but most definitely NOT be submitted to it. It needs to serve the people, and helping the development of thought is part of that. However, it cannot dismiss everything else.

>OP here
>hoping for a philosophical discussion
>getting a political/economic debate
>mfw

Think of it in terms of neoliberal governmentality. science/government/market are the same damn thing there is no separation because both have been marketized to the point they no longer resemble what they once were.

>>2856543
>overpriced pretty pictures of the Universe.
Yeah... because scientists can't learn anything from those pictures. They're just there because they look pretty.

You're a faggot.

Actualy, yes. Sci is taking the place of Relig in government belief structures.... I am ok whit this.. as a /sci/ believer its good to me. should a more astute system of rational come along, I would be a skeptic at first, but ya I'm a follower so ill follow that system soon instead..... some times i think i'm the last progressive on earth

>>2856552

Hey Paul science is teleological and the government would be better if scientized (assuming it is communism). No matter what you might think it is not "anything goes."

>>2856526
Thinking that you'll ever be able to divorce science and money is naive. Bringing governments into the equation only makes it easier for businesses to consolidate their power.

I think science is still widely ignored by the majority of the population.

>>2856561
I'm sorry; we spent billions of dollars to debate the shape of the universe and if it's expanding and how fast, and the life cycle of a star. FUCK YOU if you think that's more important than feeding starving children. Maybe if we showed them the hubble deep field picture they'll suddenly not be hungry. If you want to spend money to learn about the universe, that's fine. Don't make me pay for that shit.

>>2856600
>implying we should save starving children
>appeal to emotion
>doesn't know shit about astrophysics and its real world applications

>>2856600
And we've spent hundreds of billions to fund military campaigns in order to shoot goat farmers in the middle east. Your point?

>>2856600
Yes i would say learning about cosmology is immensely more important than feeding starving people.
They're just people, who cares? If they die, there are still billions of them. In fact, their death might contribute positively to the wellbeing of others, since it would decrease the global population.

>>2856600
Those activities aren't exclusive.

>>2856575
>Bringing governments into the equation only makes it easier for businesses to consolidate their power.
Yup, governments are really good at protecting monopolies and all that.

>>2856600
You're right, let's just throw MORE money at Africa. That will solve their problems.

>>2856622
>their death might contribute positively to the wellbeing of others
Then kill yourself.

>>2856630
I'm not saying to throw money at Africa. I'm merely saying that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their own money.

>>2856616
My point is that I disagree with how the money is being spent in both cases.

>>2856647
>Then kill yourself.
sorry, I love myself more than i love others

>>2856647
>My point is that I disagree with how the money is being spent in both cases.

Well, that's alright, but unless you can take that sentiment all the way to the capital, it doesn't really matter one way or another what any of us may think about it.

>>2856647
>I'm not saying to throw money at Africa. I'm merely saying that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their own money.
Do you realize how small NASAs budget actually is compared to the myriad other projects and institutions federal money goes to? Why not look at our ridiculous defense spending for starters. That's where a majority of your money is being wasted.

>>2856675
You're completely right, but this thread got me started on NASA, not defense spending (which, granted, is way more money than NASA spends).

Man arguing over the internet on /sci/ seems a lot more productive than on /b/.

>>2856682
Arguing over the internet is never productive... I should be studying Organic Chemistry right now...


Screw you man...

>>2856682
yes, i also find arguing on the Internetz productive

Science can never be correct, it can only be incorrect.

>>2856647
>I'm merely saying that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their own money

NO THEY SHOULD NOT! THE COMMON PUBLIC IS A BUNCH OF RETARDS!

>>2857402
>says the guy using electricity and computers

I would say separate science and the state insofar as it keeps the state from mucking things up with things like bureaucracy and agendas. More Federal Grants, and More garnering for public awareness! Less meddling in things they can't or won't understand!

It is a religion because people believe in it wholeheartedly, the general public without even understanding any of it.
They're just told it's that way and believe it, they don't KNOW anything.

For scientists as well it's like a religion, it's become a dogma of maximization and advance and progress and if something doesn't correspond to their world view, they denounce it without even trying or being able to understand it.

Sure sounds like some other institutions that existed in the dark ages and still do to this day.

jump up and kiss my tubbins