How do I prove wrong a STEMfag who claims science and ideology are two separate things?

How do I prove wrong a STEMfag who claims science and ideology are two separate things?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=coLx4cyscVw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Please validate my preconceptions

you can't

kuhn.

feyerabend if he gets cocky.

drop it if he still wont get it but make a reference to latour.

Science can become ideological (i.e. scientism) but I'm not sure if it is necessarily and inherently so.

okay then, let me rephrase. Do science and ideology overlap? If so, to what extent?

Both uses representations/models/language. But science and engineering do not require language. They can operate on their own without any need of representations, the models are there to help. See evolution.

Ideology exists only as a representation. They exists as words in a language.

kuhn, the structure of scientific revolutions

You could discuss the various philosophical movements that contributed to the creation of the scientific method. He won't listen, insist the SM spontaneously came into being in a void. At that point you can scream "GOTCHA, FAGGOT!".

>But science and engineering do not require language. They can operate on their own without any need of representations

What do you mean by this? Science requires language and representation: math first and foremost, to translate physical phenomena into something we understand, and language to discuss it.

Unless you mean differently?

What is science?

>math isn't a language
I wouldn't claim math is ideological, but there is no possible communication outside of language. Even logic is a linguistic system for describing human thought.

I can't imagine where people find stem-fags this stupid. Everyone I know are well versed in at least basic philosophy and extremely interested in methodological problems. Is everyone on Veeky Forums spending time with engineers?

There's hard science and then the theoretical part. The hard part is purely making observation/ collecting such as what naturalist do when they collect bugs, hunt animals, track them, or use a microscope. Only from these observation can you build any representation from. Only then can you actually use math. There's also a line of arguments that says the scientific method is actually just a very very systematized process of evolution. That scientific method and engineering, at it's core, arises from evolution in that it is simple experimentation and storing what works somehow. For example in evolution, experiments are done completely randomly and then stored in genes. I ask you this, human beings are the product of evolution. If science and engineering are as powerful as we claim it to be, then they must utilize some aspect of evolution. That is there is a common principles involved in both.

So biology is not a science? Stop sucking those mathfags dick shithead. Mathematics can't even solve the 3 body problem. And if you know anything about science you'll know that most of the mathematics used is approximate. Even in engineering you rely on experimental results more than first principles.

I feel you man. They are just collegefags, meaninglessly enchanted by the idea of a conflict between mathematics and language. Meanwhile everyone knows that you need both in order to excel at anything.

I mean, I'm not going to lie, I do spend some time in Veeky Forums every now and then just to see if anyone wants to talk about economics or historical mathematics, but frequently not.

The problem being that some fields require both. Economics, for instance, you cannot understand without a basic foundation in calculus and English literature/world history.

When it comes to mathematical proofs, I find I actually have more discussions regarding Euclid, here on Veeky Forums than anywhere else.

such a faggot

Well biology uses even more language. It's pretty clear it contains and generates ideology. For example questions on ecosystems are constant field of political turmoil. Even the concept of an organism and it's boundary to outside reality is an ideological realm.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=coLx4cyscVw

>Do science and ideology overlap?
Yes. Read Hegel

It's such shame people don't often consider the intersections of math and linguistics. I constantly dream of common system for examining logic math and more complex thought systems. I love the idea of representing a answer to question in multiple axiomatic systems simultaneously. How ever to truly create such system requires such wast knowledge in multiple fields one person simply can't acquire in one life time.

this thread is evidence this board and Veeky Forums should be nuked

That's after the fact. The ideology occurs only after there's enough observation. Someone has to be the one who makes the collection and observations. Are you going to say that person doing the field work is not a scientist?

...

Oh cool, yeah I am definitely interested in logistics user.

I have Syntactic Structures by Noam Chomsky that I have yet to read. How would you rate that book?

Yet these findings are categorized through use of language. Do you seriously think that scientific data accurately represents the phenomenological experience of the data gatherer or not to even mention the reality as is? Don't you have any idea how difficult getting decent data sets is?

You can't separate them since everything we do is influenced by society and/or influences society. Sure, you can imagine them as separate concepts, but they're still connected. Extreme examples: evolution and biology with eugenics, physics/chemistry with any weapon imaginable, psychology with marketing and other manipulation...

Logistics? I haven't read any chomsky jet. I was inspired mostly by fuzzy logic and it's use of two-dimensional graphs to answer usually binary questions.

Oops. Linguistics. I mean Linguistics, sorry.

>likes linguistics
>hasn't read Chomsky's Syntactic Structures

So why should I listen to what you have to say regarding that field again?

My points of reference are late Wittgenstein and Jaakko Hintikka. More philosophy of language and logic stuff than linguistics.

Is a set of bug collection arranged in some organized manner language? Are genes language?
There's a lot of confusion regarding representations and language.
Representations is a wide net if you want to play that game. Pictures are representation. Neurons are representations. Genes are representations.
Then there's language and there two different aspect of language that must be discussed. There systematic language where you assume some principles and can use those principles to make predictions and simulations. For example English is language to which you can write fiction.

And then there's language where you is only used to store things and communicate it between different agents.
For example DNA technically a language. But you don't say that DNA have an underlying ideology contain within it because there's no simulation to be had. No ideology.

You can do science and engineering without a need for theory, simulations, or models. These things can help and you can win the nobel prize if you come up with a valid one, but in the end you don't exactly need it. The observations and collection is more important than any ideology.

This user is the voice of common sense. I don't understand how one can reject science as a path to the knowledge of things (via observational, experimental, and mathematical methods) and dismiss it as ideology. Science does not preclude philosophy by any means.

>likes linguistics
>hasn't read this one treatise by some pinko pop-intellectual
Wow, you skewered him. Out of idle curiosity, have you read the works of:
>the elder von Humboldt
>Anscombe and Geach, Wittgenstein
>John Locke
>Husserl, Merleau-Ponty
>Heidegger and Kierkegaard (specifically, Concluding Unscientific Postscripts)
>Kripke
If not, then please don't bother bruising your fingers in reply.

just give him a dictionary

Ask him about his interpretation of quantum mechanics, and then ask him for scientific evidence that other interpretations are wrong.

I'm just saying, Chomsky's book on linguistics is a big one. If you claim you're a fan of linguistics and you haven't read Syntactic Structures, you are basically saying you're a fan of economics without reading The General Theory.

I've never read it all the way, but I didn't claim I was very into linguistics or anything. I do have it though. It's nothing like reading his other work, which is admittedly pop philosophy. Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were genuine.

The language used to store things still effects the data. I honestly don't know much about cellular biology so it's pretty hard to comment on specifics here but in terms of categorizing different species is without a doubt a linguistic process and as such a political activity. I'd have get a book from the university library to get the exact point, but for example the decision of whether an animal belongs to a already known species or a new rare never before seen one can determine the rights for land use worth millions of dollars.

Any examples on how ideology shapes the course of scientific research?

If people already have an idea of what they are going to find, this doesn't influence the results of the experiment but the interpretation of the results of the experiment.

Hence why, in Archimedes' Sand-Reckoner, you have the theory of the Geocentric universe being explained using angles of the horizon and Sun/moon.

Your analogy is perfect, but not for the reason that you think. To say that someone is a fan of economics without reading Keynes does not discredit that person's interest whatsoever. Maybe if you had said Adam Smith, I would bite; regardless, you're acting like the gatekeeper to a domain in which you don't even own grazing fields.

All of my frustration is not directed solely at you, but rather your inherited, unearned elitism that serves to browbeat amateurs. The guy fucking told you that he was interested in fuzzy logic, and you point him towards Chomsky like it's the Gospel of John. By way of analogy, suppose the guy arrives at a linguistics cocktail party where guests have naturally segregated themselves into conversations of their own interests. By not reading Chomsky, he may be excluded from some circles, but nowhere near a majority of them.

>I've never read it all the way
Are you an undergraduate?

good post

My point on language regarding ideology is that ideology makes assumptions regarding the world. This is a very important point because not all language makes assumptions about the world, some do and this where the language becomes capable of simulations, model, and theory. There's a divide and this divide is the core of the is/ought problem.

I'll give you this science and engineering uses language Fine. What I won't give you is that science and engineering is purely ideological, that is they can't exists without simulations, models, and theory.

No, I just don't have a huge interest in linguistics. I'm mostly interested in economics.

It does discredit you if you haven't read Keynes. You don't necessarily HAVE to be a fan of Keynes to have read and understood what he's trying to say, but when ''''''economists'''''''' tell me they haven't read Keynes it tells me two things

1) they aren't interested in learning about calculus-derived economics, or even vaguely understanding calculus just to grasp the concept of marginality developed by Walras that Keynes' philosophy is based on

2) they are most likely talking about Adam Smith, or Thomas Sowell when they talk about '''''''economics'''''''''

There's nothing wrong with either of them, but if you cannot grasp the material created by the mathematical economists it shows me you just quite simply don't have the intelligence to be talking about economics in the first place.

Just like that, Chomsky's work is pretty dense, I hear it is relatively hard to grasp.

Note that you did mention Adam Smith (point number two of mine) when you said staples of economics. I've read the entirety of the Wealth of Nations, tis a great book, but not even close to being as complex as some of the other things developed later on.

They are not purely ideological, but I'd say that they cannot exist separate from ideology.

Define ideology.
Define science.
Show that the definition of science fits the definition of ideology.

I find this need for reading classics economics bizarre. Economics is so full of ideology, that it would be really beneficial that people interested in it would instead just read statistics, history and math and try to come up with something not terribly boring and descriptive for a change.

Is there something wrong with your mind? I'm not being funny, I ask out of genuine concern. Do you understand that some people have intellectual interests outside of their chosen career? Some people read books not to increase the amount of general trivia that they can rehearse in shitposts, but to satisfy their personal curiosity and slake their thirst for learning for learning's sake.

Do you get that each philosophical work is in a dialogue with those that came before it? Some people (shockingly!) have different interests than you, and would prefer to chase different ideas than you might. The guy made no pretensions to be a """linguist""" — he merely said that he was interested in the field. The only person concerned with pretense is you. Or, in the words of Flin-Flan:
>user! Do you ever look inside? Do you ever look inside and see what you are not? God!

>I just don't have a huge interest in linguistics.
Then why would you judge someone who does? Why would you think your advice is useful?

>'tis a great book
Am I being memed on?

Except there's already a divide. There's the experimentalist and the theorists. The experimentalist do not give a fuck about theory and are always trying to prove theories wrong. Their job is just to bang rocks together and see what happens. The theorist on the other hand, are trying to find theories to which explain the experimentalist's results and to make predictions on any new experiments.
The experimentalist is surrounded by machines and wear safety goggles. The theorist sit at a desk with a pencil. They're both scientists. Both need each other but I would say the experimentalist is more important. For example the gas laws were initially found through experimentation. It was a result of lab experiments. It wasn't until later on that they came up with the atomic theory to be able to derive the gas laws.
In either case, theories/ideology is always tested and if they fail they are toss in the trash. You can't say the same about the ideology in the humanities.

Economics is one of those rare fields that is both quantitative and qualitative, and also downright steeped in classic literature because of the labor theory of value. I laugh whenever people tell me that they haven't both read classic literature regarding economics and contemporary economic analysis, because they REALLY need to understand the philosophy and history behind the entire thing.

Frequently though the problem is the people get so caught up in the history and philosophy surrounding the LTV they stop at Marx, Henry George, or Carl Menger. These are the 'brainlet' stopping points.

Now these are all intelligent people, I'm sure we can agree, but this isn't the 19th century anymore. And unlike other fields, which may or may not be going backwards, economics is a field which seems to have some concrete potential to progress still further. So the brainlets never learn how to combine mathematics with their economics background. They say to themselves: my understanding stops hurrrrr, and just cease to understand anything else.

Meanwhile I'm over here reading through complex calculus-based analysis of economics through Leon Walras, and Irving Fisher, and mathematical proofs back when economics exploded into roughly two main schools of this approach. Just such an interesting history of thought that has developed recently, and you cannot wash this all away by just focusing on some political rhetoric or something.

This is one of my biggest problems with Mises, actually. It seems he focuses on politics too much, whereas I see the economists that do not frequently don't need to worry about this so much.

I want to add: I am not advocating for looking at "statistics" or anything like you are. I am advocating that people read the PRIMARY SOURCES of the economists their textbooks mention and try to understand why these people were so important, and try to grasp the mathematical proofs they present. Big difference.

Although you should study math though, that is a pretty beneficial topic.

Why would you be memed on? The Wealth of Nations is a great book, very in depth analysis. Every economist has a problem with it in terms of some contradiction or something Smith did, but the truth is that it's a love-hate relationship. The Wealth of Nations opened up an avenue for people to analyze economics, and the truth is, even when I'm reading someone like Leon Walras, I can still see the parallels between some of his mathematically expressed ideas and Adam Smith's original philosophy.

capitalism is anti-human and is going to keep causing recessions and depressions you fucking idiot

So this guy is clearly the brainlet who stopped at Marx or something,

Honestly my interest in economics is mostly from societal philosophy perspective. For me economics seems like the ultimate waste of potential. Descriptive theories lack any predictive ability and no one seems to be interested in finding new ways of organizing production and trade. I agree on the primary sources thing for any field.

Hi! Few things to start off with =) 1. Yes I added (You) because you're a female economist, 'tis an awesome thing to see! 2. I'm user. 3. Don't be intimidated, but I'm not a stereotypical laborer. If anything, I'll be the one on the dole =D.

And so is this guy.

As you can see, Veeky Forums is full of brainlets who don't want to read any sort of mathematical economics, so you can guarantee they haven't read The General Theory, a staple of modern economics.

Be smart enough to argue it yourself, and considerate enough not to decide it's right before actually studying the issue.

I'm not female wtf are you talking about?

>no one seems to be interested in finding new ways of organizing production and trade
That's where you're wrong. There's economic prize in memory of nobel given out every year if you do find a way. The issue is one of experimentation and scaling. You might come up with a way theoretically but you can't perform the actual experiment on a massive scale where you can potentially jeopardize people's livelihood. There's a lack of reality check.

I don't have time to read everything. I have to get trough the philosophical canon someday too.
Well it's what I hear from my admittedly leftist people in economics departments and general discourse surrounding economics in political realm. Most often in politics economics is simply a way to show a value judgment as a necessity.

>I have to get trough the philosophical canon someday too.
Don't waste your time on that. Study something that actually takes brainpower instead of being a brainlet. I read philosophy every now and then too, but things like linguistics and mathematics and economics are much more rewarding because of the feeling of accomplishment you receive from understanding the concepts.

>leftist
>complaining
They already had their chance and the result was millions of people starving to death. They fuck up so hard no wonder people won't trust them.

I'm not reading it for the feeling of accomplishment. Philosophy is the only thing that can push humanity out of the post-modern state we have gotten ourselves into. I could spend time fiddling with specific fields, but what we need are new connections and short circuits between them. For this deep understanding of philosophy and conversations with people more versed in specifics is much more useful. Why should I spend time studying economy if I can befriend a economist with similar interests and a shared understanding of philosophy.
Leftist is quite a broad term. There is much more to political economy than central planing.

but when third worlders starve under capitalism that's just because they're genetically inferior, right?

their diagrams resemble grimoire talismans.
science is just a subform of arcane arts that happens to be most profitable. alchemy never ended.
bacon knew this

Why would argue a position you haven't even yet justified to yourself?