What caused contemporary Western societies fetishization of "science"?

Its a reaction politically motivated anti-intellectualism, Christianity, etc.

Because people don't know anymore how to use ethics and morality as a talking point, so they choose to use science as a foundation for their arbitrary opinions, hoping that the listener may mistake this association with objectivity.

The worst offenders are not the academics themselves: they know how shacky the whole system is, and how hard it is to make an actual unbiased prescriptive statement based on scientific evidence. Blame pop scientists, youtube personalities and pseudoscientist on the internet for that: they're the ones doing the nitpicking.

That's to be grouped under "science".

What's with Anglos and their constant arbitrary exclusion of fields from the umbrella term "science"?
It even irks me that they are limiting it to the natural sciences. That's a dumb distinction.

>don't know anymore how to use ethics and morality as a talking point
People never did.

Science just produces a series of facts, societies "advancement" I'd only done via the proper use of those facts

Also bigger bombs.

Rather than solve the issue of opinions going over facts in the humanities or education in general, it was decided to invent buzzwords like "quantify" and "falsify" to make science look extra authoritative in comparison.

The problem is not literally science, the problem is you and the general public's misconception of what that word actually means.

Science is just the way we determine facts by removing all irrelevant factors and doing experiments. It brought you medicine, it brought you cars, it brought you computers, it brought you atom bombs.

Science is not the doctor from Half Life teleporting cats and it is certainly not present when these pop scientist debate religion because most religious beliefs are untestable and therefore outside the domain of science.

uw0tm8

They did (in the most vulgar form through cheap theology), especially in the public discourse.
Since now there is no clear way to identify the "right" choice and behaviour, and since educated people are taught to be discard what we usually refer as common sense, science becomes the last foothold for the educated that want their opinion to look "valid, objective and based on reason".

More importantly, why do you keep on making this thread every single day as if we care about your anti-sciencism echo chamber?

If you want to "dethrone" science, it's simple. Give more to the world than the men in white coats have. Can't? Then keep bitching, nu-male.

>They did (in the most vulgar form through cheap theology), especially in the public discourse.
And now they do exactly the same thing, except with dumbed down versions of ethical systems such as utilitarianism or deontology.

There is no difference of categories.

This is the fist thread I've created and I'm not trying to "dethrone" anything

>fist thread

No, it isn't, and you're bad at lying over TCP/IP. This thread ends the same way every single time, aimless bitching at the people who give more to the world than you do. If you want that to end, give more to the world than they do. It's that simple.

There is. The first option begs for a compromise, for you can say that you simply disagree and conjure equally reasonable statements as your opponent most of the time.

In this case, instead, you're immediatly trying to prove the objectivity of what you're saying, using a much wider system such as science as a shield. This call for objectivity is in itself infinitely more dishonest than the call for "common sense" and "reason" in ethical discussions. It is in itself a far more effective and insidious way to obscure the real nature of your arguments.

Do you think that, when the are Tengri arguing about what is right and appeal to the Sky God, they just end their disagreement with saying "oh, I guess we disagree about the properties and motivations of the Sky God"?
No, both sides, in their "cheap theology", will claim that their opinion is objectively right and the interlocutor is objectively wrong. If anything, this tendency to appeal to objective theological truths was far more intense in the past.

If you want to believe that it's your business, but this is the first time I've made this thread

>Science =/= Magic

No, back in the day Magic was the only Science.

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this adequately, but I'd like to hear other user's opinions of the importance of science vs. history/philosophy/general humanities/etc. in society.

For example, my opinion is that while the important and necessity of science in modern society is great, its importance relative to other fields of study has been overinflated. Basically the focus on the "how" has overshadowed the importance of the "why", when both questions should be given weight.

Theological disputes are almost nonexistent (and they exist, they're basically irrelevant) in orthopraxical religions, user.

I don't believe that. Religions are too complex for people to not come into theological disputes, and even if a dispute between two layman could be attempted to be solved by a priest, all it takes is for two priests to disagree for the dispute to surface again.

How do you think new branches of orthopraxic religions get created?

Dude, if you thought the most important aspect to Athena was X and someone else thought it was Y, you did nothing close to what would happen in a similar situation in christianity. You would basically set up a temple to Athena X and the other guy to Athena Y, that's basically it and you'd be still friend with the other guy.
In religion that focus on orthodoxy, you either resolve the issue, or split up and bad blood accumulates between the two of you.

Because understanding even just a little bit of science makes idiots feel smart. That's how we see people at the science march holding banners claiming that their 100 genders are legitimate and real.

They're just retards who like to play pseudo intellectual dress up.

>Blame pop scientists, youtube personalities and pseudoscientist on the internet
Kind of like how bill nye is fucking worshipped now and nothing he spews can be wrong?

>In religion that focus on orthodoxy, you either resolve the issue,
But does that happen instantly, which would be required for the religion to be free of disputes? No, the resolving or catastrophical split takes time. Until then, there's a dispute.

>you did nothing close to what would happen in a similar situation in christianity.
Is Christianity not a religion now?

Also, why are you even bringing up pagan religions? I just brought one up to illustrate, but this thread is about science in Western civilization, which has been dominated by Christianity for almost the whole time it existed.

It's the religion of a liberal secular society. And arguably the god of science can be much kinder to humanity overall, with evidence, than any other god so his worship can be much more easily justified.

>That's how we see people at the science march holding banners claiming that their 100 genders are legitimate and real.
Have studied human biology?
Not saying that you're wrong, but you say it so confidently, you'd look pretty much like an "idiot that feels smart because he understands a little bit of science" if you didn't extensively study the subject.

How many studies about the number of genders have you read? Have you done a full literature review about it?

If not, then maybe you shouldn't do exactly what you allege other people of doing, except with a minus sign in front.

Maybe the fact that unless we follow:
-progress trough scientific understanding of the world - in place of hypothetical one.
-useful creation of goods and values.
-constant perfection of our morality.

We don't progress and very importantly if younger generations do not exceed the older one in all these processes we're surely doomed to regress.

>Science just produces a series of facts, societies "advancement" I'd only done via the proper use of those facts

Right and you can't use facts if you don't have access to them (or you actively deny them).

It's a godless religion, with scientists as the priestly class, and the state as its protectors. Nothing has changed.

Shocking amount of success in improving material conditions, circular relationship with commitment to reason in the modern sense, and natural congruence with protestant ideals.

Not that guy, but claiming a hundred distinct genders is less defensible than claiming two genders. Might as well just claim "gender is an well established social classification derived in past from physical differences between sexes that has many forms of expression". Like sexuality, creating smaller and smaller classifications merely dilutes the message and the reality while arbitrarily labelling people in a prescriptive way. "If you are ________ you should behave like _________". It creates divisions where none really exist for selfish reasons.

>Like sexuality, creating smaller and smaller classifications merely dilutes the message and the reality
What "message"? If I jump 4,03 meters, how does saying "he jumped 4,03 meters" dilute the message, compared to "he jumped 4 meters"? One is just more precise than the other.
Should we do away with fractions of measurements? They dilute the message, after all.

I think even if there were a gajillion different genders, there'd only be 5-6 actually in widespread use. Nobody but experts would actually care to learn or apply them. AFAIK, not even people that actually care about this bother. They just exist for people to look up when they want to get a precise description.

>while arbitrarily labelling people in a prescriptive way.
From just stating the facts, you aren't necessarily prescribing new behaviour.

>It creates divisions where none really exist.
Multiple measurement points laying on a spectrum doesn't mean that the difference between them doesn't exist. Two sand corns aren't a heap of sand.

I don't know anything about this, though, and I frankly do not care.

Most of that is due to engineering

Engineering sciences are sciences.

>Anti-intellectualism
>Academics being anti-intellectual

ok.

The science and engineering communities don't see it that way

Okay. Guess I was mistaken in thinking that I was literally studying for a degree in Engineering Sciences at a German university right now.

to show that they are intelligent, but just to show to assuage the enormous ego that is built up for individuals in modern society, you ask them of a theory they will bumble like any good politician they have been watching and subconsciously emulating.

what do you get when you cross "science" and &humanities?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_humanities

all jokes aside, i think it's really interesting, hope you do too.

>He can't ™
>laughing_whores.jpg

>"""""reals"""""
Don't make me laugh. Feels are literally the only thing that is really real. You'd like to pretend that we're all just objects, but we're not. Facts don't exist, belief exists.

It's because 'science' is different to 'scientific thinking'.

>Feels and belifs are real

they are illusions, user

What do you think engineers study? Not math, physics and chemistry but carpentry?

None of you feels>reals guys can ever properly tell me why without say effectively "Just 'cos!" or saying "GO READ EVOLA!"

Which will you choose?

>An interest in science is anti-intellectual
Really Darwin my Dawkin

Illusions of what?

illusions of reality

They apply science, which is the distinction

There is literally no distinction between reality and illusion, as long as the illusion is good enough.

t. never done STEM

And don't try lying about it either, no engineer would be this stupid.

no illusions are good enough, therefore there is a distinction between reality and illusion.

You're not up to date in the philosophy of science. The distinction between applied sciences and fundamental sciences has been given up already. It didn't work out.

I would blame the Cold War for the popular enthusiasm for science, but it goes back to the natural philosophers of the 17th century attempting to describe as much of the world as possible in scientific terms.

>What caused contemporary Western societies fetishization of "science"?
>He thinks it's new.
The 19th Century called.
Oh children.

Little do millenials know there was a period when Science was quite literally the new god and everyone thought that it will just get better and better and we'd be colonizing space by 1999 or something.

And then WWI and WWII put a hurt on their feelings.

Explain how it's wrong, then

>It's not a lie if someone believes you
t. George Costanza

Pretty sure George said that it isn't a lie if YOU believe it, which is true.

How?

Why are you associating the world wars with negative opinion of science?

Post source/proof

You're talking about pure and applied science.
Which are still, as evidenced by their names, a product of scientific thought.

Applied science is engineering

>>>Veeky Forums

>hurrdurr, engineering
Do you have some kind of form of autism?

I'm a bit more concerned as to what gave rise to this rampant intellectualism, aside from the obvious profit motive.

When science starts telling you stuff you don't want to hear, folks tend to start fighting against it.

I wish we had a "fetishization of science" problem, but much more common is the damnation of reason.

Both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches once held reason in high regard, sometimes just shy of the highest regard. They are responsible for institutions of learning and universities that gave birth to science and the renaissance.

So... I guess we blame Christianity for science? ...Blame protestants for the abandonment of reason.

>rampant intellectualism
rampant anti-intellectualism*

>tfw when one typo completely fsks up your post.

I blame entitlement and excessively high self esteem.

The average person is unwilling to accept the idea that they're totally unqualified to make a competent decision on an important issue.

"Science" is little more than seeking truth through trial and error

A bunch of idiots didn't like some of the results so they made a politicized opposition to it and now "Science" is something you like basd on what political team you're on

Politics fucking ruins everything it takes note of and turns it into a weapon to bash the other guys head in with.

is positivism making a comeback?

The Enlightenment

>excessively high self esteem.

I sort of wish I had this problem. How do other people get to feel so good about themselves.

They collectively crushed Vicotrian Utopianism. The idea of endless social, economic, and scientific progress lost its legs in the trenches then died in atomic fire.

(((Mainstream media))) and (((academia))))

...

...

>Ricky Gervais
>Penn Jillette
>George Carlin
>Bll Hicks
>Patton Oswalt

Does anyone else find it fascinating that so many atheists find inspiration from comedians?

Nevermind that comedians tend to be the most cynical and bitter people on the planet but the fact that they tell jokes for a living seems like a hint not to take their opinions so seriously. . .

Its called STEM. Science, technology, engineering and Mathmatics. Notice how science and technology are two separate subjects. Otherwise it'd be called "SEM" or "TEM."

>Penn Jillette is a comedian
>Telling jokes means your argument can't be taken seriously

This post gave me cancer

Penn Jillette is definitely a comedian and you can take whatever you want seriously.

It's just funny to me that so many people take comedians seriously and that a lot of those people happen to also be atheists.

>I-I'm not making a real argument, I'm just pointing out ~connections~ (read: fluff, anecdotes, navel gazing)

Trashed

Thanks for the (You).

...

kek

That's just a convention to highlight some important keywords. It says fuck-all about topology.

It's also only Anglos doing that, by the way.

Even if science (the method) and engineering are loosely under one umbrella in the same way history, philosophy and literature are all under the humanities umbrella doesn't mean a theoretical physicist like Steven Hawkins and what he does has anything to do with Henry Ford and what he did.

The cookie had nothing to do with the fact that I feel good after it eating.

It was just the sugar in the cookie!

Look at my example again. What does an engineer and a theoretical physicist like Hawkins really have in common? They both use math and measurements. That's about it. Engineering is not the same ""Science""" as exemplify by dawkins, hawkins, ect. Even take Sam Harris. What do Neuroscientist and engineers have connecting them? Nothing. Nothing metaphysical. Nothing abrupt and obvious.

Big Bang Theory, Mythbusters, Rick and Morty and I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.