/sci/ - Science & Math

One is used to debate god. The other says "I don't know, let's find out."

>>9664173
Good vs. bad epistemology

bump

>>9664173
scientism is taking science seriously

>>9664173
Scientism is either correct or doesn't exist.

>>9664173
One is a philosophy, the other is the practice of observing the physical world.

Science is the real thing
Scientism is a modern religion

>>9664173
scientism is the idea that everything can be explained by science, now or in the future. neil is a great example. he's so stupid that he publicly claimed philosophy to be useless because science exists.

>>9664173
scientism is a word that consumers invoke when people use science to question their ostentatious lifestyles.

>>9664173
Science is truth.
Scientism is blind faith in this truth.

>>9664173
>science
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Chemistry_Textbook_Recommendations
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Astronomy_Textbook_Recommendations
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics

>scientism
muh falsifiability, muh popper
muh scientific method, muh SI
muh enlightenment, muh high IQ
muh popsci understanding of quantum mechanics, string theory, relativity

>>9664925
>Science is truth.

No, science is just useful models. To get "the truth" you would need to de-compile the universe and examine the source code (which is obviously impossible).

>Scientism is blind faith in [science].

+ thinking science == truth and thinking things are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (outside of mathematics).

>>9664972
>blind faith
>in science
as opposed to?

>>9664982
It's more like viewing science as greater than life.

>>9664978
>WOAH DOOD! DID YOU LIKE KNOW THAT WE'RE JUST STARDUST?! WOAH MAN!

>>9664205
Scientism is good epistemology.

>>9664925
>Science is truth
>Let's invent an undetectable particle to solve why our data doesn't fit the model and call it a day
>what about Popper and falsifiability?
>Bitch I've just won a Nobel prize who cares let's spend the funds in giant cyclotrons
Science has a LOT of faith in it, whether scientists admit it or not

>>9665344
this is why no one takes philosophers seriously when it comes to science

>>9665344
>>what about Popper and falsifiability?
Kill yourself faggot.

>>9665344
This is why no one takes people who cry about "scientism" seriously.

>>9665363
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Why does /sci/ hate Popper?

scientism is basically someone who take notes from science then argues with those who haven't.
science on the other hand is someone who take notes from science then argue with those who also took notes from science.
One relies on the infallibility of science relative to common knowledge to look smarter and promote science as a way of thinking, the other relies on the infallibility of science relative to common knowledge to shoo off people asking why they need another 20 million dollar grant to essentially start a /skyking general/ at their campus except it's trying to listen for aliens instead of number channels.

Scientism is just extreme logical positivism where people go beyond saying "the unobservable isn't noteworthy", into saying "the unobservable doesn't exist".

It's poor practice and bastardizes actual science.

>>9665344
Found the religiotard

Science: science

Scientism: meta-science pop culture which banalizes and misunderstands the work people do

>>9665479
>>>/reddit/

So he is on TV what STEM-lords are like here and in college? Why are people surprised that a common viewpoint has a celebrity that shares that view-point? Are celebrities obligated to be what we want them to be?

I get disagreeing with the guy, but It's getting pretty autistic.

>>9665422
Everything in science is wrong. We don't care. It's not about "falsifying" but error-bars and domains.

The only people who go on about Popper are people who don't know the first thing about science. Popper also came up with the SJW creed of not tolerating intolerance, hating hate, and this is how we fight bigotry by being bigots to those who disagree with us.

>>9665508
>We don't care.
>We
"You" don't care.

>>9665524
I dont care either.

>>9665524
>University Physics
>Chapter 1 Page 1
>Newtonian Mechanics

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, it's falsified!

>>9665528
2 down, 159,998 to go.

True Scientism: Quine, Bunge, Ladyman, Ross, Rosenberg etc.
Fake Scientism: Bill Nye, deGrasse Tyson etc.

>>9665535
I think everyone at this point realizes that newtonian mechanics is an approximate segue as opposed to an independent theory.
If people still trying to use classical mechanics to describe quantum phenomenon, then you'd have a point.

>>9665576
>segue

No, just no.

>>9665587
Segue was wrong. I probably should have used juncture. The rest of the post still drives what I'm getting at.

>>9664173
"scientism" is a term literary critics invented to hurl at science for the crime of teaching us how the world works, and subsequently, claims the literary critic, irrevocably diminishing the magic of our universe.

Basically brainlets triggered no-one gives a fuck about their postmodern feminist critique of Harry Potter.

There are two terms spoken by the chattering classes that can virtually guarantee everything which follows will be idiocy: scientism, and neoliberalism.

Either or, the person is an ideological moron with nothing of value to say.

>>9665680
That's not "scientism", the word you're describing is "social constructionism"

>>9665680
implying globalization is intentional, and based on science.

It's not. It's based on consumerism/economics which is completely at odds with basic science.

>>9664173
Science: correct way of accesing some knowledge
Scientism: thining ALL knowledge can or should be found by science.
Moral is not scientific. Scientism is retarded.

>>9665680
>implying globalization is intentional, and based on science.
It's not. It's based on consumerism/economics which is completely at odds with basic science.

>>9664925
nice meme

>>9665702
>consumerism/economics which is completely at odds with basic science.

>...in addition, while trying to debate the difference between science and scientism, the users of 4chan (https://boards.4chan.org/)) simply listed the things about aspects of science in popular science that they did not like personally, largely echoing the approach of those they accuse of scientism...

>>9665702
Hahahahah what

>>9665704
well the philosophy of economics/consumerism is.

It's the idea that we should use up all our resources at an exponentially increasing rate, despite the fact that they are limited.

>>9665702
>consumerism/economics
these aren't the same thing at all, they aren't even comparable

consumerism is creating a culture where people buy shit they don't need so you can make mad profits; economics is a science

>>9665702
>some moral values are scientifically true
lmao this is what leftism does

>>9665712
the first thing they teach you in economics is that perpetual inflation of between 1-3% is desirable...

What science is that based on? voodoo science?

>>9665719
that's what scientism is basically and it's true
science helps you make objectively better decisions, that's indisputable

>>9665712
economics isn't based on anything even remotely related to science.

>>9665725
>science helps you make objectively better decisions, that's indisputable
Objectively better by what metric? What makes a decision good?

>>9665725
Not in moral. Science cant say shit about morals. The are 100% subjective

>>9665712
also, consumerism raises GDP, which is the primary objective of economists.

consumerism is merely one of the tools in the economists tool box.

>>9665757
>consumerism raises GDP
bullshit. Kys keynesian retard. Read bastiat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

>>9665761
I've seen that before. There are no citations to go with it. No equations. Nothing. It's basically some economists' opinion. Little better than some philosopher's ramblings...

What science is the broken window fallacy based on?

Can you prove to me that consumerism does not count towards increased GDP?

You can't provide anything. This is a science board. Perhaps you'd be happier in /pol/, /lit/, or /x/.

>>9665766
Consumerism does not raise GDP. Correlation des not imply causation. Your bullshit is pseudoscience.
If you dont even have a clue on how wealth is created, think about Robinson crusoe and you'll find out

>>9665725
>helps you make objectively better decisions
yeah ok, i'm sure you even go find studies that match perfectly with your daily decisions. good thing all those studies told you just how to act today.

>>9665783
>Consumerism does not raise GDP
it absolutely does. Every dollar spent raises GDP. I guess you don't even know what GDP is
>Correlation des not imply causation.
>That's some pretty smart sounding shit. I think I'll repeat it randomly without understanding the required context
> Your bullshit is pseudoscience.
ad hom
> think about Robinson crusoe

As I said, perhaps you'd be happier in /lit/

>>9665793
I mean, it does raise gdp, but you are producing more just to consume and probably without obtaining any pleasure out of it. Faggot.

>>9665799
>pleasure

the great thing about science (unlike artsy fartsy economics), is that abstract philosophical concepts like that are not a consideration

>>9665799
science is a soulless cold hard tool.

economics is a way of thinking.

>>9665806
Happiness is obtained only when you do what you WANT to. If you dont think so, you are saying tha all of us obtain happiness the same way, for instance with consumerism. Objectively bullshit.

>>9665811
Lots of people derive happiness by breaking windows, and that raises GDP

>>9665814
>Lots of people derive happiness by breaking windows
Yes. So now say it, you are a faggot because you thught people allways get happier the same way objectively. Raising the gdp is not good objectively. If you d it to produce windows you later brake, there is no point except you prefer breaking the windows rather than working to make them. Same with consumerism, there is no reson to produce more to consume more if yu prefer not working as much rather tahn consuming more.

>>9665823
economics is not science

Scientism is the excessive use of scientific formalism to impress a gullible crowd of iq89 (while everything being said is scientifically unproven).

>>9665680
>neoliberalism
Why do children keep misusing this word? Goddamn at least take the time to google a word if you don't know what it means before hitting 'post.'

>>9666952
the word is poorly defined because it's been taken from the original meaning to become the counterpart to neoconservatism ( a term that remained pretty stable) and recently, simply any hillary supporter. it's best just to avoid the word altogether.

>>9665747
nothing is subjective

>>9664173
Its the difference between a carpenter using a hammer to build something and a cult praying to the hammer for building something

>>9664173
what about scientology?

>>9665535
falsified by relativity already

>>9665712
>economics is a science
>>>/biz/

>>9665799
>durr it doesn't
>I mean, it does raise gdp, but...
retard

>>9665833
Economy is divided into positive and moral/normative economy.

>>9664904


when you think about it isn't philosophy just the science of words and logic

>>9665012
Scientists is believing in "scientific" things based on blind faith.

>>9668763
The scientific method relies on observation, philosophy sometimes utilizes very common sense observations to try to come up with axioms (I think therefore I am) but most of philosophy deals with really abstract stuff that is only observable in the vaguest sense.

In a lot of ways philosophy is more similar to religion in that it tries to explain why things are (specifically in relation to the human condition) instead of science which is concerned with how things happen.

>>9668763
nah, because a philosopher invented logic without inventing philosophy

>>9664173
Science is a process by which we understand natural processes in the universe.

Scientism is a made up word that stupid people use to create a false equivalence between actual facts and religious/dogmatic beliefs.

>>9668763
i think the biggest differentiator is that philosophy can investigate how activities *should* be done. and that's not a trivial thing. science may attempt to investigate an objective topic, but science itself is a human enterprise--it's open to arbitrary decisions, interpretations or even misconduct. as such, it can only operate well when subservient to the appropriate philosophical frameworks. this is true, whether those involved are aware of those philosophical underpinnings or not. in the case of someone like Neil dGT, he showed how thoroughly he was unaware.

>>9664173

Science is a field of thought.
Scientisim is viewing science from a perspective of a religious person.

>>9665747
>>9665734
These guys get it.

Science is great at many things, but teaching morals and values isn't one of them. Sure, they can disprove say religious morals when for example the Bible gets specifically inaccurate. But alas, we find our meaning through humanist or religious ideals.

>>9665757
>which is the primary objective of economists
[citation needed]

>>9668770
*scientism

>>9664173
When you want to discredit science and/or people who like science you call it "scientism" and claim that there is a problem with it

>>9664925
>science is truth
dumbass

>>9664925
>blind faith in the truth
Did you think this through when you typed it?

>>9665757
> which is the primary objective of economists.
No. I'm an economist and I cannot fucking stand the insatiable compulsion to constantly raise the GDP at all costs, even artificially so. I unironically believe the Industrial Revolution was a mistake.

>>9665724
>the first thing they teach you in economics is that perpetual inflation of between 1-3% is desirable...
t. never taken a graduate level economics class and/or is a keynesian macro faggot (which you're obviously not since you'd at least need to know a bare minimum of economics to be so)

>>9664173
you keep making the same goddam thread, aren't you tired of this shit op? go outside

>>9664173
> Asks What's the difference between science and scientism

>>9669812
what is this,,,,,,, outside you speak of?