Is scientific extremism/idolization THE MOST anti-intellectual thing you can do? Famous pop scientists love to take jabs at everything that isn't the perfect and almighty SCIENCE. I'm just reading a book about psychology and in the first chapter it completely diminishes things like the tarot and religion because they do not accommodate scientific method and principles, as if those aren't far better methods to know one self than psychology.
>pic of a young healthy looking female implying fertility to provoke procreation instincts from millions of years of evolution taking place in the form of mere chemical processes in your brain, immediately calling your attention among the various tame historical pictures of other threads, rising the chance of glancing at the first words of this post and generate interest, thus making this thread susceptible for more attention and survivalist in the cyber entanglements of data of the internet
Is scientific extremism/idolization THE MOST anti-intellectual thing you can do...
Other urls found in this thread:
>something, something
Raging boner
>something, something
Good thread OP!
Give me one good reason why I should believe that some old cunt dealing me cards says things about me or my future.
I agree.
No the problem is that their arguments are bad.
But then, so are yours.
yeah, science is becoming a new religion. And the sicentific method some kind of deity
what's wrong with my arguments?
I just used it as an example. Mainly they say philosophy and other humanities areas are useless and act with disdain.
This is more the actual issue. Many people hear this argument and immediately assume that it's an argument against the use of the scientific method and as some pro-religion argument. No, not quite, though I'll admit that that is a very easy and effective way to dismiss the argument.
The issue is that the public is expected to believe what a select class of highly educated individuals publish on what, due to a general lack of expertise and training, ultimately amounts to blind faith. This, to me, although ultimately fundamentally different, reeks of the clergy in pre-modern Europe. Regardless of the mostly rigorous structures in place in the scientific community, it would not be very hard, due to human nature, for some power structure, say the state, to foster an environment in the scientific community wherein certain topics are to be ignored and not dug into. Possibly in some cases inviting outright falsifications. Note that I am not saying that this is happening now, more that we have created a social structure in which it could happen. We have uneducated people argue from "scientific" viewpoints despite not even coming close to comprehending what they're actually arguing in favor of. Vehemently. These people actually ARE treating scientific fact with religious fervor. A good, comedic example of this clip from Always Sunny: youtube.com
Ultimately, yes, it is a net benefit to society that people accept scientific discovery at face value and I'll admit I don't have a decent alternative that doesn't involve allowing uneducated beliefs and opinions as much credibility as scientific beliefs do.
>science is becoming a new religion.
correct
>And the sicentific method some kind of deity
wrong.
"scientists" have ignored empiricism, by trying to create some all encompassing scientific view of the universe, instead of just modelling what is happening here and now based on observation so the engineers can use that data to go build nifty stuff.
Furthermore, for the most part though, uni research is bullshitted and faked, and papers are pumped out in a factory line to hand high-paying students their masters degrees. There is still some good experimental work in some fields (like agriculture), and in private industry R&D teams though.
Who is this nut slut
Scientists have a right to feel proud about themselves, but when they step outside of their own turf, sometimes they spew autistic things like "Philosophy is useless".
>Note that I am not saying that this is happening now, more that we have created a social structure in which it could happen
you sound like a science bitch
>''Dude, you like... always have to take the middle ground... makes you all intellectual n' shit XDDD''
MUH DICK
If "extremism" is based on evidence and literally everything it denigrates is based on faith then i think it's entirely justified.
>The issue is that the public is expected to believe what a select class of highly educated individuals publish on what, due to a general lack of expertise and training, ultimately amounts to blind faith.
Most results and methodology is freely published, and what is behind a pay wall can often be accessed through your local library. If the public doesn't understand, it's not because scientists are trying to keep esoteric knowledge and occult secrets away from prying eyes, it's because most people don't care how their stuff works so much as the fact that it does at all. Nobody is going to face violence for publishing a "translation" of a scientific paper in the vernacular language, for example.
I can see why they would dismiss Tarot but dismissing religion and its philosophy sounds like intellectual puerility, especially considering this coming from a psychologist.
So much this. Too many people do not realize how they're blindly following science and how words like "scientists" can and are being used for subtle manipulations.
And it's not so much that a government would limit and control science - science does it without any outside influence pretty well by itself. Read about Kuhn's theory of science. Of how paradigms define the goals and perspectives of scientific inquiry. It's like a framework that essentially blinds us partially. Makes us not see or consider things outside of a certain perspective.
Lets be real, science is esoteric. Nobody is going to understand the jargon of a scientific paper and the methodology of the research or the ways of interpreting its results and implications. There's a reason why being a scientist in a field takes an enormous amounts of knowledge and education and saying that science is "freely accessible" is ignoring the plain reality.
And often I would guess this fact is taken advantage of by scientists, who can use their fabled reputations as the prophets of objective truth in order to peddle their bullshit or ideas.
Now, this has always been the case and always will remain the case, that the huge majority of people are stupid and lack the firsthand access to information, and instead rely on the prepared and neatly packaged info. I'm not saying everyone is being fooled en masse but inevitably this leads to the situation where the people themselves have to rely on someone else to observe the nature and its laws and give them the simplified version of it. So essentially in addition to relying on our own not always reliable sensory information, we also have to rely on a game of telephone where actual firsthand knowledge and understanding is transformed into axioms and then fed to the people.
>I'm an uneducated moron, so everyone else must be too
>the post
>i shitpost instead of replying
>the shitpost
>completely diminishes things like the tarot and religion because they do not accommodate scientific method and principles, as if those aren't far better methods to know one self than psychology.
Tarot is basically unsystematic psychology with a bullshit theory of magic. Everything tarot attempts besides the bullshit metaphysics, psychology does provably better.
Religion is just the theory of magic and a lot of ethics. Psychology can't do those better than religion, but that doesn't "make religion better" at knowing oneself, and the ethics are far better done by rigorous philosophies not tied to religion anyways.
>the ethics are far better done by rigorous philosophies not tied to religion anyways.
Prove it. Give us societies that had rigorous philosophies not tied to religion guide their ethics.
IT WILL BE NOW FORBIDDEN TO POST SLUTTY WOMEN IN SFW BOARDS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT!!! THIS IS A BAIT, SO FUCK YOU!!!