When will the cargo cult of science finally die?

>Neil De Bill Nye type scientists that do more talkshow shit than actual science
Besides Neil, who? The other guys user mentioned seem to have it together.

I also recall Gould, though you young folks are probably don't remember him.

Jesus Christ, I don't want to think about what pet theory of yours that science doesn't support that got you so butthurt that you are now trying so hard to mock the only thing about science that could possibly be mocked.

Face it. The scientific way of seeing the world has revolutionized how humanity lives. That has bred a respect that goes FAR beyond scientists. You may be butthurt that your fucking homeopathy or god doesn't get the scientific seal of a approval but don't take it out on the non-cooks who like to hear about the constant outflow of scientific discoveries.

I'm talking about scientism not science itself you fucking goober

>I also recall Gould
Gould was awesome. Evolution by punctuated equilibrium still holds up well.

>I'm talking about scientism not science itself you fucking goober
The entire point is that "scientism" is an idea invented by people that don't understand science. It turns out almost every scientist guilty of "scientism" also made large contributions to actual science.

Carl Sagan and Bill Nye are probably the reason I went into science.

Inb4 OP insults Bill Nye and Carl

It's almost as if doing real science is a prerequisite for doing "scientism"

Scientism, a word made up by people butthurt about their pet theories not getting the scientific seal of approval.

It's rational to respect science. It's good that people think scientific discoveries are cool. The kind of people who bitch about either science or the people who think it is cool are usually butthurt cooks.

ITT: illiterate OP on science or science philosophy gets BTFO

Hey now, even cooks have to know some basic science to do their job correctly, what op probably really is a butt hurt high school Chem teacher

Scientism, aka fedoraism, aka the shit Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan opposed.

The retarded cadre of logical positivists who think science will explain everything are are fucking triggered by anything that doesn't fit their worldview, like Lamarckism or the recent advances in how scientists understand evolution for Dawkins, literally everything ever for Hitchens and who knows what else for Dennet et al.

I respect science. I respect evolution. I respect philosophy. But I sure as hell am not respecting these anti-theists who seek to push their agenda of hate.

It isn't about religion, that's another matter altogether. It's about realizing that a small, loud minority hijacking the public perception of science in general and turning it into a science-religion war when there's none to begin.

who cares about what retards think.

also, much better for the masses to believe in science than the teistic alternative.

I rather have old grandmas believe that what their doctors is true rather than conspiracy shit.

Bill Nye is an engineer, not a scientist

>and turning it into a science-religion war when there's none to begin.
Religious people are far more likely to disbelieve proven facts than non religious people and studies prove this.

It turns out believing that the lords return is imminent negatively affects your decision making in regards to longterm global phenomena like global warming.

>Scientism, aka fedoraism, aka the shit Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan opposed.
>Carl Sagan opposed
Have you read the demon-haunted world, aka science as a candle in the dark? Sagan basically invented fedora-ism. It turns out the fedoras are right though

t. fedora

The day you throw away the electronic device you are shitposting on thanks to science.

OP a basic bitch.
The actual cargo cult of science died in WWI and WWII.

What we have nowadays is science with ethics. As compared to late 19th century thinking who were so into PURE RATIONALISM > YOUR SUPERSTITION AND MORALS PUNY HUMANS that it led to eugenics, chemical weaponry, and the logic that led to the Holocaust.

>this meme argument again

I don't see the issue with pop science, if you have a childish understanding on science and you want to improve it, knowing the basics can help you out.
Of course the futuristic drones who spew random tad-bits about the future technology without knowing how the science works are kind of annoying.
but you usually wouldn't associate yourself with them if you had the choice

What way are you using the word "meme"?

As as random and meaningless insult in order to demonstrate you have nothing to say? Or in the proper usage of the word?

Either way your post is pretty lame.

this was for you.

When satan's counterfeit wonders, signs and "miracles" flood the earth.

Scientism is powerless in the face of the supernatural.

>I have no rebuttal.
>I'll call his argument a meme.

>Scientism is powerless in the face of the supernatural
Has anybody recorded hard evidence of anything "supernatural?" No. Fuck off then.

>science shouldn't be worshipped
>but muh smartphones checkmate

Yeah great argument

I don't think anyone who makes it through their first semester of any STEM course thinks that way. 90% of them are borderline autistic or incredibly OCD nerds.

He is pointing out that many people take for granted most of the technology that most people would die before living without it and still have the cynicism to stay critical of it. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't take criticism of what the scientific community says or does, but that there is a great deal of certainty in scientific knowledge in order to produce every single tool you use every day so it is in order to sometimes just state facts to people who can't really comprehend the theory behind it.

The annoying part about popsci is that it often leads to an uncritical respect for anything with the label "science" attached to it, without regard to whether or not claims are actually scientific and rigorous. This love of science as a label and not as a method is what feeds pseudoscience.

Yes.

Many people in popsci call out homeopathy, creationism and the like.

Scientism, like all pure materialistic ideologies, is a tool in Devil's hands. Brainwashed atheist stance of its followers only proves it.

The third phase is on the way.

:^)

Tool making is tool making.

When people say 'scientism', that should tip you off that we're not talking about tool making.

We're talking about evolution, origins, historical things. Not observable things. And no, macro-evolution has never been observed, because it has never happened.

I don't know who Albert Pike is, but he had some supernatural advisers on that one.

The point here, is that the same.process used for modern toolmaking is the same process used to show evidence of evolution. Also, if you really think observing means literally watching it with a Camara or your own eyes, well then by your criteria quantum theory is also under "scientism"

>The more competition the better the scientists that get employed

Academia is in no way a free market.

Haha, good. But memetic evolution is bullshit and ye know it.

pop-anything is cancer and deserves to die in a fire.
Sagan was a more complex figure in that regard than people realised. He quibbled in some interesting philosophical and religious points in his books.

If observation isn't observation, then science isn't science.

>Einstein invented relativity and wave-particle duality

Pretty sure he didn't.

Hawking was wrong about information loss at event horizons.

Black science man has never been right about anything, and is a walking talking meme.

Memes are not science.

Dawkins is a disgusting human being, and quite incorrect in his /rddit/ tier atheism (If God created the universe, then who created God? Checkmate, Creationists!).

Who's ignorant again?

He turned off the lights and hit "Play"?

kek

It's garbage.

In 1980 Gould said,

‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’

Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979. Return to text.

>If God created the universe, then who created God?

If you discount supernatural explanations, then it's the question of how complexity arises.

>Dennett uses the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layers—in simple terms, a miracle.

>In philosophical arguments concerning the reducibility (or otherwise) of the human mind, Dennett's concept pokes fun at the idea of intelligent design emanating from on high, either originating from one or more gods, or providing its own grounds in an absurd, Munchausen-like bootstrapping manner.

>Dennett also accuses various competing neo-Darwinian ideas of making use of such supposedly unscientific skyhooks in explaining evolution, coming down particularly hard on the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould.

>Dennett contrasts theories of complexity that require such miracles with those based on "cranes", structures that permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but are themselves founded solidly "on the ground" of physical science.

>Inb4 the first cause of the universe loves me because he told me he does in his book.

It's really not that difficult.

Is the concept of omnipresence so foreign to Dawkins?

Nobody created God because God simply IS

>>Nobody created God because God simply IS
The problem being that this is special pleading. There is no reason why any given deity should be immune to the whole something cannot come from nothing thing.

Well, if an omnipresent omniscient omnipotent being like God exists, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be bound to the same laws that govern the rest of the universe

Dawkins et al. do know how God is regularly defined, the friction comes from them not accepting the definition as correct. If God is all that IS (and the force that sustains what IS), then wouldn't that be Pantheism? which is just calling the universe god, why not call it the universe and leave it at that rather than add in superfluous terms?

So you're claiming that some things need no origin (if god always existed, then why not also say the universe always existed even prior to the big bang), but if every situation any human has ever seen shows cranes rather than skyhooks, then it would be perfectly reasonable to disregard explanations invoking skyhooks to make the explanation plausible, when it can be explained with cranes alone.

And the connection between God simply IS and the views espoused by various religious texts seems tenuous at best.

That's an assumption, the only logically tenable position is a tentative, nigh solipsistic belief in nothing.

>belief in nothing.

>still believe in logic

>I don't like people who like science because science hasn't given it's seal of approval to my pet theory, theism
Called it.

When science and technology cease to be equated.

When something better replaces it.

Inasmuch as my reasoning is the only thing that I can be truly certain of, yes.
A form of universal truth most likely does exist but the nature of human perception makes it, in my opinion, unknowable.

>Year 2191
>AI called Aristotle created
>for decades it gives answers to some of humanity's biggest questions before shutting down
>for the next 2000 years humans care more about what Aristotle said than evidence based reasoning

Hopefully soon
None of those people actually care about science so it'll probably die out eventually

Fedoras have never been right about anything actually

Science is a reflection of our modernity. So never. It isn't a cult. It is reality.

/thread

Nah. As technological progress increases exponentially, we will be progressively live more and more in the future of science.

Eventually technology will get so complex we will need priests to pray to the machines so that they do what we want them to do.

What did Bill Noy the Science Goy do?

>It's rational to respect science.
>rational

Hmmmmm....

Let me give you sciencists some insight here. The observable world is composed of and governed by consistent rules and properties. It wouldn't be coherent otherwise. Science it what happens when we use this consistency to manipulate it for whatever end we choose. Science is for creating products. Yes we can observe and note a good deal of these rules and laws and not have the immediate ability to make use of it. We might make the mistake of believing that this 'knowledge' we obtain is wisdom, that we've seen and calculated roughly how stars form but haven't applied that to technology yet, but here is the thing: once we rationally deduce that the world must be governed by some sort of consistent rules because it would otherwise be incoherent and incapable of supporting what we understand to be consciousness, we see that science only exists to reveal the particulars.

Philosophy on the other hand exists to instruct us how to act and why. It's meditation. Science gave us nuclear weapons and nuclear power but didn't tell us how to use them, that's up to philosophy. Furthermore, despite what STEMlords might think, there will always be a place of existence, a root underground, where empirical observation will necessarily be incapable of finding. Observation is limited by the human body's ability to observe. Our senses are limited, they are necessarily lesser that the world we inhabit. We only stand to peer past that veil by deduction, which is not scienctific. We will see the shape of these roots and put into analogous language so that we can understand it, and no scientific method will get us there. You can see that this is true by seeing how convergent certain advanced theoretical physics and meta-physics are. The field of physics just naturally becomes meta-physics and certain point when you go high enough.

Make an anti-pro life video where he demonstrated that he doesn't think a 20 year old dying of a disease is morally different than a 20 year old being murdered by his neighbor.

Mechanical engineer by trade

I agree with you insofar as theological deities are concerned, however if you look at god as simply an infinite being then it makes much more sense, as having a start and a finish are finite qualities and therefore applies to everything within our finite universe but not to the infinite that exists beyond it.

I know heaps of people that are engineers, and none of them are famous "I Fucking Love Science" memes.

He was the host of a kids tv show that explained grade school science in a fun way
That's literally it. He isn't a scientist, but he still plays his part in the show. Only it's a bit cringey now that he's doing it irl, and people are buying it because of nostalgia

Because coming up with new ideas and communicating already existing ideas in a way that layman can understand are two different skillsets, and to make it in television you kind of have to be a shameless self-promoter, regardless of whether or not you're doing it for science.

> Bill Nye the science guy

did you not get the fucking memo?

IFLS brings out butthurt when it publishes articles pro- or anti-weed or about vaccination.

CTF was always garbage desu

Eh. Philosophy didn't keep the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons. Nor was it Philosophy that made Truman give the go ahead to drop the bomb on Japan.

Morality and nationalism sure. But not philosophy. The people who waged wars or at least did not engage it, did not refer to philosophy when decided to engage.

>morality but not philosophy

Troll harder.

Religion and philosophy are two different things.

Also ethics and morality.

Ethics and morality are part of philosophy.

Right, but you can have morality without philosophy. In fact some philosophical persons from the 1700th century suggested that man had natural inclinations to right and wrong and that you would not need knowledge to know right from wrong (though I don't know about that).

>Richard Dawkins discovered and described memetic evolution (literally founded a new field of science)
Come on now.

>and the logic that led to the Holocaust

Social darwinism / scientific racialism had nothing to do with the holocaust. Nazi Germany was a fascist state. Fascist states condone political violence and use wild means for wanton ends. Oh, and darwinism has little to do with fascism if you're going to further draw that connection. Fascism was just neo-caesarism

>Eh. Philosophy didn't keep the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons. Nor was it Philosophy that made Truman give the go ahead to drop the bomb on Japan.
It was a more complex form of the trolley problem.
>Right, but you can have morality without philosophy.
You can do a lot of things in an amateur way without training, even science.
Still, Google won't hire Billy Bob the Janitor as the final word on how it's cars should deal with unavoidable deaths.

>What did Bill Noy the Science Goy do?
OP of that post. Off the top of my head he was just an engineer and not a scientist but he did design a component of the 747 that made it in to the final design.

>Philosophy on the other hand exists to instruct us how to act and why.
I would rather have a scientist do that tbqh. They have a proven track record of having better methodology at figuring things out.

>Richard Dawkins discovered and described memetic evolution (literally founded a new field of science)
>Come on now
There are literally scientists with PhDs in the study of memetic evolution now. Not making this up.

Sure they won't hire the janitor, but they aren't hiring philosophy majors to engineer their cars either.

>I would rather have a scientist do that tbqh. They have a proven track record of having better methodology at figuring things out.
You really don't understand how the scientific method works, do you?
But enlighten me then, how would a scientist solve the utilitarianism vs deontology thing?

>but they aren't hiring philosophy majors to engineer their cars either.
They are, actually.
technologyreview.com/s/539731/how-to-help-self-driving-cars-make-ethical-decisions/

Utilitarianism, because Sam Harris said it's more scientific somehow.

ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en

Yeah, I know. That's what I'm referring to.

Yeah, never seen more egregious leaps of logic and hand-waving in my life.