Is anyone else seeing this huge Scientism strain running throughout public discourse? Maybe I'm spending too much time on Reddit, where everyone is either an SJW or suffering from Scientism. And it's not just STEM autists, it's even normies. It seems there's a fucking "Expert" for everything.
Economists, psychologists, historians, journalists, political "scientists", policy "experts"... fucking hell, and I used to laugh at Africans because of witch doctors!
>>8153091
nerd
>>8153091
>Scientism
thread ignored
>>8153097
It's a legitimate term of critique IMO.
>>8153109
Too bad I don't care about your opinion in this off-topic thread made by a dumb frogposter
kill yourself my man
>scientists belong on the same level as witch doctors
Nice meme friendo
>>8153430
Blind adherence to scientific dogma and unverified claims is an affront to the scientific method and makes me want to puke it's so vile.
>>8153467
There is a middle ground between blind adherence to dogma and "lol scientists are dumb"
That being said, I've got a feeling that a bitter frogposter like yourself is only upset about this because of some weird inferiority complex tbqh
>>8153091
>they can't bridge the gaps through reason
i'm starting to think the philosophically minded are much rarer than is commonly believed
Calm down you autist
It runs both fucking ways
Hearing Zizek talk about quantum physics makes me want to blow my brains out
People that are ignorant about a subject should not open their stupid fucking mouths
>>8153109
Too bad no one uses it correctly. When people on the various Chans rant about Scientism they don't even understand simple empercism because feels >reals
>It seems there's a fucking "Expert" for everything
Thats a different issue, thats our society trying to professional and restrict free enterprise for the purposes of consistency. And in many, many cases its a good thing because all you have to do is look at some of the books that come out recently full of absolute fucking shit. Are you saying there are no criticisms for Chariot of the Gods because MUH MAINSTREAM theorists?
>>8153091
I like how Zizek refers to the tendency to use science as a tool. He critiques our approach to sociology and psychology as a use of private reason.
>>8153091
Somewhat. It even touches this board whenever somebody mentions metaphysics, even though everyone here is ready to tear it apart in any other context. It's a confused and rather sad thing
To an extent we should defer to experts on topics within that domain. Public discourse often fails to qualify what those domains actually are and some experts speak outside of their domain.
>>8153091
>Maybe I'm spending too much time on Reddit
Thread up for five hours and nobody has mentioned this. Looks like the rumors of a takeover were true.
Generalizing, providing no examples, and providing no solutions.
>Like, does anyone think that science is teh bad and dumb though? Because of my English Lit degree?
kys, TS.
>>8153724
I guess it might be fun for you to have never spoken a word.
WHEREOF ONE CANNOT SPEAK
THEREOF ONE MUST BE SILENT
ITT: feels>reals
Scientism is a legitimate term, and 'Pop Scientists' like Dawkins/etc started it, by implying (if not demanding) that Science can (and should) exist without (or even at the expense of) the Humanities.
They pitted both against one another, and modern 'Science' culture (TBBT, I Fucking Love Science, etc) have only made things worse. I recall a lecture where Dawkins is asked, by a Philosopher of Science, what he thinks is the future of his subject (or what will happen next/etc). Dawkins pretty much responds in saying that he thinks the guy's subject shouldn't exist (and thus his job/etc).
The issue is that you don't see Humanities enthusiasts saying the same about STEM subjects, or shitting on its constituent parts, except in self-defence.
I'll simply say what I've said in another thread: Science is the pursuit of knowledge, whilst the Humanities are the pursuit of wisdom. Both compliment one another, and arguably cannot exist without each other. STEM holds the Humanities to account when they start peddling garbage like Freudian Psychoanalytics, and the Humanities hold STEM to account when they start 'experimenting' with things like atom bombs/etc.
By the way OP, you could have stopped this whole shitstorm by using the term Positivism, which is basically the same thing. Nietzsche/Wittgenstein were still among the first to realize that 'Scientism' isn't a good thing, if not dangerous, as Humans do in fact require the illogical - to a degree.
>>8153932
>I recall a lecture where Dawkins is asked, by a Philosopher of Science, what he thinks is the future of his subject (or what will happen next/etc). Dawkins pretty much responds in saying that he thinks the guy's subject shouldn't exist (and thus his job/etc).
BLOWN
THE
FUCK
OUT
Explain what's wrong with "scientism" without appealing to buzzwords, dumb frogposter.
>>8153921
what kind of crazy hobo do you have to be to listen only to mountain goats?
The scientists want an unlimited range of experimentation, which includes experimentation on human beings. Therefore, they have to destroy history, the humanities, and philosophy - anything that would uphold humanity as something sacred or protected, and rescue it from the test tube and the scalpel. This anti-humanist bent in science goes with the widespread promotion of clearly inhuman practices, such as extermination of children in the womb.
>>8154005
My body, my rights.
End of discussion.
>>8153925
>reals
>>8154003
>by implying (if not demanding) that Science can (and should) exist without (or even at the expense of) the Humanities.
>Science is the pursuit of knowledge, whilst the Humanities are the pursuit of wisdom
You didn't explain anything, kiddo.
>>8154019
Suit yourself, my explanation is sound.
>>8153925
There are no 'facts' (reals), only interpretations.
>>8154011
>My body, my rights.
legitimate point though, because scientistic technocrats are going down the line of saying you have no inherent rights and that your body belongs to the laboratory for scientific study
>>8154026
>There are no 'facts' (reals), only interpretations.
How can there be any interpretation without a fact to interpret?
>>8154024
No, it's not.
>peddling garbage like Freudian Psychoanalytics
You've got nothing to back up this claim, for example.
>>8153984
does reality exist independently of sense experience?
>>8154041
Existence dies with me.
The world is my idea.
>>8153932
> Nietzsche/Wittgenstein were still among the first to realize that 'Scientism' isn't a good thing, if not dangerous, as Humans do in fact require the illogical - to a degree.
>as Humans do in fact require the illogical
Do frame it in those terms; those are outmoded Rationalist vs. Romanticist terms that make an artificial divide between the human intellect, or mind, and the human will, or heart. Rationalists say that we should be logical to the detriment of our passions; Romantics say that we should be passionate to the detriment of our reason. Both proceed from a false Cartesian understanding of human nature which sees the mind and the body as radically separate. A real and logical regard for human nature brings passion in line with reason without destroying passion; Positivist autists want to crush passion and deform human nature, where real philosophy teaches us that the passions are good, and virtue involves properly directing our passions. The picture of the mad scientist who is willing to do the most atrocious acts to acquire a bit of knowledge is not a wise man, he is a madman.
>>8154042
>, we only interpret impressions/appearances.
And from what do we receive our impressions, and what is it that makes an appearance to us?
>>8154053
cont.
The passions are not inherently illogical, so it is false to say that "humans require the illogical". In fact, as rational creatures, it is imperative that we always shun what is illogical, because it is contrary to our rational nature.
Art and music and romantic love are not illogical in themselves, because they appeal to the form of human nature which is logical.
>>8154061
Or, to be it another way, logic is not limited to the mathematical. There is more to logic than sheer deduction; it also requires the premisses upon which deduction is performed, and these premisses are not always mathematical. There is a logical way to reason about human passion, just as there is a logical way to reason about numbers.
this fucking thread again
>wooo i have such deep thoughts
>my feelings are just as important as anything those nasty scientists say
>>8154026
then why do you always leave your house by the door on the ground level? try climbing out of an upstairs window and just making your own interpretation of gravity and floating away
>>8154032
>scientistic technocrats are going down the line of saying you have no inherent rights and that your body belongs to the laboratory for scientific study
[citation needed]
>>8154073
Gravity is a correct interpretation.
That doesn't make it a fact.
>>8153724
>It runs both fucking ways
>Hearing Zizek talk about quantum physics makes me want to blow my brains out
Fucking THIS
>>8154073
is it within the ambit of the scientific method to prove the 'reality' of reality?
can scientists even think to ask such a question?
Just read Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology, guys.
>>8154079
He makes good sense, guy.
http://mariborchan.si/text/articles/the-ontology-of-quantum-physics/
>Is not what Badiou calls the Event, at its most basic, the very rise of re-presentation or appearing out of the flat stupidity of being? So that the Event proper (the Truth-Event in Badiou’s sense) is the For-itself of the In-itself of appearing? Insofar as appearing is always appearing for a thought (for a thinking subject), we can go further and say that the rise of a thought as such is an Event―as Badiou likes to say, thought as such is communist.
>>8154061
>human nature which is logical
what are you smoking
>>8154086
>Tfw you will never get paid for writing drivel
Hey, at least I can write it for free on /lit/
>>8154042
But when we focus on getting certain impressions through certain methods (although having immutability of my perceptive abilities as an axiom), we get perceptions which happen to be logical when related to other perceptions, that make a world of connected and dependent impressions and which understanding ends up being useful. Chemistry could be ideal bullshit just like maths, but even tho, "canon" chemistry methods help us synthetize (subjetively) useful substances.
>>8154105
>we get perceptions which happen to be logical when related to other perceptions
There's no objective way to measure this.
>>8154091
Just because humans often act against reason does not mean that human nature isn't essentially reason. We are constantly reasoning with ourselves, reasoning with our circumstances; all our art, science, and law proceeds from our rational nature. To see that human nature is rational you just have to compare us with the rest of the animals which do not reason.
>>8154110
Correct, which is why subjectivism, which says that all human knowledge is perception and the perception of perception, is sophistry.
>>8153932
You are blowing the extent of "scientism" way the fuck out of proportion. Autists like Dawkins might positivist nay sayers but the vast majority of pop scientists, real scientists and popular intellectuals dont think that way. Carl Sagan or coloured science man never claimed this, all Chomsky ever claimed was that alot of the crap the American government feeds us can be discounted with simple reason and research, vast majority of journalists dont even give a fuck about facts, and so on. The reason why it seems like they only adhere to science is because they are fighting an uphill battle. Dawkins has been fighting his nearly his entire life so that half this country stops thinkin the Bible is the literal truth. Sagan unsuccessfully launched a campaign on pseudo-science. This country is way too spooked for true philosophy or true science to breed and develop, it needs a mental insecticide
>>8154110
There is for me
>>8154112
whatever tell me what you're smoking
>>8154117
Yes, but if you believe that, you can very easily fall into the trap of objectivism, which is (quite literally) taking everything for granted. That is, assuming our perceptions are entirely correct.
If that is the case, then why did we ever doubt them?
This book touches upon this topic OP.
>>8153091
There's science, which is, as an intellectual tradition, very successful. That includes both philosophical foundations of science and the methods developed, which are found mainly in physics and mathematics. Ignoring all this, which many modern "philosophers" and "intellectuals", especially in humanities' departments, like to do, just makes a fool out of oneself.
There also are STEM autists, who, being competent in their own fields, are often completely inadequate in humanities. And they don't realise that they are inadequate, which makes it even worse.
And then there are "believers in science". These people were brought up in christian culture in which God was replaced by Progress achieved by Science. These just wait for a paradise on earth to come through technological advances, and will aggressively defend their promised paradise from any critique.
>>8154061
"Logical", or "rational", in common speech means something like "acting in the optimal way to achieve certain result". Without a fixed result, though, the notion of "being logical" is meaningless. So humans are neither logical nor illogical, they are simply as they are. To discuss rationality we need to bring up the goal first, and there are no inherent goals.
>>8153727
>When people on the various Chans rant about Scientism they don't even understand simple empercism because feels >reals
More often than not "studies" will show two contradictory things though. You can bend the data very often to your own liking and more often than not, scientists are actually guilty of that.
>>8154210
Misuses of the methodology do not render the method itself wrong. Moreover, applying scientific method correctly requires always checking your own results, as well as others' results that you use, for consistency and errors.
>>8154210
Absolutely. Which we need to eliminate as much crap from the pubic debate as we can so people can stop twisting or rejecting valid scientific views for their own ends whether its church groups and creationism or natural medicine advocates and vaccine scaremongering. The philosophers can start by stopping these rants about how there is an overemphasis on empiricism and/or Hegel is the devil, which can be described as nothing short of being autistic.
>>8154261
>He's unironically a positivist
>>8154264
When certain ideas claim to be science, we should properly test them against scientific rigour.
>>8153091
>Maybe I'm spending too much time on Reddit
>>8154261
Ffs...
Read Sellars Empiricism and philosophy of mind. It's a hard fucking book, so it'll probably go over your head, but theres a reason why philosophers claim it's being overemphasized. But youve got it all figured out, huh, and they should stop doing that.
>>8153091
So you're saying we shouldn't consult people who have spent their adult lives learning about specific subjects when we find ourselves involved in a problem about that specific subject?
>There seems to be damage being done to our local ecosystem but fuck those witch-doctor ecologists and their 'science'!
That's dumb, my man.
The business of becoming accredited and recognized as an expert is a little bit more murky and up for debate, but we still need learned people
Also you admit to being a Plebbit browser, so you might as well just gtfo
>>8154569
>So you're saying we shouldn't consult people who have spent their adult lives learning about specific subjects when we find ourselves involved in a problem about that specific subject?
Nah, just that we shouldn't treat them as infallible; nor view science as the answer to all of our problems, when it clearly isn't.
IN FAIRNESS, this goes both ways. There are many scientists who hate the fact that science is politicized.
>>8153091
Science is just empiricism. Empiricism is the only way to settle on shared truths. Sorry, English majors.
>>8153932
>Science is the pursuit of knowledge, whilst the Humanities are the pursuit of wisdom
You do know that what you said sounds like nothing but a deepity, right?
>>8153932
>Humans do in fact require the illogical
Non-sense.
>>8154583
in reality i don't think they are treated infallibly
a truly well rounded answer to a problem should consist of multiple opinions, expert and not
and experts can be shot down and proved wrong, they have before and they will again
Also, if you, or anyone for that matter, thinks that science can be used to solve all of life's problems, then you're just an idiot, despite what your physics or chemistry marks are. So in this regard I agree
>>8154607
>Empiricism is the only way to settle on shared truths.
Lel.
>You do know that what you said sounds like nothing but a deepity, right?
Only if you believe knowledge and wisdom to be the same thing, retard. Also:
>2016
>Using Dan Dennett terminology unironically
I'll bet you call yourself a 'Bright' too, hm?
>>8154617
It's demonstrably true.
>>8154607
How is science just empiricism? That's just silly. If that was true, how would we know about black holes and shit?
That being said, empiricism could and should be used to study the multiverse. But the word universe for everything is an outdated term.
>>8153430
I agree, witch doctors are smarter.
>>8154627
>It's demonstrably true.
I dare anyone to "demonstrate" this "truth" without using a completely retarded notion of what logic is.
Secular thought must crush all opposition under the iron treads of universal humanistic love.
Hail Science.
>>8154666
I'm inclined to agree with the other bloke.
Simply on the basis that "Logic" is an imperfect system, one invented by the human mind to describe reality as it was then understood; not circumscribe around it and declare anything outside itself to be false.
Logic is just another invented thing; there is no more "need" for it in a human life than there is for religion.
You can quite easily live like an unthinking animal for instance; you personally are just unprepared to.
>>8154607
as a counterpoint just consider formalism in mathematics - would a theorem properly derived from ZFC not be a shared truth?
>>8153467
>Blind adherence to scientific dogma
I see what you did there :p No but really, what makes you say that?
Having STEM's in charge of industrial society leads to this.
>>8154750
>he doesn't realize how flawed this argument is
Do you really think that in 3000 years of philosophical debate nobody thought of this argument pal? I won't even try to bust you on it, do a little critical thinking and try to figure out what's wrong with prioritizing science over logic.
>>8153925
DAMN RIGHT
>>8155131
>evola
Just, go
>>8155135
I will bet £100 you haven't read him, lad.
>>8155144
I tried, but I have an intolerance to bullshit
>>8155145
>m'dawkins
>>8155164
What does Dawkins have to do with my disinterest in Evola's bullshit
>>8153925
>reals
>>8153467
>unverified claims
literally anything but science
>>8155167
Indeed, good sir. I too find that Evola just simply is not up to the necessary intellectual caliber from which I may derive enjoyment.
His work shows a distinct lack of rationality per se.
>>8155164
>I'll bet you call yourself a 'Bright' too, hm?
>>>
> Anonymous 06/12/16(Sun)16:37:53 No.8154627▶>>8154
nic e meme can i use iut
>>8155191
What the fuck happened with this post?
>>8154086
complete fucking quackery
and this is coming from a phil/pure math major
but hey, at least it's not string theory
>>8155284
>He's not smart enough to understand the Slovenian
Sceintism is just as dogmatic of a belief system as any fundamentalist religious belief that they criticize.
>>8155289
>he's smart enough to gargle his semen indiscriminately, instead
>>8154086
Zizek likes that loathsome Bohr/Copenhagen shit, which is vitalism.
the average math and physics PhDs have a much higher average IQ than philosophy PhDs, and that's all I care about
>>8155306
There has never been a good criticism of vitalism.
>>8155309
Why do you think IQ is the definitive model for determining the value of one's understanding of concepts? Surely you can see how you're just advocating for an absurdly reductionist value system, right?
>>8155328
you wouldn't be saying this if your field had the higher IQ
brainlet
>>8155284
What makes you write off string theory? Just curious due to your background
>>8155328
There is literally nothing wrong with reductionism, and I despise the impressionable undergrads on here that use it as a catch-all buzzword to criticize anything and everything.
>>8155331
I've just noticed a massive sense of over inflation with the egos of people who subscribe to the same kind of understanding that you do, even though in reality they come often come across as dopey and uninformed about most subjects. Surely you've noticed this unearned sense of arrogance that has permeated through these types of people, that they assume they know things that they actually don't.
>>8155354
There is a great deal that is wrong with reductionist conceptions of the human identity, as it urges all human effort towards the cultivation of material convenience and ultimately ignorance.
>>8154818
>I'm right, I swear, but I'm just not going to tell you why
6/10. made me reply.
Cab? <A huge penisshape arrives> Take me to the ballers!
>>8153467
know what this means? you're a fucking idiot kid.
>>8153091
It was discovered in the early 20th century that profitability is positively verifiable, a move which dealt the final blow to the ideological legitimacy of negative epistemologies.
>>8155284
>he's never read dialectical thought
>he's never considered the mystery of the spontaneous genesis of the appearance out of the inert materiality.
>>8155354
No, there's nothing "methodologically" wrong, or even necessarily "scientifically" wrong, but there is something morally wrong with it, you fucking bourgeois swine.
>>8155284
What made you so dishonest to deny string theory? Anon asked you a question, but you vanished. Sad!
>>8155331
>
>>8155354
there is literally nothing justifiable about reductionism.
>>8154249
criticism of scientism isn't saying that 'all science is wrong' idk where you got that from
>all these literary theorists trying to insult and degrade good science
Lmao, quit trying to justify your bullshit man, this thread is full of Nietzschean ressentiment through and through. Literary theory is fine but if you're really still complaining about positivism and empirical sciences you've got some growing up to do.
>/lit/ tries philosophy of science / epistemology
>>8157255
>criticism of scientism
God you guys suck.
>>8153719
criticism of scientism!="lol scientists are dumb"
are you trolling or retarded
either way back to /v/
What's even worse, they are FUCKING WHITE MALES, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>8157262
>leterally theory is fine
Kys. Slovenians are hella stupid, and make me sick to the core. Get a Bachelor of Science, or stfu
>>8157339
Epic !! :-D
