/sci/ - Science & Math

Remove Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

>>9631675
the fuck is scientism?
your talking as if science is some sort of a religion.

>>9631675
Scientism is a good thing.
Niggers are not.

>>9631691
Scientism is people treating science like it's a religion with scientists as the replacement priesthood.

>>9631703
Retards treat celebrities as holy figures. People who "fucking love science" are nothing more than naive retards falling for the same celebrity bullshit everyone always falls but that because it's "science" they delude themselves that it's "intellectual". That has nothing to do with what actual scientists do and the popular perception of this sector of academia.

>>9631675
What exactly is the problem here? That cringy faggots post social media about how much they "love science?" Sure, that's obnoxious, but I don't see why you feel the need to mount some sort of campaign to stop them.

>>9631753
there might come situations where they'll hinder progress by treating accepted ideas as holy cows that can't be touched

>>9631764
Who cares how non-scientists treat them?

>>9631675
>>/pol/

>>9631675
Actually teach normies freshman science instead of buzzwords from journals.
Tell fedoras to fuck off whenever they try to appropriate science for their autism.

regulate soy consumption

>>9631801
this but ironically
e=hf

>>9631675

Explain to me exactly how engaging the public is a bad thing for progress other than:

>mah elite field being infiltrated by psueds
>mah billions and billions carl sagan being replaced by black science man

Seriously, fuck off to /pol/

>>9631827
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVDBD_HXtMs

>>9631831
That bit got massive backlash, besides everyone here telling you that meme popsci is not in any way what science is about. Stupid gender debates is something studied by a particular branch of pyschologists, psychiatrists or neurologists and is in no way a topic of real importance for other sciences.

>>9631765
Who controls the funding?

>>9631841
yet people listened to him and took him seriously because he's socially labeled as a "scientist"

>>9631851
Usually people who know about science or they get advisors from people who know about it and review projects bases on different factors. The factors can be dumb and they sometimes give grants to morons or to people with really shit projects, but it's still done in the interest of pure research. But even if the grant was given by clueless people, what do you expect to happen?

>>9631857
And how is that different from people listening to deepak chopra? Or following celebrities lives? Listening to that hack Dr phil? Buying dumb shit advertised as "holistic" and "natural"? People will follow trendy shit, but that's independt of what actual science is all about. This gender mania is another trend and it will die after people get bored of trannys.

44% of Americans think the world is 6k years old and your concerned is "scientism"? How stupid are you?

Have people understand that science has mostly progressed through debate. Explain why people had good reasons to think aether, the four elements, geocentrism etc were all true.

>>9631859
I think his point was that public interest often influences funding

>>9631867
that's a good point
(the gender thing isn't going anywhere though, they'll keep pushing it)

>>9631913
>public interest influence funding
But that's not true. There are also dumb trends that scientists sometimes follow (because at the end scientista are human just a bit more in the spectrum), and the influence will not necessarily follow rational justifications, but "common knowledge", but the "trends" have nothing to do with trends in popsci.
>the gender thing isn't going anywhere
It's already going away. Now the counter culture is meme pepe alright kids and it will be followed. Obviously this is based on experience, but a lot of people who I knew are pretty liberal are now saying "well yea I x but they take it too far" and complain more about liberal extremism.

>>9631931
I haven't known the lgbt movement to ever cave on anything, even if they give up on "non-binary genders" they'll just replace it with something almost the same with a different name

>>9631893
This.
Scientific knowledge is something that is constantly growing and changing as we discover new things.
Everything is up for debate so long as you can bring evidence that better explains the observations.
>but you won't let me debate the flat earth and existence of gravity!
Because you don't bring evidence that better explains everything explained by a globe Earth and gravity.

>>9631745
This. The whole “scientism” thing is just another product of celebrity worship, and revolves almost entirely around a few science-themed media personalities.

>>9631675 >>9632308 >>9631703
*POP-scientism

>>9631675
>Embrace it.
>Become an Arch Magos.
>Turn Mars into a Forgeworld.
>Become Fabricator General.
>Gather fissile materials.
>Use them to open a portal between this universe and 40k.
>Join the others in unison to fight Chaos in the name of The Omnissiah.

011101110110000101110010

>>9631675
By stopping the peddling of this ridiculous myth.

>>9631931
>>9631951
A few things
>The Gender movement is a civil rights issue then a scientific issue.
>Homosexuality, Transgenderism and Non-Binary are all scientifically proven, oh I sorry you were told as a kiddy that there were only two genders... that thing your going through is Cognitive Dissonance
>If you claim that this is all apart of a conspiracy by an International Jewish cabal to push Cultural Marxism, then get the fuck out of here this board is not for you!!!
>There are 2+ Genders, suck it up!

>>9631675
Why do you want to stop it? It gets the general population interested, gets funding and encourages young people to get into the field.

>>9631691
It's a slur from the arts.

Science is bad, apparently, because it obliterates the magic of reality by explaining it.

People who use the term are jealous idiots, upset that their postmodern critique of Harry Potter isn't as well regarded as the laws of Thermodynamics.

>>9632424
Perhaps a bit more hostile in tone than I would have put it, but pretty much true.

>>9632424
>being this wrong
scientism is the view that science can explain everything, which it clearly can't
see Hawking saying "philosophy is dead," an inherently philosophical statement

>>9631675
Fuck off, /pol/.

>>9632483
He's not being literal, because the word has been missued as a way to justify pseudoscientific beliefs, charlatanism and unwarranted skeptisim towards important scientific fields. Yes, nowdays scientists and students in general don't learn much about philosophy which has brought many to fail to see he actual power of scientific thinking which is only obtainable understanding it's limitations, but after some examples and a few books the most stubborn physicists will understand why science cannot answer every single question, or why certain questions go beyond the scope of science. Many questions that are important and may be impossible to give a definite answer that everyone can agree on. However, this doesn't mean that a physicists is any less for not knowing philosophy, because it has worked for many years now. This may not be a really good argument, but hey there are always autists willing to observe, gather data, model whatever and because both the predictability power and the applicability, it is not going to stop anywhere soon. The thing is, that while maybe science is not the ultimate answer, if anyone could find a better concrete way to model our empirical world, thr scientific community would take it, and there is also no good reason to change methods or accept alternatives, and again, just considering modeling the empirical world. So it's not scientism to challange and criticise baseless alternatives to well established scientific facts, and I don't think is just smugness, but really that science doesn have pure intentions and for many things the method trumps other views. This has nothing to do with proper spirituality, or morality or even epistemology, but you have to be pretty cynical to try to say we have a problem of "scientism" for some carless comments. I also think hawkings retractes that and the guys seems he knows a bit about philosophy, my guess it was just being cheeky, because he usually is, which is funny because many got mad.

I work with scientists and see their many flaws, fuck I have a science degree. While I do agree the days of science’s prima Donna phase are coming to an end, I fear the alternative. Or are we all ready to embrace a y’all queda theocracy Tun by brain dead redcaps?

get rid of string theory

>>9632592
spotted the brainlet

>>9632608
why do you say so?

>>9632614
cause you are retarded

>>9632622
how so?

>>9632638
You believe the bible is a real story? 1000s of religions and the one your parents told you about is the correct one? All that shit about the earth being made in 7 days, being 6000 years old, you really believe that? Leave religion behind. It's all just stories written by people who didn't have a clue.

>>9632655
Not him, but the debate (at least in principle) isn't science vs religion. Religion is neither incompatible or relevant to science. The point here is this geek culture that takes "science" as some almost voodo shit that works because math and logic, but don't know the intricate details of it. I don't think it is a particular problem, and like with a lot of shit with 4chan kids, they are extrapolating from what some cringy reddit kids says.

>>9632383
Fuck off k

>>9631691
Scientism is the religious type belief that the only source of knowledge is science.

>>9632659
>The point here is this geek culture that takes "science" as some almost voodo shit that works because math and logic, but don't know the intricate details of it.
That sounds about as relevant as pop understanding of anything. I'm sure there are people who fanboy science as a thing they don't understand this way; but why should we care about this any more than we care about pleb-level basketball fans?

>>9631841
I never understood why people get so asshurt about LGBT people existing.

>>9632832
I understand. A beautiful well-understood system breaking down into a murky maze of special cases is annoying and unpleasant.

Doesn't make it less true, of course. But it explains the butthurt.

>>9632832
>LGBT people
>people
Nice one.

>>9632638
>peer reviewed
What's wrong with that?

>>9631691
>the fuck is scientism?
>>9631703
>>9632424
>>9632792

pic rel faggotry

>>9632863
What is the definition of people?

>>9631675
>How do we stop scientism?
Unless there is another religion (because that is what scientism is) which can replace it we don't.

Humans are always searching for meaning and truth, the masses look up to the few scholars and demand answers, which mostly the scholars can not give.

>>9632942
Oh the irony

>>9633090
>no white hand.

>>9631675
such a stupid fucking picture makes me laugh

>>9633090 >>9632942

From "Fucking love Science"
Into "Fucking Science"

>>9631675

>>9633125
>From "Fucking love Science"
>Into "Fucking Science"

college profesors are narcistic human garbage

todays SCIENCE doesnt even use scientific method as proof but rely strongly on (((peer review))) and (((scientific concensus))). All dependents on gov and corp grants for their meme prog research.

Science = application of scientific method
Scientific method = hypothetico inductive deductive process

>>9633149 >>9633125 >>9632942

Science then:
Physics, Chemistry, Biology & Applied Math

SJW Nu-Science:
Queer-Gay Degeneracy. Feminism. Anti-White Agenda. Social Constructionism. Black-Lives-Matter. Virtue Signaling. Social Welfare Gibs. Radical Leftism.

>>9633167
>SJW Nu-Science:

in their defense they dont use terms like "feminist science" or "colonial science" that often but studies. its faggotry none the less, but have you noticed how fields like history and law started to ad "science" suffix recently?

>>9633167

Can you prove this?

>>9633109
How do you see white hand against white background?

>>9631687
Lmao remove most of physics, good idea

>>9631851
George Soros

>>9633281

Yes it is a good idea brainlet.

>>9631851
>>9631859
>>9631913
>>9631931
>Who controls the funding?

Jews.

I FCK HAAAAAAATE SCIENCE!!!!!!!!

>>9632832
less exist and more you should be them. you don't and shouldn't be gay but if you are then treat it like being left handed.

>>9632638
>Mathematics is science.

Disgusting.

>>9631691
seriously I never knew "scientism" was a thing until I came to 4chan. It's a word used by a few kinds of people; some of which think there's such a thing as being "too logical", the others are just buttmad at science tourists who like pictures of cats in space with the caption FUCK YEAH SCIENCE

>>9631675
>scientism
>aka "I'm upset because people won't pay attention to my pet belief"

>>9632892
>>peer reviewed
>What's wrong with that?

its intellectual value is that of a beauty peagant.

>>9633157
Daily reminder that Feyerabend believed in werewolves.

>>9633516
>Feyerabend believed in werewolves.

unlike todays rationalscientistsTM who belive in all kinds of black hole aliens and friogenical freeziong.

>>9632424
>>9631703
>>9631691

I believe it actually comes from the Frankfurt school, who were attempting to understand modern pathologies between the first and second world war. Scientism was understood as a product of the enlightenment in which man replaces the divine godhead with himself, fixating upon technological and scientific advances as evidence of his unbounded (key mistake) greatness.

Regarding soyboys and the "Fuck Ya Science" culture, I think it has more to with their lack of maturity. In the west science is candy coated and pushed onto children, so naturally it is also attractive to man-children. Religion requires us to confront the difficult ideas of suffering, guilt, repentance, etc. Much easier to just hide from all that and align oneself with the thing which is easier to swallow and is claimed to have the same explanatory powers (it doesn't).

>>9633556
also the dichotomy between science and religion that has somehow been created is total bullshit. The greatest scientists (should be called natural philosophers) of all time were deeply religious men.

>>9631891
>Unironically still believing in materialism

How's bio 1

>>9631701
Quality post.

>>9633125
racism, by experience is in fact a scientific issue. Ive observed the data and witnessed the data manifest itself in real life. The issue therein is the denial of significant differences between races, when the data shows itself clearly.

>>9633488
You clearly don't know the basics of peer review. Peer review obstructing publishing is not based on whether the scientists reviewing it agree with the conclusions, they are supposed to check the work and offer explanations for why they would believe that the researcher screwed up the math, didn't use proper controls or had flawed methodology.

>>9632792
The only source of knowledge is science.
Prove me wrong.

It's amazing how many butthurt Christcucks and philosophy fags started shitting up this board every since /his/ was created.

>>9631675
>Scientism
>Bad
The biggest issue humanity faces is that they are willing to trust their own shitty opinions instead of the hard data.

>>9633803
That would require using philosophy.

>>9633809
Science/naturalism is philosophy, retard.

>>9633821
It would require philosophy to prove me wrong?
When was the last time philosophy "proved" anything?

>>9633831
Here they come.
>B-But if I define science as a philosophy that makes my philosophy degree somehow not useless
Kek, if you want to consider science a philosophy go ahead retard but that just makes science the only useful philosophy.

>>9633844
>When was the last time philosophy "proved" anything?
Logic is a discipline inside philosophy...

>When was the last time philosophy "proved" anything?
When has science ever proved anything?

>>9633849
So thousands of years ago. Nice to know they haven't done anything of worth since before the scientific revolution.

>>9633847
>>9633850
You're so enlightened.

>>9633854
>"Philosopher" calls scientists fedoras

>>9633189
Yes. I noticed.

They ruined History and Law,
with their "Diverse Fagotry"
that they call Science,
but it's in fact against
Biology, Physics & Chemistry.

>>9633854
Hey retard, you literally posted a philosopher.

>>9633850
Are you retarded?
Do you not understand what Philosophy means?

Just to make you aware, logic is used EVERYWHERE in science and especially in mathematics.

>>9633867
>If I call science and math a philosophy then I win
Kek, dumb shit. Why aren't scientists required to take logic classes then?

>>9633867
>Math is used in math
>But now it's philosophy because I said so
>EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY
>A BIRD IS USING PHILOSOPHY WHEN IT TRIES TO CATCH A FISH

>>9633878
>Why aren't scientists required to take logic classes then?
Any decent mathematics course will cover logic, it is literally the foundation of math.
As surprising as it may seem, scientists are indeed educated in logic.

>Philosophy
So what's wrong with "scientism" again?

>>9633882
>>EVERYTHING IS PHILOSOPHY
It literally means "love for knowledge".

>>9633189
>Steminist
>Remove White males from STEM
>Turn into STEAM

>>9633887
>It's the foundation
>If I call math philosophy then they were studying philosophy all along I win!'
Yet they aren't required to take philosophy classes.

>>9633901
>Yet they aren't required to take philosophy classes.
Please define what you mean by Philosophy, you appear to have extreme misconceptions about what that word means.

>>9633900

>>9633903
No scientist or mathematician is required to take a philosophy class. You can try to argue that everything is philosopjhy all you want but that doesn't change the point that studying philosophy is useless and there is a reason no one will ever hire a philosopher.

>>9633903
It's just asking stupid questions with obvious answers! Bill Nye told me so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

>>9633910
Well he is right, name the last thing philosophy discovered.

Anyone have the old "U CAN''T NO NUFFIN" comics? I miss the old philosophy bashing comics on /sci/.

>>9633907
>studying philosophy is useless
Well, that depends on what you mean by "useful".
Does it have immediate applications in reality and gives you marketable skills? Probably No.

But I am not defending people getting a degree in philosophy, I am defending philosophy itself.

>>9633913
Name the last thing that was discovered "in the love of knowledge".

>>9633919
Yep here we go. Every scientist is a philosopher so every discovery is philosophy!

>>9633923
>Every scientist is a philosopher
Every scientist is engaging in philosophy, that is what that word means.

>>9633913
How to manipulate an entire country.

>>9633926
Yep, you just defined the word to be so vague it's meaningless.
In other words the only good philosophy is math and science then.

>>9633907
They damn well should be to stop brainlets like you from existing.

>>9633934
>Why don't you like my useless jerk off session, you are the brainlet!

>>9633929
March for Science

Kids carrying signs as
"Black lives Matter"
"Equality for Everbody"
"Treat everyone the same"

>>9633933
>you
I didn't do anything.

>so vague it's meaningless
If you are trying to discover truth you are engaging in philosophy.

>In other words the only good philosophy is math and science then.
Certainly, these are very important topics and I doubt anyone is denying that.

>>9633929 .
March for Science

Kids carrying signs as
"Black lives Matter"
"Equality for Everbody"
"Treat everyone the same"

>>9633937
>I didn't do anything
Every person with a brain can separate science and philosophy. You are literally translating a word and saying that must be it's definition. I guess starfish must literally be fish then.

>>9633945
>implying there is anything wrong with a kid wanting to grow up to get a good job

>>9631675
>>9631691
>>9631703
Are you people retarded?We NEED a sciantism, christianity woun't survive as a religion, in upcoming decades, we need a stabilising force in sociaity, sciance can be made as religion, can't you see it brainlets?

>>9633948
>You are literally translating a word and saying that must be it's definition.
What the fuck:
"the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

I already asked you for your definition of Philosophy, you refused to give one, so I took the most common one as the one agreed upon in this discussion.

>>9631701
this

>More Mitosis
>Less Division

>>9633957
You clearly don't know what science is if you think studying ring worm in infants is "The fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence"

>A Woman's place is in the Lab

>>9633969
A lab is just a more advanced kitchen

>[math] \pi [/math] is all the irrational i need

>>9633887
Math can't be founded on logic. You'd know that if you really did your studying.

>>9633968
>studying ring worm in infants
That is part of what our reality is made of, isn't it?
The definition of Philosophy is certainly very broad, but please define science in a way that doesn't include "looking how reality works".

>This thread

>>9633981
>Math can't be founded on logic.
What?

>>9633991
If the person defending philosophy was actually studying philosophy you might have a point, but I really don't.

Not once have I set foot into the philosophy building and I really don't plan to.

>>9633988
Again, you want to make the definition so all encompassing that it means nothing.
>Oh shit why is my shit so hard
>OH THAT'S A PART OF REALITY SO YOU ARE USING PHILOSOPHY

>Support Gender Studies Research

>March for Gay Science

>>9633998
>you
It certainly isn't me.

Give me a better one, you are doing nothing but dodging here.
Define "science" and define "philosophy". Before you do that, this discussion is pointless, you are doing nothing but avoiding every single argument I make.

>>OH THAT'S A PART OF REALITY SO YOU ARE USING PHILOSOPHY
DEFINE PHILOSOPHY.
DEFINE SCIENCE.

>>9634006
Good case against modern medicine

>>9634007
Why did you post that?

>>9634008
Your definition of philosophy is retarded, literally asking any question ever is now philosophy, a cart opening a box is now a philosopher.

>>9634007
>physics and astronomy so far apart
retarded chart

>Stop the Animal Cruelty in Lab
> Release the Lab Rats

>>9634016
>Your definition of philosophy is retarded
Okay, that was the first google result, anyway.
GIVE ME YOUR DEFINITION OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY.

STOP DODGING ALREADY, this is getting really frustrating, you appear to be fundamentally dishonest by refusing to define the words you use.
You reject my definition but don't provide your, what the fuck do you mean by philosophy??

>>9633988
It is part of our perceived reality. Our perceived reality can not be a basis for logic or philosophy because it is not necessarily true, philosophy is the love of knowledge and science is not knowledge, it is guesswork.

Science-objective truths

Philosophy-objectless truths

entirely different domains. That was easy. You're quite bad at philosophy for a philosopher

>>9634022
>March for Science
>End Experiments with Animals

>>9634023
Ok.
Science, it's the useful thing you can study in college.
Philosophy, it's the useless thing you can study at college.
My definition is objectively the most accurate.

>>9634018
if astronomy at your uni isn't a concentration of a physics degree, well, there's probably a reason for that.

>Science powered by Diversity

> powered by science
> strengthened by diversity

>>9631851
THE JOOZ
t./pol/

>>9634022
>>9634028
>>9634033
>almost only women and a few effeminate men
really makes you think, huh?

>>9634039
>Science loves Diversity

>>9634037
This. Science is very diverse, it's filled with whites, Asians and Jews.

>>9634033
>>9634037
>le diversity
A big chunk of science was created by europeans white males, why they think diversity is needed in science?

>>9634030
What can I say?
I doubt there is any point continuing this discussion, you clearly are doing nothing but being dishonest and refuse to even define your terms.

>>9634039 >>9634043 >>9634044
>Science needs Immigrants

>>9634045
But I just did. Care to prove me wrong?

>>9634027
>science is not knowledge, it is guesswork
>Science-objective truths
Do I need to go on?

>for a philosopher
I have never set foot in a philosophy department.

>Daughter of an Immigrant Scientist and Proud
>Pussy Hat

>>9634048
>Care to prove me wrong?
I really don't, I might as well have a discussion with a rock at this point.
Certainly that will be a more honest discussion.

At least I learned what type of person I am talking to when having these discussions.

>March for Science
>Embrace Diversity

>Girls wanna funding

>>9634060
Another victory for S C I E N C E !

> powered by science
> strengthened by diversity

>>9634071
>posts a guy with a Bachelors in Engineering

>>9634030
Not him, but do you even realize what PhD stands for, the prerequisete for one to be called a scientist (not sufficient of course, but necessary). It literally stands for Doctorate of Philosophy because the study of knowledge in any form is Philosophy. Science is also called natural Philosophy because you are studying human knowledge of nature. The forefront of Philosophy is no longer in science because science has become its own sub discipline, much like Computer Science in Mathematics, and Philosophers have become interested in other things. Historically speaking, academics originates in Philosophy.

>Science is Real
>Black Lives Matter
>No human is Illegal
>Women Rights

>Science Loves Diversity

>>9631675

>>9634085
This explains why PhD students make less than ones with Masters.

Why these "Science" protests are filled with lots of Women

>>9633821
>>9633847
Naturalism is the mainstream on analytic philosophy anon.

Steminism

>http://steminist.com/steminist-profile-hannah-frerker-student-researcher-2/
Why do you loving working in STEM?
>It is my passion, I love every minute I spend working with any science.
What is the coolest project you have worked on and why?
>I am currently a part of a Chemistry research project on water quality analysis.

"STEAM"

>>9634128
Because womyn are the future and just as smart and capable as men

>>9634145
>March for Science
>Destroy the Patriarchy, not the Planet

Sign:
Destroy the Patriarchy, not the Planet

>>9634148

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""peer reviewed"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>>9632319
>Become Fabricator General
We all know Cawl can't into Fab General without civil war

>>9631675
Scientism is a serious position in contemporary naturalist analytical philosophy. However it has nothing to do with SJW/leftist propaganda like the "i fuck love science" meme nor with the declarations of epistemologically naive scientists and science popularizers.

>>9634158
"""peer reviewed""" by angry feminists and soy faggots

A Sign in "Science" march

>March for Science
>Destroy the Patriarchy, not the Planet.

>>9634032
What fucking schools are you going to anon

Can you even find a school that has astronomy separate from physics?

>>9634163
>Serious position
Besides Bunge, I fail to see a prominent circle in any philosophy department, and Bunge is much better than that.

>>9634184
What about Alex Rosenberg?

>>9633976
>A lab is just a more advanced kitchen
Ironically Woman pick Majors as Biology and Chemistry with Labs which look like Kitchens

>>9634209
>-berg

>"reading" a book on quantum physics
>"reading" alber einstein's biography
>suddenly knows everything there is to know about science

anyone else experienced this? i cant stand it

>>9634209
What about him? Scientific Naturalism is a valid position, but he is still a philosopher... The point of scientism is the complete dismissal of anything non scientific, but just because you are an atheist that doesn't mean you dismiss anything else.

Scientism isn't per se the religion of pop sci, it's just applying the scientific method to subjects where it doesn't really make any sense

>>9634268
Maybe you like this paper, it gives a good overview:
Ten reasons to embrace scientism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28629648

Just google the pdf version.

>>9634288
Thanks, I will give it a look.

>>9633844
>

>>9634326
Why is the Bill Nye quote unreasonable?

>>9634326
That's because scientists of the past didn't live long enough to see how useless philosophy has become.

>>9634338
Philosophy is only useless when you see it as a main goal of your education or something that will grant you money. Philosophy is not a brach of science and will never be.Philosophy is more like a second religion when done right and should be treated as such.

>>9633895
I have a friend of whom resembles this fellow to the t. Neck beards aren’t terrible people, given that they don’t identify you as a ‘normie’.

>>9634049
Objective=true and factual is the brainlet definition, sorry you thought I was using that one

Objective=relating to the object. And because the existence of the object itself is up for debate, objective truths (and therefore scientific ones) can not be absolute.

>>9634331
It's just obvious who wouldn't be skeptical of that...

>>9634381
So useless?

>>9634726
For you

>>9634162

You would know I implied that if you had read The Sacred Binary Code.

011101110110000101110010

>>9631691
>>9633430
>>9632424
>I heard of scientism from 4chan
Guess how painfully apparent it is that none of you have ever studied scientific philosophy?

It fucking baffles me. How is someone allowed to call themselves a scientist without actually studying metaphysics or ontology? It's like being born on a precipice, living there your whole life, then calling yourself a mountaineer.

Scientism is cancer. If you don't understand why, you are the problem with science.

>>9634811
>How can you call yourself a scientist without studying *unscientific bullshit*

>>9634743
And the world.
Studying religion and studying philosophy are pretty much useless outside of the enjoyment it gives you but don't pretend that makes it important.

>>9634811
I took philosophy of the natural sciences and intro to pragmatism (at a uni that I guarantee MOGS yours) and have literally never heard of "scientism" until this thread. It literally isn't a word, the premise of it being a word is hilarious(a process of inquiry is not something you can believe or disbelieve. We use science because it works) and this whole thread is fucking gay and retarded

>>9634861
>It literally isn't a word
It's a synonym for logical positivism.

The point remains, if you don't understand why it is a cancer, then you're part of the problem.

>>9634880
>It literally isn't a word
It's a synonym for logical positivism.

The point remains, if you don't understand why it is a cancer, then you're part of the problem.

>>9634880
>never heard of "scientism" until this thread
>We use science because it works) and this whole thread is fucking gay and retarded

You are in the cult of scientism. Science works when it's done properly, which most "science" nowadays is not.

>>9634861
>The foundation and pillars of scientific thought is bullshit
I don't understand how you even graduated from high school.

>>9631913
Luckily, it will go away. Even my completely leftist family and some liberal friends laugh at the 10000-gender bullshit

>>9631827
>mah elite field being infiltrated by psueds
if you don’t think this is a problem, you are the problem. Also it’s spelled muh, reddit

>>9634914
>science when not done properly is still science

>>9634912
Hmmm yeah ok that sounds pretty cancerous. But at the same time pointless handwaving that, like most of philosophy, isn't relevant past being a good brain exercise. The whole thing is just terms built on tops of terms, I've never been able to distinguish a philosophical argument from a semantic one.

>>9633332
This but unironically

stop pretending that the plebs are getting an 'education' in nightmare tier shithole 'schools' by retarded pleb teachers and admit that they're getting 'training'.

>>9634912
>if you don't understand why wanting your beliefs to be based on evidence instead of my fee fees then you are cancer
Kek, /his/ sure is butthurt today.

>>9634949
>But at the same time pointless handwaving that, like most of philosophy, isn't relevant past being a good brain exercise.
It's important for being able to look at something and say "Hey. That's not fucking science. Stop calling that science".

There's a lot of people I know that seem to drown in this overwhelming sense of nihilism because they make a mistake as simple as taking the second law of thermodynamics as irrefutable proof that existence is meaningless when in reality, it's just a statement regarding isolated systems. Wanton application of principles like this fucks with people psychologically. And that's just on a personal scale without addressing the consequences of removing falsifiability from scientific claims.

It only comes across as semantic because semantics is a preliminary process to reaching mutual talking points.

>>9634981
>>if you don't understand why wanting your beliefs to be based on evidence
What? No, you idiot.

The issue is that people are trying to apply scientific approaches to concepts or problems that are inherently non-scientific. Being a good scientist requires you be able to recognize the line between metaphysics and physics. In no sense does that mean your belief is on par with my empirical claim. It only means knowing when a claim inherently lacks falsifiability.

>>9634998
>metaphysics
Oh you mean spiritual bullshit with no evidence to support it. If you are butthurt that scientists are making fun of ghosts, bigfoot and religion than you shouldn't be on this board.

>>9634998
Name me one problem that you shouldn't try to apply scientific reasoning to help answer.

>>9635013
>Oh you mean spiritual bullshit with no evidence to support it.
Holy fuck how are you even intelligent enough to breathe.
Christ you are dumb as rocks.

>>9635018
>No argument
Oh wow, I touched a nerve /his/. 90% of the time someone says metaphysics it means ghost bullshit.

>>9635017
Defining "Knowledge".
Establishing pragmatism.
Anything that is not falsifiable.

>>9635028
>Defining
You try to use a definition by seeing how it is normally used in the real world. You can use a scientific approach for that.

>>9635025
Then they're as fucking stupid as you are, and that says a lot.

>>9635035
>No argument again
>Seething and butthurt instead

>>9635034
>You try to use a definition by seeing how it is normally used in the real world.
Why? It makes far more sense to establish definitions prior to the argument for ease of discussion. And even then that's more of a logical claim than a scientific one.

>>9635041
Then you can define anything in any way you want. If you want to do that then sure but that isn't a problem, it's you defining something if you aren't going to take the real world into account.

>>9635043
>it's you defining something if you aren't going to take the real world into account.
You can try to solve a semantic discussion with science all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to establish a criteria a priori for evaluation.

>>9635054
Ok but that isn't a problem. Defining something isn't a problem, the problem is making sure that definition is useful to discussion which is a real world issue.

>>9635061
>which is a real world issue.
You say "real world issue", but that just goes straight into ontology. What is real? Is a thought real? Is the past real? The question of "what matters?" itself can't be answered scientifically.

And usefulness is just an extension of pragmatism, which is again established by a priori criteria. You're wildly confident in what's conventional, but that's a poor practice the further you get from the human perspective.

>>9635066
>What is real
Oh great, now he added another level of faggotry.

>>9635151
You asked for a question that can't be answered scientifically.
There's your answer. That extra "level of faggotry" is the foundation on which all scientific knowledge is based upon. It's not my fault you have a child's understanding of science.

>>9635017
Ethics.

>>9635170
That is a question that can't be answered non scientifically either.

>>9635212
But it can be answered non scientifically. It can be answered in a multitude of ways. A scientist uses the presupposition that reality is material/tangible whereas an idealist or solipsist world presuppose non existence or the more abstract as being real.

There are plenty of non scientific answers to the question. I'm not fond of them, but they definitely exist.

>>9635257
It's literally semantics and all depends on what you personally want to define as real.

>>9635312
It's not just semantics, they each factor into entire philosophical modes of thought. Writing it off as semantics completely undermines what makes science unique to begin with.

>>9635347
>Is this real life
>That depends on what you define as real
Semantics

>>9633126
>>9633145
>>9633149
>>9633900
>>9633916
>>9633952
>>9633965
>>9633969
>>9634001
>>9634022
>>9634028
>>9634033
>>9634037
>>9634046
>>9634055
>>9634063
>>9634068
>>9634074
>>9634083
>>9634093
>>9634098
>>9634113
>>9634128
>>9634148
>>9634157
>>9634165
>>9634177
Giving women rights was unironically a mistake.

>>9635556
More like
>"What is real?"
>Well, what school of thought do you follow?
>"Oh wow, stop being fucking semantic"
I don't think you understand what semantics actually is.
This isn't just "Well, I don't think the past should be regarded as real." It's "The past doesn't exist". It's an ontological statement regarding the fundamental nature of reality. These are questions with actual answers in science like "Yes, the past is real, we use it for comparison" or "No, thoughts are not real, they have no bearing on material composition." Again, both of these statements are presupposed and non-scientific. This discussion only BECOMES semantics because, again, you have a child's understanding of scientific philosophy.

Also, I don't understand either your aversion to semantics to begin with. You've clearly got this mentality where if you can reduce an argument to semantics, you win. But you also make no effort to reach a set definition within a self-contained discussion.

tl;dr
Define "real" however the hell you want. Just don't call your answer scientific, because it's not.

>>9631675
You don't
Just like flat earthers

Just let them be them
Or try to piss m of and get them to rant, that's much more fun

>>9631687
can someone explain why this is a good idea?

We don't

>>9631691
He doesn't literally mean removing them.
He's pointing out that the public has a way of taking mathematical concepts found in these feilds and applying an incorrect interpretation of those concepts due to never actually being exposed to the math.
It seems that, to the layman, QM and GR are genius feilds that give the universe a magic-like feel.

>>9634811
Are you really this ignorant, my dude?

No-one uses "scientism" to refer the flaws of logical positivism anymore, no-one even knows what verificationism means.

Everyone with a scientific education now knows and accepts that science is a process of institutionalised disconfirmation. That which is most true had the most predictive validity, and claims which are not falsifiable cannot be considered valid.

Literally go out and read the cucks who use the term "scientism", it's always some postmodern soyboi complaining in a round about way - amid torrents of ad hominem and misleading assertions about the motivations behind whatever it is they happen to be critiquing - that explaining things ruins their magic.

That other guy was right to reference the Frankfurt school, that's the source of most socialist nonsense, and those are the people who most keenly hate science today. In the past, the counter-enlightment, led by the Frankfurt school, attacked reason in order to make room for God, today, the postmoderns attack objective reality to make room for socialism (if nothing is true, socialism didn't fail).

So chill, my dude.

>>9632483

Why can't science explain everything, hypothetically?

Not now, obviously, but eventually?

How can you know this?

Are you aware that this, as an unfalsifiable statement on your behalf, is unscientific?

Why are you on /sci/ if you cannot into basic scientific logic?

Are you a sociologist?

>>9636661
Has* the most predictive validity, not had. Fuck.

>>9636661

>>9631701
Both are bad. Nigs moreso.

>>9636912
I disagree. Niggers are bad and scientism is good.

>>9633956
I'm honestly inclined to agree. I'd take scientism over an actual religion any day of the week.

>>9636661
>No-one uses "scientism" to refer the flaws of logical positivism anymore
>anymore
Okay, on one hand, I've got one guy who claims that he has a background with philosophy of natural history who had never heard of it at all. On the other hand, I have you claiming that it was old or common enough that it was possible to recognize when the term changed meaning.

>That which is most true had the most predictive validity
>and claims which are not falsifiable cannot be considered valid.
And yet you have entire fields of astronomy purporting "Dark matter" despite lacking falsifiability, and fields like psychology that mistake consensus for science. That's infractions coming from both ends of the spectrum, both purported as scientists.

I'm not going to bother addressing the second half of your post since its conspiracy level drivel that's tangential at best.

>>9636680
>Why can't science explain everything, hypothetically?
Because science is a mishmash of both inductive and deductive reasoning that can only work within observable phenomenon. Anything beyond observation falls more into metaphysics.

>Not now, obviously, but eventually?
Because it is completely illogical to believe or assume that humans are capable of understanding a reality that is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. It is neither empirically nor epistemological sound.

>Are you aware that this, as an unfalsifiable statement on your behalf, is unscientific?
Science is a subset of philosophy. Using science to verify philosophy is completely assbackwards. This is the most profoundly stupid question you could have possibly asked.

>Why are you on /sci/ if you cannot into basic scientific logic?
Scientific logic is a subset of logic. He can still perform deduction without empirical observation.

>>9633956
>>9636918
>sciance can be made as religion, can't you see it brainlets?
Science as a religion is cold nihilism.

Just become a deist.

>>9631675
Remove biology, esp. microbiology/biochem peoples.

>>9637311
Nigga, Microbio is practically the most sciency science you can get. Why on earth would you remove that?

>>9636953
>Because science is a mishmash of both inductive and deductive reasoning that can only work within observable phenomenon. Anything beyond observation falls more into metaphysics.

the ability to observe sth is dependent on wether tools to do so are available or not. how do you come to this conclusion? why isn't it just a matter of time and progress until humanity can explain everything?

>>9637420
>why isn't it just a matter of time and progress until humanity can explain everything?
You're changing the criteria. You originally were asking why SCIENCE can't explain everything, now you're asking why HUMANITY can't explain everything.

>>9632383
>>If you claim that this is all apart of a conspiracy by an International Jewish cabal to push Cultural Marxism, then get the fuck out of here this board is not for you!!!
This but unironically

>>9636680
>Why can't science explain everything, hypothetically?
Because that's not what it was designed for. The methods that we call "scientific" were made to help us answer a very specific type of questions, and when it comes to questions which lie beyond its grasp it is simply unable to say anything about them.
Math, to use an example that should be completely uncontroversial for this board, is a field completely independent from science and in which the methods of science hold no sway. In fact, if anything it's science which depends on math and not the other way around.

>>9633956
To have our society worship "science" as a religion means to surrender control of it to sociologists and gender study majors. Good if you believe these fields and its practitioners have any kind of legitimacy, horrific if you don't.

"Science" is a very broad term.

>>9637447
I'm not the one who asked.

Also I called it humanity but this was synonymous with science and I don't see what difference it makes to seperate these terms

>>9637420
>how do you come to this conclusion?
I don't think you understand how monumental of a concept "everything" is. I don't think you understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning either.
You are making a fundamental error in trying to explain absolutes through observation. It doesn't work.

>>9637493
>Also I called it humanity but this was synonymous with science and I don't see what difference it makes to seperate these terms
It makes no difference only if you believe that science is the only valid way to gain understanding of something. If this were indeed the case, then about "humanity being able to explain everything" and "science being able to explain everything" could indeed be used interchangeably.
But if there are things which can't be explained through the methods of science but can be explained by other methods, you can't use them interchangeably.

>>9636916
...Eh. I'll side with anyone who hates Nigs.

>>9633803
why don't you start off by proving that with science?

>>9637511
I understand science as gaining understanding of sth in general.

>But if there are things which can't be explained through the methods of science but can be explained by other methods, you can't use them interchangeably.

so going after this definition, what other kind of methods are there? I can't think of any but I am stupid, too.

>>9638087
>sth
short for "something", I'm assuming?
That was the old definition of science, which is why theology used to be called the "queen of the sciences"
>so going after this definition
you mean the one you gave? There are no other methods because it would encompass literally everything, even shit like astrology.

If a question doesn't have a scientific, and thus empirical answer, maybe it isn't a very good question in the first place.

>>9631675
>How do we stop scientism?
Make philosophy of science part of the science curriculum.

>>9634148
She spelt "alternative" wrong.

Can you verify or disapprove that assumption?

>>9638576
Fuck no. Popper is flaming horseshit. Khun is horribly outdated. Modern PoS is scientism by brainlets that don't study science.

>>9636953
>Anything beyond observation falls more into metaphysics.

So, shit with no evidence. Gotcha.

>a reality that is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.

That which is stated without evidence, is discarded without evidence. Plus. "extraordinary claims" yadda yadda you know the drill.

>Science is a subset of philosophy.

So is astronomy from astrology. Does not stop astrology from being debunked by astronomy over and over. Your statement makes as much sense as you have shame.

>>9638583
spelled

>>9631675
when people like Miles Mathis destroy (if ever) the Scitriarchy, scientism will fall with it, unfortunately it won't be long before it rises again, with a new gaggle of idiots screaming lies from the top of their appeal to authority lungs as if they or the authorities knew

>>9638845
>correcting something that isnt incorrect

>>9638833
>That which is stated without evidence, is discarded without evidence.
Redshift demonstrates that the Universe is expanding. "What" is the Universe expanding into? "What" is the Universe expanding from? The limits of reality are indefinite, and that's based on empirical observation. You, on the other hand, are claiming that existence is definite enough to be quantitatively and entirely understood. If you want an extraordinary claim, look no further than that.

No one is making extraordinary claims except for you.

>Does not stop astrology from being debunked by astronomy over and over.
You've got it backwards.
Astrology is derived from astronomy. The two were both studies of celestial objects (including their impact on human affairs). It wasn't until heliocentric theory arose that the term "astronomy" was created that astrology came to refer exclusively to human affairs/terrestrial events.

The advent of astronomy limited astrology by mutually exclusive concepts.
A more apt comparison would be the distinction between natural philosophy and science, with the scientific method spawning (but being distinct) from natural philosophy. They are both branches of philosophy though.

>>9638305

>>9639038
There are better ways to word that statement if I wanted to bait for (you)s. I suppose I should add the addendum that only applies to questions about reality- mathematicians looking for results from a given set of axioms are probably doing good work.

>>9639055
>>9638305
Reality is not always empirical but still requires attention.

The flaw isn't in the question. The flaw is in reality.

>>9631675
Make it a criminal offence to use the word theory in place of hypothesis.

>>9631691
sadly, to some people it is

this is what he wants to end. I do to, but that is equivalent to curing general stupidity.

>>9639086
I think you should consider again more deeply what exactly the nonempirical reality you are interested in is.

>>9639086
you're a flaw in society

>>9632424
I find that it comes mostly from the religious world, but yeah. I don't understand why people can't comprehend the concept of a cold, impartial fact, bereft of any religious implications. It's like they honestly can't believe that scientists can be so devoted to a subject that isn't religious in nature. Thus, they project their own desire to worship something onto those researching facts by assuming that those researchers are secretly acolytes of a science religion.

>>9632942
>some gender studies idiot claims to be on the side of science
>SCIENCE IS SHIT NOW!
The problem is the fact that these people don't know what the fuck they are talking about. You simply can't cure stupidity.

>>9632316

>>9639102
Done.

Great discussion.

>>9639194
Well, that's a shame. Hopefully you'll rethink your stance sometime later.

>>9633910
Bill's understanding of philosophy is laughable. What a fucking joke

>>9633913
>Well he is right
Philosophy isn't skepticism you fucking dolt

>>9639210
Why?

>>9639227
Seeing as it's axiomatic it can't be proven, but the notion of nonempirical reality is a little silly to investigate.

>>9639230
There's no reason to assume that reality is wholly empirical to begin with.

>>9632978
define deez nuts first lol

>>9639243
Sure, that's valid.

>>9635066
>The question of "what matters?" itself can't be answered scientifically.

Paraphrasing: "Although a statement may have the form of an interrogative, if no possible answer, right or wrong, can be imagined, then it isn't actually a question." - Chomsky

>>9639256
It does have answers though. Plenty of answers.
It's not rhetorical. Just teleological.

>>9639252
Yup. Great discussion.

>>9633992
Logic is set of axioms, that are self-inherently delf defined. A.KA. circular reasoning.
Everything is based on a fundamental assumption, also know as faith. Objective truth exists; to imply all truth is relative is a absolute statement.
Read thomas Aquinas, or Book of John.

>>9635013
>what are numbers
show me one in the material realm.
It doesn't exist. You can show me one OF something, which is just a represenative or abstraction of that number.
Numbers aren't real in the material realm, but we still use them. Can you really use something that doesn't exist? Math , stories, equations, these are all meta-physical properties.
I'll cut to the chase, go down deep enough on this, you'll have to make a choice on what is the fundamental axioms of logic; I like the great scientific for-fathers (Michael Farady for example), take the faith in Jesus Christ as the prime mover for everything in existence.
>Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

>>9635043
AHAHAHA.
This line of thinking is exactly how the transgenderism and LGBT rights movement is gaining traction.
Okay, using the scientfic method to define soemthing, take a sample of the meaning of a word over a small "expert group: orentire populaiton.
Will everyone agree on what the word means? What is the threshold you need to pass before defining a term? 51%, 56%, 99%, 99.99%???
Not everyone will agree, leaving the word relative and not absolute in meaning.
Apply this to ethics.You'll realize that your jsutfication for something cannot come from self reasoning alone, you need a prime-mover.

>>9633878
Why are you so retarded that you need a class to teach you logic?
That's the real question.
Only fucking morons need it.