How do we stop scientism?
>>849286
by killing all the scientists
>>849286
Distinguish it from real science at every possible opportunity.
We don't but you can try if prefer to live in Muslim theocracy under sharia laws.
>>849286
We don't need to it's already starting to implode.
Oh I don't know why don't you pray for them to stop
When Caesar reincarnates and becomes the Illuminated God Emperor of Mankind.
>>849297
t. butthurt scientist
>>849297
desu a sharia theocracy with white people only would be perfect, arabs are absolutely scum of the earth
>>849286
We can't and shouldn't.
Scientific education promote increased wellbeing and moral development.
>>849331
>sharia theocracy with white people only would be perfect
This. That is why Iran is so based.
>>849343
Not scientific. Scientism.
>>849348
That's just a meme.
>>849331
>desu
fucking weebs get off my board
We don't. American capitalism benefits more from STEM robots instead of intellectuals who can actually think.
>>849286
Just point out that the people involved in propagating it don't actually know what they are talking about and demonstrate why.
>>849371
>implying scientism has anything to do with actual science
>>849384
>>>The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
>It's yet another positivism thread
yawn
>>849384
It doesn't, but leaving Phi of science out of the curriculum would do that to you.
ITT: Non-stem-plebes-and/or-mentally-underage-faggots-that-will-never-ever-appreciate-the-artwork-of-god!
>>849286
For a start, you're going to need to define scientism.
>>849354
The acronym t b h is filtered to desu desu.
>>849331
>desu
I'll give you a life estimate of about 20 minutes in such society
>>849354
>not knowing about the wordfilters
Newfag get off my 4chan.
>>849421
popular bad thing that college kids do that i am told not to like
>>849421
I fucking love science facebook page followers cult
>>849421
The almost religious like faith put into institution of science and the word of scientists, coupled with the belief that science does or can answer all questions worth asking, and an overall lack of actual critical thinking or reasoning.
>>849443
unfollowing IFLS and George Takei were the two best facebook decisions I've made
>>849421
>define scientism
Done.
>>849443
It's better than Spirit Science.
>>849463
that's not a fair comparison. everything is better than spirit science
Define scientism. As far as I've ever seen it's theists butthurt that there are people who don't take their feels to be evidence of their feels being correct.
>>849445
>They disagree with me, so they must lack critical thinking or reasoning.
Following in Plato's footsteps are we?
You don't, you let people believe it for the same reason they believe in religion. The epistemiological limits of science don't matter to average Joe out there and it probably gives him a bit of comfort to hear Sam Harris say people are naturally moral and should therefore be moral. What does a misleading notion and the following of secular religion matter to society at large? Or to you?
>>849478
This. Positivism is a legitimate problem. However 'scientism' is just a buzzword for when people feel uncomfortable with naturalistic explanations.
>>849460
That's Unitarianism though...
You were asked to define it, not give an example of it.
>>849421
Scientism is the belief that science is trustworthy.
An example of scientism:
>I believe the theory of evolution is more plausible than creation. *tips fedora*
>>849286
>scientism
You don't, this train has no breaks faggot.
>>849478
Scientism comes when people believe that invoking the results of scientific experiments replaces making an actual argument for their case. And refuse to actually consider their own ontological and epistemic foundations as something that needs to be defended, rather than something that is just "given" due to the authority of "science".
Its basically people who are stupid enough to do philosophy without realizing they are doing philosophy.
>>849286
By killing all scientists and establishing a Theocracy based on the Biblical law.
There is no such thing as "scientism". It's a pejorative buzzword invented by redditors who don't know shit about neither science nor philosophy but nevertheless want to feel deep and intellectual.
>>849569
So, basically people who would rather use science as a basis of knowledge than feelings? So, pretty much exactly what I said.
>>849554
Well to be fair that's just called not being fucking retarded.
Far far better to be a "scientismist" and accidentally believe in real things than be taught to be smallminded and uncritical.
>>849486
I'm not saying that, I'm saying part of my definition of scientism is a lack of critical thinking or reasoning. Plenty of people I disagree with think critically, and plenty of people I do agree with don't.
>>849286
How is scientism even a problem. I'm not arguing that it's correct since it obviously isn't. I just don't see why a bunch of Pajeets masturbating to star dust have any relevance whatsoever.
Scientism can only be a danger in fields that's fairly new and who adopts methods and resourced from different subjects. Take people studying "city planning" who have to study both sociology and geology. And that's if the leading people in the field "city planning studies" start to write on scientific methodology and getting balls deep into philosophy of science. But I've never came across a case when this has happen.
The "worst" I've came across have been scientists of this kind adopting naive realism or being pragmatists, and that's not really that bad.
>>849421
New to the thread, but I would define scientism as:
>A set of beliefs in which theoretical and applied science are the only truly valuable advancements that exist or can possibly exist. All non-scientific notions of "goodness" are irrelevant.
Examples of scientism are generally people who autistically encourage people to go into STEM and denigrate all non-stem fields. Music, literature, culture in general are all worthless, only increasing the bank of knowledge and applied technology matters.
>if scientists aren't forced to pay lip service anymore to muh jaysus, they must be stopped at all costs
Is there any form of introspection that is more permanently butthurt than the Abrahamic religions?
Scientism has nothing to do with butthurt theists. I'm an atheist and scientism annoys the fuck out of me. It's feelsy religion substitute that has almost nothing to do with actual inquiry. Adherents of scientism often aren't even interested in scientific theories or methods, only in circlejerking over the superiority of science to Abrahamic religions (specifically Christianity) or repeating "we're all made of stardust" type platitudes about the wonders of nature. The roles, mechanics, or limits of science are completely ignored.
>>849736
I think you made up a straw man based on exaggerated interpretation of bad reddit posts.
>>849736
so a literal strawman position you made up? Have you seriously met someone like you describe?
>>849653
Even Abrahamism is better than your positivism. Science has only made the life of the worker worse as technology has allowed the capitalist classes to exploit the surplus-value of his labor.
>>849760
Return to commons when?
>>849636
I don't think anyone holds this opinion. I have never seen anyone say that music is worthless because it's not scientific.
The word positivist refers to someone that thinks anything that is not empirical verifiable should not be considered. However since no one uses this word, it means they have something else in mind, I think that other thing in mind is butt-hurt since I only see the word used in defense of religion.
>>849286
No need to stop it, just be sure to continue reading philosophy so you understand that nothing scientific is objective.
>>849805
>beliefs can be correct or incorrect
Scientism? What's next, historianism? Putting your faith into what historians say?
>>849809
Everything in science is objective. What the fuck are you talking about? Science is literally about making things objective.
>>849594
Actually the distinction is the people who are willing to use their reason vs people who only follow fashionable authorities rather than thinking for themselves ( scientism).
>>849445
Good definition senpai
>>849829
>In that case you might as well try and stop stupidity
Yes, that's actually the entire point, you fucking idiot. If you don't tell people they're wrong when they have incorrect ideas that are dangerous to the wellbeing of of society, you're responsible for whatever happens as a consequence.
>>849817
It's not. Of course, it must think it is in order to operate functionally at all, but at a higher level of perception (philosophy) it isn't and we as a species can't just let that be forgotten.
>>849810
>beliefs can't be correct or incorrect
you can't make this stuff up senpai
>>849817
Emperically gathered facts are objective, the interpretation of them is not. So it depends on what part of science you are referring to. A huge part of science is theory and some stuff is somewhat arbitrary such as defining what a planet is or is not.
>>849838
Science is about testing and attempting to falsify hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been falsified by empirical observation contradicting its predictions, we know objectively that said hypothesis was false.
Scientism? Science is suddenly a religion?
>>849779
>I have never seen anyone say that music is worthless because it's not scientific.
I, unfortunately, have, which is why I proffered the definition I did.
And it's not quite positivism, because the "scientism" crowd I've dealt with adds a whole bunch of things that are empirical to the proverbial trash pile because they're not sufficiently scientific.
You can empirically track things like wealth, or at least production of various goods and services. You can argue that increasing production of such is worthless because it doesn't advance "science", and that resources that were being put into, I don't know, grain production should instead be redirected into expeditions to Neptunian moons just because.
>>849846
We only have interpretations. The concept of a fact itself is an interpretation. The concepts of objectivity, empiricism, etc. All words and concepts are all interpretations.
>>849865
>All words and concepts are all interpretations
And this is objective?
>>849297
>We don't but you can try if prefer to live in Muslim theocracy under sharia laws.
The west is willing to ignore science, when it doesn't support their political agenda, just the same as the Muslims.
Look at how homosexuality is being portrayed as "normal", and not a genetic / biological abnormality. Look at how females are being portrayed as physically "equal" to men in police, fire service, and military circles. Science, and biology, contradicts the shit out of western political agendas, and yet the west ignores it as if they were no different than the fanatical Muslims people make fun of...
I think the people in this thread that don't believe scientism exists just haven't met the sorts of people who believe that shit, fortunately for them.
>>849852
>we know objectively
Not metaphysically possible. Also, a hypothesis is always replaced by another hypothesis - something not considered true, but considered the least false at the current moment.
>>849297
Nothing wrong with islam. It's the religion of peace.
>>849861
So it's policy issues and valuation.
I think that disagreements on objectives should be ironed out first before extrapolating policies such as level of investment.
>>849852
Read Hume's problem of induction. We can never know, Philosophically speaking, that the universe will continue to operate as it has in the past. Whenever we do an equation assuming gravity as 9.8m/s/s, we're assuming that gravity still works and will work the way it always has. Its definitely a nit-picky problem, but that's philosophy.
Philosophy of Science class is pretty much 100 years of scientists trying to justify the Inductive method. It's a non-issue, but at the same time it isn't.
>>849865
>We only have interpretations.
The table in front of me sure as fuck isn't an interpretation. It's physically there.
>>849877
Nope. But it's a less falsifiable interpretation than scientific thought can provide.
>>849886
>Not metaphysically possible.
Yeah, nah, you don't know shit about metaphysics. There's more to metaphysics than solipsism.
>>849878
homosexuality has been normal in nearly all societies before they were introduced to abrahamic faiths and is seen in almost every single animal species. it's pretty damn normal. besides that saying that something shouldn't be done because it's not "normal" is retarded
>>849894
>Read Hume's problem of induction.
Too bad you failed to understand it. The scientific method is the solution to the problem of induction, because it accounts for the cases where induction fails. In those cases we have to dismiss and/or modify our old hypotheses or come up with new ones. So due to its open-mindedness science is optimally prepared (and actually even hopes) for failures of induction.
Also nice to see that you completely ignored the post you replied to.
>>849897
It's an interpretation that your organic structure is capable of. It's dependent on that, you, ie it is not objective.
Also, a table is a terrible example for your argument. A table is a concept on top of other concepts. First it would be a "physical object", "wood", "legs" and "surfaces" etc.
>>849894
>scientists trying to justify the Inductive method
Literally nobody does this. Science is all about testing your predictions over and over again, i.e. relies on being skeptical of induction.
>>849904
Uh huh. And yet you think objectivity happens, rather than being a (massively false) interpretation among infinite interpretations.
>>849918
You can jerk off over semantics, but it doesn't change the objective fact that right now there is a table in front of me.
>>849917
Bro I'm not saying fuck the scientific method, I'm saying we don't have 100% epistemic justification for any inductive "knowledge." That is in no way controversial.
The scientific method doesn't account for induction's failure, it IS induction. Inductions problem is lack of justification.
Philosophy isn't trying to dethrone your Scientism, don't worry. It just looks really closely at the seams of reality and tries to make sense of them.
>>849937
You mean I can break down your thought pattern and expose the interpretational nature of your conclusions, but it doesn't matter to you? Okay then. Stick to your science.
>>849934
Some things are simply objective and not up to interpretation. Deal with it.
>>849924
Look at a philosophy of science syllabus and read, scientist philosophers tried for a long time to either avoid induction (through things like falsification) or justify its use (by arguing it would be the best of all possible means of getting information in all possible worlds, a la Leibniz, so lets just use it).
Even falsifying a theory relies on induction because it relies on other theories of induction to test it: ie. Testing germ theory relies on believing that this telescope is working because of bent light etc etc.
>>849948
>The scientific method doesn't account for induction's failure, it IS induction
Then you fundamentally misunderstood the scientific method.
Here's a simplified flow chart. You should have learned this in elementary school.
Stop encouraging pop science and make real science look as unfun as possible to discourage shitters that don't belong in the field. Engineers are the best example, because if there's one thing you don't want, it's a bad engineer.
>>849967
You think this because you lack the creative imagination that philosophy is capable of.
>>849955
You did not "break down" anything but your own ability to accept reality.
>>849980
You shouldn't bait like this on /his/, by far the autism demographics are higher
>>849909
It's normal for kids to be born with lazy eyes, anon, so are they "normal" too? What about cleft palettes, are they "normal"?
Of course not.
You are a perfect example of an individual ignoring science because it doesn't support your agenda.
>>849971
>Look at a philosophy of science syllabus
I reject the authority of "philosophy of science". There are some useful branches of philosophy, but "philosophy of science" isn't one of them. It's basically a circlejerk of people who have only a very superficial understanding of science and it never yields any results relevant to science. Basically only aimed at pop sci redditors who want to feel deep while spouting trivialities and not knowing shit about actual research.
>relies on believing that this telescope is working because of bent light etc etc.
We do know how telescopes work. Objectively. Don't go full retard.
>>849351
Meme magic is real.
>>850016
>I reject the authority of "philosophy of science". There are some useful branches of philosophy, but "philosophy of science" isn't one of them. It's basically a circlejerk of people who have only a very superficial understanding of science and it never yields any results relevant to science. Basically only aimed at pop sci redditors who want to feel deep while spouting trivialities and not knowing shit about actual research.
This is one of the most retarded pseudo-intellectual things I've ever read and it perfectly sums up everything wrong with Scientism
>>849985
Sorry anon, but preschool tier solipsism is not the pinnacle of "creative imagination".
>>849987
Are you really this dumb? You can't grasp how a "table" requires conceptual prerequisites in order for the concept of one to be defined? And then, following this process of conceptual reduction to its logical end is one way of more or less grasping what I am trying to say.
God damn. This shit is fucking elementary in philosophy at this point, get your shit together and stop thinking that your human models of reality are the same as the infinite reality that there is.
>>849633
How is going to hell a problem?
>>850004
>hat doesn't even mention induction, faggot.
Because - as I just explained - science is not based on induction.
> You don't understand philosophy
Projecting again, are we?
>>850016
I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled at this point, but srsly mate there's a difference between looking in depth at how reality works (philsophy) and taking the commonsense approach and just working with what we have (science). They're two different fields, and you're talking in the scientific as I'm talking in the philosophical.
>We do know how telescopes work. Objectively. Don't go full retard.
I done got trolled, senpai. Don't talk about philosophy if all you've ever read of it is other people's philosophical shitposts
>>850023
Then your position is "philosophism". Pretty dogmatic and close-minded.
Scientism was created when people figured out how fucking useless and pointless is too study shit like philosophy. You are literally only capable to use yout knowledge to solve problems concerned by philosophers, i.e. the ultimate circlejerk.
>>850004
>that doesn't even mention induction
Dear God. He has absolutly no ability to read understand anything even remotly abstract
>>850016
>I reject the authority of "philosophy of science"
Wait you are rejecting the very things that support science?
>We do know how telescopes work. Objectively
His point is we know how telescopes work by induction. This means any sort of proof involving telescopes is going to be limited by the problem of induction.
Any researcher that is not aware of the problem of induction is going to have incredibly shitty results.
>>850033
The table in front of me is a physical object. And it's still here. All your talk about "concepts" didn't magically make the table vanish.
DAILY REMINDER THAT PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE IS NOY THE SAME AS SCIENCE AND ALL THOSE PHILOSOTARDS WHL THINK THEY CAN GIVE CONCISE OPINIONS ABOUT SCIENCE SHOULD BE PUT DOWN.
>>850041
>looking in depth at how reality works (philsophy)
Actually that's a job for science and not philosophy.
>>850060
daily reminder that all caps posts are shills
>>850052
>Wait you are rejecting the very things that support science?
The thing that supports science is the shitload of objective evidence that it works. "Philosophy of science" has never had any impact on science, and most often tries to discredit science.
>Any researcher that is not aware of the problem of induction is going to have incredibly shitty results.
What makes you say this? Do you have no knowledge of science at all?
>>850053
For some time science operated on the exact opposite belief. It went done Kant's route and declared that the real table is inaccessable and you can deal with the idea version of the table that exists in your head.
What you are doing is just taking the epistemology that you were most exposed to and declaring the absolute unquestionable truth of the universe.
>>850053
Does that "table" exist for a dog too? The physical part maybe, but the entire concept of a table? What about a worm? An amoeba? Oxygen molecule? A tree?
>>850070
>>850052
>The thing that supports science is the shitload of objective evidence that it works. "Philosophy of science" has never had any impact on science, and most often tries to discredit science.
This, for some reason a scientists doesn't need to study philosophy to do science. Its not likw your experiment is going to explode because you don't ponder like a retard about hao i now dis real.
>>850060
Daily reminder that Philosophy of Science was undertaken by actual goddamn scientists who were trying to improve and justify the methods they used.
fucking retard
>>849286
There's no need to stop it. Scientism people may be misguided, but they're pretty harmless as far as misguided groups of people go. Anti-science people are far more dangerous.
>>850071
>It went done Kant's route and declared that the real table is inaccessable
Platonic forms are a pretty useless concept and merely a relict of primitive solipsistic thinking.
>>850016
>It's basically a circlejerk of people who have only a very superficial understanding of science and it never yields any results relevant to science.
Couldn't agree more. Only someone who doctorates in a science, say psychology, should have a say in scientific method. Oh wait, that's Popper.
We need something from the natural sciences. We need someone with a Ph.D. from a top-tier university such as Harvard before they can go on and have an opinion about science. Like Kuhn. Hold on, I fucked up again, didn't I?
It's almost like you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or know that a large part of philosophy of science are conducted by scientists conducting research at a very high level, way ahead of people who simply have a master's degree since methodology is really fucking important no matter what you study.
>>850072
>Does that "table" exist for a dog too?
Yes, my dog can bump against the table.
>The physical part maybe
So you finally accept that physical reality exists?
>>850060
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
>The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.
>>850089
> Caring about usefulness
lol you're an engineer not a scientist
>>850082
Any example?
>>850091
So what? Kuhn philosophized a little bit because he felt the need to appear pseudo-intellectual. It had no impact on actual science however.
>>850081
It's more like that once you finish recording the data you need to interpret it.
>>850089
Platoism is contrary to solpisism. I do not personally go for Kant's epistemology. However there is no empirical way to refute it, you'd have to refute it philosophical. The fact that you are even interested in refuting it shows that you need this type of thinking.
>>850095
They were scientists who were at the edge of our knowledge of the microscopic. That what they discussed was also philosophy has nothing to do with what most philosophers say about it. Obviously someone who is an expert in a topic will make valid philosophical inquiry about that subject.
>>850097
Platonic forms have no explanatory value either.
>>850111
>interpreting data is philosophy
Dear god, just don't say that discussing bayesian statistics is also philosophy, it will just show me you are not educated on these subjects.
>>850111
>once you finish recording the data you need to interpret it.
Applying mathematical methods and comparing the results to your predictions, or deducing new hypotheses, does not involve any philosophy though. It's a scientist's job. A philosopher would not be qualified to do this because he's lacking 5 years of science education.
>>850117
Philosophers of science are scientists and scientists are philosophers of science.
>b-but they're scientists first and foremost! that's their primary occupation!
>>850139
This is generally what actual scientists study the philosophy relevant to their position.
>>850142
Can't possible say that science and philosophy are on the same team!!!
>>850094
Not only are you being a douchebag on purpose and disregarding the core of my argument, but you're still jumping to erroneous conclusions. No, I don't accept that physical reality exists objectively. It is one aspect of our HUMAN interpretation that other organic structures may share, that is all. It is not shared across all, and this does not mean that you have a single organ for truth in your body. You only have organs which form interpretations.
>>850144
Except they don't, because it adds nothing of value.
>>850154
But we already established that my dog lives in the same objective physical reality. For him the table exists just like it exists for me and for everyone else. But if you're so certain that you can talk away the table, try your best. Btw can you walk through walls? After all they don't physically exist in your world view, right?
>>850128
>Proper scientists can have opinions on science that happen to be of a philosophical nature
I put emphasis on the proper scientis part.
>>850142
But the things discusses are nothing compared to what philosophers who haven't study science say. They discuss about implications, of some results and how to interpret it. An example would be Feynam diagrams which were created to simplify quantum events. An older example is the use of vectors and vector calculus to model mechanics. This has huge epistemological impacts but isn't actually giving more knowledge. But the discussion on how to teach science is far more different than OMG U KNOE U CANNOT KNOE BECAUSE INDUCTION.
>>850106
Why didn't you say anything about Popper?
>>850117
That's becayse they had the ability talk about the philosophical consequences of quantum mechanics. Something which Krauss and Le Black science man lack.
It's like, they were almost, philosophers.
>>850170
>For him the table exists just like it exists for me and for everyone else.
You sound like the solipsist more than I do, honestly, projecting the human interpretation over all others.
>>850172
Isn't it consensus that Pooper is outdated?
>>849354
Hello, Reddit!
>>850178
The philosophical implications of quantum mechanics are actually scientific implications. The impossibility of free will for example has been evidenced by QM.
>>850178
Holy fuck, understanding QM is essential for any PhD. Not defending the popsci faggots but it is such an important and broad fiedl that anyone needs to get more than just a quick view to doctorate.
Said that, you are just broadening the definition of philosophy and saying the bullshit "EVERYONE IS A PHILOSOPHER" to sneak you shitty subject into important matters. Yes, their talk is philosophical, but I've never heard of a scientifist going to the philosophy department to ask for guidance and neither Bohr or Einstein did that. What I'm trying to say, is that there is still a divorce between people who study philosophy and scientists regardless of the discussion scientists have. And philosophers nowadays concentrate more making bullshit critics of science without trying to understand what science actually is.
>>850214
>The impossibility of free will for example has been evidenced by QM.
Ideas about the possibility of free will greatly depend on what is defined as the self. Is my physical brain myself? What about my body? Or is it something abstract and transcendent? Is there even a self?
>>849286
Why would you want to stop scientism when it enables your persecution complex that gives relevance and context to your worldview?
>>850187
No, at least not in sociology where he's as strong as ever. He's arguably stronger in the social sciences than the natural ones since the biggest problem with Popper is to ensure you know *what* you've falsified; if your experiment is a failure, did you falsify your tools as invalid or the scientific theory you investigated? It's fairly easy to get around these problems, or at least have everything in check, when working within the social sciences.
>>850253
>Social Sciences use popper
Nigga wat?
>>850241
>And philosophers nowadays concentrate more making bullshit critics of science without trying to understand what science actually is.
Ironic considering that science is an offshoot of philosophy.
Also, oft enough philosophers are discussing concepts which scientists find to be true many years later.
>>850015
Yes, it is normal for kids to be born like that, it's not like it's some supernatural occurence. However, both lazy eyes and cleft palletes hinder the individual, so we try to fix them when we can. Homosexuality, however, does not hinder the indivual so there is no point in "fixing" it, especially considering that, as far as we know, there is no way to "fix" it regardless.
>>849878
This is a perfect example of /pol/fags just hiding in their hugbox and only being exposed to the most radical opinions of the other side until they think its the norm. Pro tip: almost no one believes women have the same physical abilities as men, that's why sports are segregated by gender.
>>850272
>Ironic considering that science is an offshoot of philosophy.
How is this ironic? You see philosophers shitting on eachother all the time.
>Also, oft enough philosophers are discussing concepts which scientists find to be true many years later.
Oft enough metaphysics turns out to be 100% horse shit
>>850303
>that's why sports are segregated by gender.
But why is sports the only positive exception? Why don't we have gender segregation in all aspects of life?
>>850322
We did, back in the good old days.
>>850257
you shouldn't be surprised unless all your knowledge of social sciences are from /pol/ and /sci/.
>>850272
>science is an offshoot of philosophy
No its not. You can try to formalize and justify some claims made by science but its like fucking saying art is an offshoot of philosophy because you study aesthetics. Even, most, mathematicians don't claim that physics is an offshoot of math and set theorists don't say math is an offshoot of set theory. Philosophy of science is a branch of science. Its noy like just because Bacon said some shit suddenly science began you stupid fuck.
>Also, oft enough philosophers are discussing concepts which scientists to ve true many years later
O dear god, even though you clearly are retarded and shouldn't talk about science with an illiterate fuck, let me tell you that for every good "prediction" philosophy has made a thousand wrong "predictions". For example, all aristotelean physics was wrong. And even if archimides knew that Aristotle was wrong and made his laws based on actual observations, aristotelean physics was still used.
>>850338
Many philosophical positions used in the social sciences fail poppers criteria. Not saying they are wrong though.
>>849878
No one claims that Homosexuality isn't normal as in not being the average state of people, they just claim that it isn't harmful and shouldn't be violently suppressed.
>>850341
>No its not.
Oh I see, you haven't read Nietzsche. Well, you should do that.
>>850015
Business student here. I'm LMFAOing at all of you nerds.
>>850377
You are not going to get that big. Middle management or stuck as boss of a district forever because you are not McRoyal Chadinggton.
>>850377
>being this brainwashed
STEM majors seem more angsty about philosophy than Christians. What gives?
>>850477
M8, going as far as to legislate mandatory creationism in schools is not the same as saying LOL USELESS SHIT FUCKING PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL CRAP
>>850303
>Homosexuality, however, does not hinder the indivual so there is no point in "fixing" it,
That sounds like political agenda bullshit, anon. Imagine how much it would suck if 95% of the world were gay, and you weren't. It'd be a pain in the ass to find a partner, and it would suck being a kid. You're just thinking about yourself, and not the gays that just want to be normal like everyone else.
>Pro tip: almost no one believes women have the same physical abilities as men, that's why sports are segregated by gender.
And yet they serve as cops, firefighters, and recently congress has mandated that the military open up combat roles for chicks, despite the fact that they are slower, weaker, and less capable of working with men as part of a cohesive team. They ignore science to push their political agenda, just as you do, just like religious fanatics of the world.
>>850353
It's true, but the methodology within the social sciences are very diverse and you can't discuss methodology without pissing off at least someone in the room.
You only hear the really stupid ones because they're the ones making the headlines, while stuff like people's reaction and actions based on how your doggybag looks like (to see if something that's taboo in certain countries could be introduce to stop people from throwing away as much food as they do now) is way to boring for anyone outside the field to bother with.
>>850500
imagine being gay. 90% of the world is straight, it would be hard to find a partner. what's your point?
>>850477
People are just tsundere for each other, they won't admit that they all want the same thing: knowledge.
>>850186
>Not only can dogs not percieve tables, Dogs also have the ability to phase through them
Always a pleasure when you stop by, /x/.
>>850558
Why then, philosophers don't open a calculus book in their lives?
>>850558
>assume everyone wants to be happy
>assume everyone also wants everyone else to be happy
>study anthropology
>realize that actually most people enjoy being miserable and want everyone else to be even more miserable than themselves
>>850500
The world isn't going to be 95% gay ever.
>>850574
For the same reason a chemist don't study medicine.
>>850554
That people that try to normalize abnormalities instead of trying cure them aren't helping, but hurting people.
In this case, it's you, and the vocal gays that refuse to admit their biological defect to placate their own egos.
>>850592
They often do, at least at a preliminary level.
>>850598
What is the point of "fixing" homosexuality. Who is it for?
>>850598
where is your proof homosexuality is harmful? there's a reason it isn't classified as a mental disorder anymore
>>850616
>inb4 "yeah cause da PC police/liberals/Jews"
>>850583
you're helping with your faggotry
>>850621
more high level discourse on /his/
>>850603
That's a surprise for me because I've never came across any chemist who had to study medicine.
But do you get the gist of my reasoning? People today are studying to become specialists and not generalists.
>>850592
Then STEM faggs shouldn't study the humanities.
>b...but it's different
Nah faggot.
>>850642
Learn your place in the intellectual hierarchy, m8.
>>850646
Your hierarchy is online believed in your own field. Learn some STEM or don't talk about it.
>>850642
>Then STEM faggs shouldn't study the humanities.
Yea because they're totally forced to study anything except some small ethics course, if anything at all :^)
>>849310
Caesar wouldn't take the crown you numbnut
>>850655
I'm pointing the hypocrisy in saying that STEM should also learn humanities if people in the humanities barely grasp what we study.
>>850651
I'm a STEM PhD.
>>850713
>STEM PhD
Sure
>>850494
Protestants aren't Christian, though.
>>850665
To be fair, many do actually understand. It's just specific strains of philosophers and literary critics who have no idea what they're talking about.
>>850558
>they won't admit that they all want the same thing: knowledge.
And they won't realize that what they really want is just power, except for people who read and understand philosophy, because only philosophy digs so deep into will.
>>850665
Have I claimed these people aren't hypocrites?
Scientism is good though.
>>850718
Are you envious?
>>849286
we cant. It's been going on since the Renaissance
>>850740
http://webmshare.com/LzELL
>>850616
That reason goes right along with the subject of this thread: people ignoring science to support their own personal agenda.
>>850747
Read G.H. Hardy.
>>850764
Here's a Hardy for you.
*unzips dick*
>>850721
lol this shit again
>>850721
Catholics try to reconcile scientific discovery and religion.
>>850789
so do mainline protestants
>>850789
Like the proven effectiveness of condoms.
>>850801
They don't deny the effectiveness you moron, they kust don't approve of the choice. Stem cell research is another thing though.
>>850740
Good in what sense? Useful? Depends on your goal.
>>850809
Yeah, don't approve of the choice to avoid getting AIDS
>>849898
>I'm not right but you're less right so I win.
>God exists because you can't prove he doesn't exist.
I don't see a difference, aquaintance.
>>850821
Still has nothing to do with science, rather public health.
>>850060
But it's philosophy that reminds the scientists that their will is still a will to power, not to truth, and that they still operate under value judgments, not morally free objectivism. Two solid observations about all scientific approaches that come only from philosophy. It is also philosophy that gives humanity its greatest goals, not science; science is just the means.
>>850899
>It is also philosophy that gives humanity its greatest goals
Uh....no.
"Philosophy" is just some pretentious bullshit created by some dude, or dudette, that is simply copied by other dudes, or dudettes, that don't have the ability to think for themselves.
>>849421
>>850940
Back to the lab, Prahlad.
sciencefags btfo
>>849354
desu desu desu desu
desu desu desu desu
desu desu desu desu
>>850940
Have you studied philosophy before?
>>850990
Not him, but I studied philosophy and came to the conclusion that most of it is bullshit.
>>850940
>Dudette
Top kek, point out your favorite female philosophers.
>Bonus Points if they weren't an actual philosopher's slam piece
>>850995
Most of it is. But of the stuff that's legit, philosophy reigns supreme over all intellectual fields.
>>851007
Not really
>>849291
Forget it, Nassim, it's Twittertown
>>851014
Absolutely. Scientists and all other non-philosophical types can't even begin to grasp Nietzsche. Hell, most "philosophers" can't (see: the analytics). And of those who do grasp him, they have yet to properly criticize him or show fallacy in his philosophy, mostly because they only wholeheartedly agree... since he is that much of a philosophical giant. He's the perfect example of how philosophy reaches FAR beyond all other fields.
>>850940
¿¡what!? ¡that´s preposterous! you have no idea what philosophy is all about, you´re just angry because you do not get it. Saying dude and/or dudette doesn´t give your "argument" strength, it jus sounds retarded.
>chilling with positivist friends
>put on Michael Snow's Wavelength
>confront myself and my self (as an ontological historical entity) with the mirror of atonality (as a mirror is not an empathic but a reflexive entity, alien to the space and time it reflects and only existing by itself in relation to the other) and realize the boundaries of human thought, comprehension and consciousness
>reach rational ecstasy
>pleb friend with a biology degree gets up and says "what is this shit, lmao, put some cosmos"
>get angry at their alienated subaltern consumption conditioned by the structures of power of the imperialist white economies, but contain it
>calm myself down by remembering quotes from finnegans wake, my favorite book since i was a teenager
>mfw can't express myself because i'm a spectator in the society of spectacle
>>851040
or perhaps it's because he didn't back up his assertions
>>851040
I'm a scientist and I understand Nietzsche. What are you gonna do about it?
>>850016
Wow that was fucking awful.
That post alone made this thread horrifyingly awful enough to archive, so I can later cherrypick the idiocy for the /his/ humor thread.
>>851054
You're right, he usually didn't. He was writing for philosophical types only. This doesn't discredit anything he says, it just makes it more or less impossible to grasp for everyone who isn't a philosophical type.
I forget where he said this, but he said that he rarely recorded his whole process of reaching his conclusions because it was a waste of his time. He had far too many thoughts to waste time having to trace the whole process. He was also known for going outside and taking walks, traveling, etc. This is where he came up with many of his observations and conclusions. So he would go back home / to his hotel or colleague's house or wherever he was staying and write those down.
>>851068
Call you out on your bullshit if you try to argue that anything science deals with is "objective".
Of what of the many Nietzsches are you talking about? Zarathustra? Young Nietzsche? Old Nietzsche? Crazy Nietzsche? Poet Nietzsche? All of the Nietzsches?
>>851096
All of the Nietzsches, which is to say, Dionysus Nietzsche.
>>851090
Everything in science is objective.
>>851112
Not sure what you're going for here. You don't understand him then, plain and simple. Did you expect a different response?
>>851087
Pretty much this, great philosophers tend to be geniuses who somehow see the trajectory humanity without quite knowing why. Pretty sure their unconscious brain does a lot of the work
Nietzsche might seem like some dude who rambles a lot, but his predictions about the West alone justify calling him a genius
>>851113
No, you don't understand him.
>>850940
t.Paajet, who won't do anything without his formula sheet.
>>849443
>NORMAL PEOPLE LEARNING ABOUT SCIENCE IS BAD
But why?
in my experience, only people with humanities degrees/stoners ever use the term "scientism"
they basically hate that science has contributed so much to society
>>851148
>why?
because they aren't really learning about science, but rather a memefied, bastardized ugly brother optimized for groupthink mentality. it's basically entertainment and idolatry
>>851120
None of us here can claim to really understand Nietzsche, because to understand him you would have to be him read all of his works, know his whole life because his life was his philosophy. So stop spitting on Nietzsche´s grave for satan´s sake.
>>851120
Nice try, but I have no interest in playing your game. He's made his thoughts on science quite clear, particularly in The Gay Science and Human, All Too Human.
>One sees that science also rests on a faith: there is no science at all "without premises".
>>851179
I can't take someone seriously who think calling science "gay" is an argument.
>>851150
This whole thread was just another positivism pity party.
>>851179
Wow, you needed bloody Nieztche to understand that we asume some shit in science? Pretty common knowledge in STEM.
>>851186
>>851189
And this is why you still think in ways that Nietzsche cremated back in the 19th century, like "objective thought" and even the notion of a subjective vs. objective dichotomy in perception. You can't at all see any of the implications from his statements.
>>851162
Bullshit. Any amount of greater understanding about the world is good.
>>851186
¿How can you be so stupid? "gay" doesn´t mean homosexual or anything like that, it means quick, happy or carefree.
>>851226
No, I was just saying that everyone in STEM knows that you need to asume basic shit to derive knowledge. Whatever Nieztche thought afterwards is his own shitty view on science considering he didn't study it.
