/sci/ - Science & Math

>Susan Haack

>professor of philosophy

interesting name for a no name hack

>>6497101
I somehow feel that 3 and 5 should be contradictory. And an encyclopedia can identify the the scientific method.

>>6497101
does she thinks she's going to have any impact by criticizing this form the outside in the pseudo science moat?

Is she stupid?

1.) Only when we are discussing a scientific topic.
2.) Well, I m a researcher so I necessarily do for the fields in which I conduct research.
3.) This is important because pseudo-science has the effect of leading to scientific illiteracy as well as leading people into scams; it is better for everyone if non-science dressing itself up as science is called on its bullshit.
4.) The scientific method would be how the sciences are successful given that it is how science is done.
5.) No, science provides a model of natural phenomena and is still rather limited in the phenomena it explains with meaningful predictive power.
6.) The humanities and the arts suffer not from a lack of importance, but from a lack of demand for meaningful employment resulting from there being too many people that want to be poets and artists. As a result, the fields appear unimportant because demand does not nearly meet supply, reducing its overall apparent value.

>>6497101
>1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
I think science is pretty good, what's wrong with praising good science?

>2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
I actually agree with this point, I can't talk about stuff outside my own field but a fair deal of the jargon in Biology is needlessly opaque. And yes, I know Biology isn't a real science.

>3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
I don't think I draw sharp lines like that, there's always areas that are open to debate.

>4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
Presumed? The scientific method works very well, I don't know what she's trying to say here.

>5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
Depends entirely on what you think is beyond their scope. The previous Pope thought the origin of the universe was outside the scope of science but most physicists would disagree.

>6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.
I definitely don't do this, the arts are legit areas of study and the world wouldn't be as interesting if everyone was a career scientist

Hm, I feel like she was butthurt when she wrote it, because many people didn't take her serious.

Anyway I think 3 is a good thing in many cases and 1 and 2 always annoy me when I notice them. I haven't really met 4 and 5, since I study maths and we don't do that shit, but I practice 6 on a regular basis.

>scientism

You're sciencist?

You're just an ignoramus.

>/sci/ - Science & Math

We have -RULES-. When assholes shit on our board, it sucks. Go to /ck/ and post dead animal pics, then claim they're "cookist" when you get banned. Holy shit you need to check your privilege, you horribly entitled bigot!

>>6497101
>Be a pure mathfag.
>Consider the sciences to be garbage.
>Sciencefags try to claim math are science.
>Retards get mad that their retarded shit isn't considered science by sciencefags.

Why must mathfags be the gods kings of STEM?

>>6497209
Because NO ONE will fuck you. You exist in the "MAXIMUM FOREVERALONE" state. Sure, you might have sex, but for mathematicians, it is the least likely thing that will happen to you, often preceded by things like "won the $840 million lotto", or "conquered Everest" on the "list of likely things that will happen to a mathematician". Right near the bottom.

>>6497193
Hurr durr biology isn't a science.

>>6497225
why would a mathematician give a shit about sex when he has algebraic topology you fuckin pleb

>>6497229
Because they are made of meat, you meatbag.

>>6497225
You must be confusing us with the neckbeard women haters in Engineering, CompSci, and Physics.

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/columns/launchings/launchings_09_09.html

>>6497229
Because you can't put your dick into a manifold. Because a homology never loves you back.
Lense spaces have interesting properties, and you sleep alone at night.

Algebraic topology is a sad story with no hope or happy ending.

>>6497240

>We Are Losing Women from Mathematics

Oh yeah, you're right.

Sex just became less likely for mathematicians.

Sex fell below "hit by a meteorite".

Wow. That sucks.

>>6497237
>>6497241
>2014
>not over your vulgar human instincts

>>6497254
>over your vulgar instincts

Yeah, all mathematicians use that excuse for why they are virgins. Don't feel bad, bro.

>>6497252
>Oh no the percentage of women in mathematics fell to 44% of all mathfags.
>Meanwhile compsci and engineering each have less than 18%


Also
>While Physical Science is more than Physics, also including Chemistry, Geology, and Earth Science
It'd be nice if the stats separated physics from the rest of those because it's very obviously dragging them down.

⇒>1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
What the fuck is "epistemic praise"? Stop making up nonsensical words. Naturally results gained by scientific inquiry are more trustworthy than the subjective bosh promoted by pseudoscientists.
⇒>2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
Precise and concise terminology makes communication easier. That's why it was invented in the first place, fucktard. If you're too stupid to understand scientific terminology, go back to your middle school's playground where you can talk a horribly deformed slang with your equally verbally defective friends. Or better yet start communicating with grunt and hiss noises like the animal you are. By rejecting abstract use of language you are counteracting several thousands of years of cultural evolution.
⇒>3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
There is a good distinction between science and pseudoscience. It's called the scientific method. Go to school, retard.
⇒>4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
Are you seriously saying the scientific method is wrong? What the hell is wrong with you? Of course science became successful due to the scientific method. If we valued faith higher than truth, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.
⇒>5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
Every meaningful question is within the scope of science or logic. If it is not within either scope, then it is utterly pointless nonsense, e.g. metaphysics.

⇒>6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.
What other kinds of inquiry? "Muh baseless belief" is not a valid method of inquiry. Get some fucking education. And nobody devalues poetry and art, you deluded straw man.

>legitimacy or the worth of
>poetry or art

>>6497388
>If it is not within either scope, then it is utterly pointless nonsense, e.g. metaphysics.
or epistemology, eh

>>6497388
>logical positivism

>>6497388
>⇒
fuck off

>>6497405
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up in a fucking dictionary. And while you're at it, learn the scientific method.

>>6497388
so much all this.

is 5 really that bad at all though?

using scientific terms in everyday life is retarded and tryhard though "oh look at that canis lupus familiaris how fascinating!" lmao do any of you nerds actually talk like this in real life?

>>6497260
Nope had it, I simply can't comprehend why people are so obsessed about it.
It feels good and all but that's it, nothing worth to actively pursue.

>>6497389
idk dude I've met plenty of kids who thought anything other than math/science/engineering was a waste of time and for people who are stupid

Like this dude I know always talks about how much smarter he is than his english professors or whatever since they haven't taken as much math as he has. Or like talks shit about all the business majors or whatever

#6 is definitely real shit

So basically, some philosophy hag got upset that her friend demanded scientific forms of evidence in a debate about the nature of reality so she got upset and wrote down a list of things scientists do which hurt her feelings and then sat around with a thesaurus until they all sounded evil enough to publish. Get fucked kid.

>>6497424
Of course STEM master race is more intelligent than English or business majors. That doesn't mean English and business majors are useless. They are a good programme to give the less intelligent among us enough qualification for employment in a job that fits their (lower) abilities. Thus they serve a purpose.

>>6497424
To be fair, I agree this is really underhanded and WAY too many engineers pull that shit, but most of the people who complain about it are fucking asking for it. If you're a philosophy major, don't pretend you can say more about the universe than a physicist. Instead show them something you do better then them: teach them some rhetoric, explain how certain moral questions are undecidable. See my point.

>or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.
There's about as much value in those things as playing "duck, duck, goose" with children. Colossal time wasters.

>this thread

[SCIENTISM INTENSIFIES]

>>6497432
You are the problem.
And I hate to break it to you, as a physicist I find philosophy majors to be much smarter than engineers on average.

>>6497439
⇒teach them some rhetoric,
Philosofags are almost always really bad at rhetorics. They make up a lot of supposedly contrived and sophisticated words to encapsulate trivial content. And they often fail to produce any real arguments, i.e. the defense of their stane boils down to "I want to believe". A normal person gets bored by their talk, an educated person can see right through the hogwash. The only people impressed by philosophers' loquacious drivel are pseudo-intellectual high schoolers of the reddit variety.

⇒explain how certain moral questions are undecidable
Everyone already knows this. How the hell do you believe a philosopher could justify his profession by talking about something his field CANNOT solve?

>>6497421
Hormones.

You're just in denial of having instincts, you deluded pathetic coward.

>>6497261
>the percentage of women in mathematics fell to 44% of all mathfags.

...and you still won't fuck each other.

>>6497446
That has a lot to do with how cool they pretend they are, and how shallow you are.

Anyone with actual intelligence or social skills recognizes "preciousness" in people.

>>6497388
You sound extremely stupid

You guys should read Against Method by Paul Feyerabend, it will open your eyes regarding science and hopefully make you less arrogant.

Entirely valid:
>1. Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise.
>2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
>5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
>6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art.

Wrong and stupid:
>3. A preoccupation with demarcation, i.e., with drawing a sharp line between genuine science, the real thing, and “pseudo-scientific” imposters.
>4. A corresponding preoccupation with identifying the “scientific method,” presumed to explain how the sciences have been so successful.
These are ANTIDOTES to scientism, which most commonly has a strong element of pseudoscience.

As previously pointed out, 3 and 5 are contradictory. You need to know what is and isn't science to know what the scope of science is.

3 and 4 are equivalent. The questions of what science is, and what the scientific method is, are one and the same.

>>6497507
He a valid reason to be offended.

You can't identify the tremendous unlearning it takes just to get people to forget the "pencil through paper wormhole" garbage. Just getting people to understand that "Schrodingers cat" is not about the goddamn cat is nearly impossible, thanks to all the retarded popsci.

>>6497517
>science
You are here: /sci/ - Science & Math
We don't demand that you are a scientist, but you do need observable evidence, and popsci, pseudoscience, philosophy and theology are not welcome here because they shit up the board.

Go to /jp/ and post anime. See how much they like it.

>>6497389
>you deluded straw man.

i didn't know you could talk to fallacies...

>>6497517
>Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences

The correct terminology is necessary for accuracy. You have to learn the terminology for EVERY board on 4chan. That is how you communicate. I used to be a RPG player 10 years ago. I have no idea what anyone on /tg/ is saying anymore.

>>6497517
>denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific

You are here: /sci/ - Science & Math

>>6497534
Quote the whole thing, "irrespective of their usefulness".

The point is that when you use them out of place, because they "sound sciencey", rather than because you're talking to people who are comfortable with it about something that requires the precision of technical language, you're likely being scientistic rather than scientific. In other words, you're treating science like a religion, or trying to pose unscientific positions as scientific ones to make them seem more credible.

>>6497539
Pointing out that things are off-topic on /sci/ is not denigrating their legitimacy or worth.

>>6497548
The correct terminology is STILL necessary for accuracy.

Go to school and learn it, or lurk the fuck moar, you retarded newfag.

>>6497551
>besides the scientific

You want /sci/ to go off-topic? Maybe we shouldn't cater to newfags that shit up the board.

You came here, we didn't ask you to come here.

>>6497534
Read the paper, she says how some will use scientific manners such as charts, graphs, formulas and so on to make their claims look more legit, even though they are not directly related to what they are saying. People reading such a paper who take science as a religion will tend to think the claims made are true, without carefully studying the relation between the charts/graphs/formulas and what is actually being claimed.

>>6497420
>>>/b/
>>>/a/
>>>/c/
>>>/k/

>>>/t/
>>>/o/

>>>/b/

>>6497601
>some will use scientific manners such as charts, graphs, formulas and so on to make their claims look more legit

I agree that corrupt mainstream media, political and corporate interests will do this unscientific shitspew.

Maybe she should blame -THEM-.

>science is very fallible and prone to abuse
>this means philosophy and critical theory aren't useless garbage

>>6497617
That's what this is about. Pay more attention to what people are saying before you jump in to start criticizing.

>>6497637
No one will blame politicians, corporations or the mainstream media from what she said.

They will just blame science.

I sort of agree with #2.
Ideas should be presented not only clearly and concisely but also in a manner as easy as reasonably possible to understand for one's audience.

Today I feel like a lot of text in the math and sciences is unnecessarily heavy in scientific jargon that makes it murky for anyone without some proper background to fully understand, even when the ideas and research itself is fairly straightforward. Scientists and mathematicians need to actively avoid their field becoming a sort of exclusive club where the presentation of the texts and work are only comprehensible to the 'initiated'. I don't believe we have to sacrifice a proper respect for those with demonstrable expertise in order to bring more people into the fold of understanding?

>>6497637
>If your security was any good, it wouldn't matter if my password was "password".

These are the people she is presenting her findings to.

she's suffered one too many fedoratheists in her classes.

>>6497645
So, let's dumb it down.

Here's a demonstration of #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88

>>6497476
No I consciously reject them, you undisciplined, primitive, childish animal.
Same way I would not hit you if we were talking face to face.

>>6497101
>5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
I cant think of anything that would be "beyond the scope" of science, its all encompassing. If we cant model a chunk of matter with quantum mechanics we use classical physics, if it is alive we switch to biology, if it is intelligent we use sociology or psychology (yes, even those do have scientific aspects)

>>6497644
It's not about them, it's about everyone. Scientists are prone to mistake and errors too, some will even modify or disregard some of the data to reach the conclusion they wanted to reach, just so they can agree with the current paradigm and lick the asses of renowned scientists in their field, which will bring them more recognition and grants than they would have obtained otherwise.

Then there are all the people who are taught to believe that science is right, so if they read something that looks sciencey enough they will think it true without looking more closely into the matter. They will believe it, then they will denigrate anyone who claims otherwise to their newly acquired beliefs. If enough people do that on some subject, you are pressured to think like them, for if you do not you get labeled by the crowd as ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ... . That's one of the problem with that scientism she is denouncing, which /sci/ is very prone too. On this board people will assert things confidently just because they read it from a source that looked sciencey enough, firmly believing that what they assert is true without actually knowing it.

>>6497682
You're not making your field more accurate by defining a bunch of terms that do not necessitate a definition, you're just making it more complicated. So unfolding that process is not a dumbing down, it's making explanations clearer by not using a bunch of definitions you don't need to invoke to get the very same idea across.

>>6497752
morality, aesthetics, epistemology, mathematics

>>6497507
You seem to be very talented with projections. Have you considered working in a cinema?

>>6497514
⇒Feyerabend
The guy literally said in his opinion every fairy tale was just as valid as science.

>>6497519
Schrodinger's cat is about a cat. What else do you think it is about? A dog?

>>6497420
I always talk like this. I also wear a "bazinga" t-shirt.

>>6497795
⇒morality
Is being researched in neuroscience now. Have you not read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"?

⇒aesthetics
The mathematical patterns of aesthetics are being discovered by statistical analysis. The perception of aesthetics is scientifically being examined in psychology.

⇒epistemology
We have math and the scientific method. This pretty much settled the issue of epistemology, unless you want to go philosophically full retard and yell "u cannot know nuthin".

⇒mathematics
Math is a tool for science.

>>6497886
>The guy literally said in his opinion every fairy tale was just as valid as science.
>implying it isn't

>>6497388
>>6497389
>>6497451
>>6497886
>>6497893
>Do not use avatars or attach signatures to your posts.

>>6497108

/thread

>>6498114
I did not post any pictures.

>>6498118
You used a character as an avatar/signature. Fuck off.

>>6498118
>or attach signatures to your posts

Did anyone actually read the paper? lol

>>6497893
>⇒morality
>Is being researched in neuroscience now. Have you not read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"?
nope
you fail at distinction
human nature (about moral systems) is not the same as morality proper
you might as well say a song about science is science
>The perception of aesthetics is scientifically being examined in psychology.
same problem
>Math is a tool for science.
no
math doesn't even use the scientific method
it's pure axioms and deduction

scientise less hard

>>6498125
>>6498126
A signature is text appended at the end of a post. No such thing here.

>>6498204
"Signature: A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity"

>>6497773
>>6497773
>>6497773
>>6497773

WHEN CORRUPT POLITICIANS, MAINSTREAM MEDIA OR CORPORATIONS POST SOMETHING THAT IS WRONG, THEY DON'T REDACT IT!

SHE IS STILL BLAMING SCIENCE!
>>6497773
>>6497773

Like two people here actually read the paper, while a dozen voiced their opinion based on prejudice.

Way to prove her point guys.

>>6498794
HER POINT WAS "PEOPLE ABUSE SCIENCE".

UNFORTUNATELY, SHE SAID "SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT."

>tfw physics/feminist studies double major
>tfw neckbears who masturbate over their own self proclaimed intelligence can't into simple concepts such as systemic biases, socialized ignorance, relevance of word choice and language, arbitrary stratification and neoliberal ideology, etc.

Look, I love science and I think the scientific method is a great way of falsifying things, but there are pretty prominent issues with nepotism and self-serving biases in the way new scientific material is deemed relevant and worthy of peer review in the first place.

If you have to be a Noether-tier supergenius to even have your name mentioned in physics as a woman, there's probably something fishy going on.

>>6497893
>Math is a tool for science.

sure is pleb in here

>>6499343
Let me refine my statement: Math is a tool for science and economics.

>>6499353
Corrected:
Tool for science and economics is math.

>>6497388
>>6497416
>>6497389
>>6497451
>>6497893
>>>/rules/global/3

>>6499341
>If you have to be a Noether-tier supergenius to even have your name mentioned in physics as a woman
As opposed to having to be a supergenius to have your name mentioned in physics as a man?

>>6497893

fuck off you pseudo intellectual autist

>>6497101
>>2. Adopting the manners, the trappings, the technical terminology, etc., of the sciences, irrespective of their real usefulness.
>5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope.
I feel as if 2 and 5 are the most useful critiques of scientism or, as Feynman called it, cargo cult science. It really is irksome when people don't understand the very basics of philosophy of science, and seem to, by default, hold the erroneous belief that the scientific method is a way of imparting objective truth (and going further to say it is the only way objective truth can be reached) without conceptualizing the obvious implications of this position