/sci/ - Science & Math

Science is fine. Scientism is a fucking nearsighted retard. The latter is what we have today. The idea of "human technological progress" as the central goal of the species is basically a runaway relic of Judeo-Christian eschatology, and an immature culture's reaction to nihilism. The values of Bacon and other dudes like him, the forefathers of 19th century scientistic materialism and imperialism, do not fucking apply to a world with global transit times of 12 hours, the capacity for infinite food production, a complete elimination of childbirth related mortality, and lifespans averaging over 70 in developed countries. It's probably a good time to discard this nonsense about "subduing nature" when nature has been reduced to a fine paste on the ground.

Yes, science is the reason we have the capacity for long, comfortable lives. But scientism is the reason only a small percentage of the world enjoys those things, and at a dire cost to everyone else, or everyone if WW3 breaks out over access to ozone-depleting oil reserves so that you can drive your fat ass to a service industry job and supply overpriced coffee to meaningless functionaries of an aimless state.

ok

>>5648932
>intersubjective sharing of inductive reasoning about observed physical phenomena
the viewed limited probabalistic conjecture of forms

Science hasnt always been the same, if you see something you consider undeniable you will bow to no others contradiction of yours, all that can be done is to bring reason to your case that would sway your opponent, the art of philosophy was most namely of this nature, and truly the original science. By your standard of definition multiple epochs that evolved the sentient story teller and communicator are disregarded.

>
The only time it wasn't like that was the time that you plainly disregarded in your opener. Those multi tiered societies are the baseline of life and prosperity without immoral destruction, as to say, the low can remain at their circus and enjoy it thoroughly & etc etc.
Your argument in this section is self contradictory, it shows no real outline of thought or purpose other than subjecting others to a read they wouldn't care enough about to correct, as their directional interface is not deeming the relationary aspects of what you have said worth interpreting; it seems I tend to prefer caring about effort so I will correct you.

May this criticism not be in vain

>>5648933
fucking seriously agree with this, well said

bump for discussion

bump for discussion

I haven't read a single post, still i have a strong feeling that i should report this. Please someone read it for me and tell if i should report or not.
Sage of doubt

>>5649844
Depends is sociology or etymology or human behaviorisms classified as a science by you? If you disagree I'd have a strong urge to report you for being... under aged or something

>>5650169
Not that guy, but they are soft sciences -- bastard children of the arts and sciences that apply scientific method badly to questions where scientific method is of questionable use.

Hello people, have read a few of your threads and have come to the conclusion that you all for the most part have a very good understanding on the topic being discussed about. Forgive me If I sound annoying can i have some sage advice on how to improve how to sound a little smarter and study tips. I go to a NYC public school and take ap classes and have a 3.4 average and need some help with science can any one please help me find a thread or website to help me with Ap enviromental if you do please sen the information to onemanarmy217@gmail.com
Thank you.

>>5650271
>that you all for the most part have a very good understanding on the topic being discussed about