Memes aside, what's the real problem with scientism?

>How do you use "science" to determine
By applying logic of utilitarianism.

hand out flyers with pictures of dead fetuses on them

And how have you determined that utilitarianism is the best tack to take?

It can answer what, why, and how, but not why you should care, and it's reductionist.

Science is a nature only tool that relies on observation, testing, and repetition.

Scientism makes outlandish conclusions from literally nothing. Like "man came from a missing link".

There's nothing fucking factual in that statement whatsoever. No observation, no testing, no repetition, nothing. Just pure false religion.

It's killing science.

It presumes too much, such as taking natural materialism for granted. Ironically the elevation of science to the be all, end all arbiter of truth is a thoroughly unscientific position and is just another manifestation of man's basic need for a point of worship.

And here we go with Hitler thought gassing the Jews was a utilitarian process.

I'm not saying it's a good course of action, but it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical in a business setting by measuring which are the most efficient.

It doesn't actually exist. People just use science as crutch for their moral/political beliefs, dropping it when convenient. For example, a liberal might "fucking love science" when it comes to climate change, but not when the topic is GMOs or nuclear power.

No it isn't.

What principle of any scientific field can get you an ideal government model?

>I'm not saying it's a good course of action, but it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical in a business setting by measuring which are the most efficient.
Not without making a rather glaringly large assumption that efficiency=ethicality. (And besides, efficient for whom? It would be efficient from the point of view of stockholders to screw over their employees with incredibly restrictive noncompete agreements and bilateral agreements with other firms not to hire each other's leaving employees. Is that ethical?)

What's the scientific position on the Repugnant Conclusion? What experiments did you perform to reach this position?

Several of those problems you list would in fact benefit from more evidence-based decision making. Science can't tell you the "right" outcome to strive, but it can tell you what the consequences of your actions (and thus how to achieve that outcome). Oftentimes political opponents can't even agree on basic facts.

Science believes that it can answer the questions of philosophy in the same way that religion used to be used to answer the questions of science.
Philosophy and science are two complementary studies that for some reason people argue are mutually exclusive leading to retarded religious extremists who think dinosaurs are a scam and autistic nihilistic cunts who think nothing matters.
The future isn't science and the past isn't religion, the future and the past is both of these concepts together.

If the logic of utilitarianism were applied to music, we would all be listening to Taylor Swift, would we not? It's the greatest and best music because the most people enjoy it?

There's very little wrong with placing a poor understanding of science on a pedestal, right up until whoever believes it gets legislative power.

"Scientism" isn't any more inherently good or bad than religiousness, it's just that "scientism" is slanted more towards utilitariansim than deontologism.

Also, it really seems to me that people who use "scientism" as a bad word are either anti-intellectuals or people who are extremely upset that their political opponents use the "wrong kind" of scientific data against them.

But the questions surrounding them are generally about what is the equitable distribution of some sort of resource or power, not how to achieve that once you've got it.

> Oftentimes political opponents can't even agree on basic facts.
Learning factual background is hardly something restricted to the scientific method.

The percentage of Liberals and Conservatives opposed to GMOs is pretty even.

>I'm not saying it's a good course of action
>it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical

But if your set of actions is Scientifically™ ethical, why are you so unsure they'll be good?

I was describing somebody I know. Maybe it was a bit of a loaded comparison.

Science = find a mathematical relation between A and B.
Science doesn't believe anything. Doesn't answer some mythical questions. But the knowledge that science gives redefines our framework.

Philosophers/theologians only have the human mind to set the boundaries of the questions. By redefining the framework we realize that most of the time the questions asked were nonsense.

That's what happens when people say "science answers the questions like philosophy/religion did".

Science is still in its infancy, but if it is truly rational, it will come to enforce a belief in God as well. Anything that is too skeptical of spirituality, is erroneous.
The evidence of God : fine-tuning, abiogenesis, human consciousness, and human evolution.

lol

You laugh now but soon there will be someone there who will be laughing louder than you.

>Reminder that most of the greatest scientists of the past were deeply religious (Newton, Leibniz, etc.)
Science is more mature now. Why is the religion ignored now? Because using non-material explanations in your model (ie God did it that way) is BAD SCIENCE.

Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.

>The evidence of God : fine-tuning, abiogenesis, human consciousness, and human evolution.

Allahu Ackbar.

Oh yeah well you can't disprove that there's somebody laughing louder than them.

I'm thinking of them now, they're laughing perfectly loudly. Therefore they must exist.

>Why is the religion ignored now? Because using non-material explanations in your model (ie God did it that way) is BAD SCIENCE.
>Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
>Religion is ignored because it's BAD SCIENCE!!!!!!

>I'm a pleb who would enjoy nothing more than listening to Taylor Swift and only listens to more sophisticated music to make myself feel smart
Sad.

The problem is that they became such an unquestionalble authority for a lot of people that they blindly listen to anything that begins with
>A Study shows
>A new research has demonstrated
>Dr.
And most people don't even know why they believe the things they believe
The flat earth mania that went on in social media was great because it showed to a lot of people that they can barely explain why the earth is round and that they never thought about it by themselves, they just assumed it was because science says so.
Not even talking about all the so called "sciences" political, sociological, economical that just try to push some ideas under the cover of the objectivity of Science.
>90% of scientists agree that climate change is real, you are not against science now are you ?
>A new study shows that homosexuality is a gene but it's actually not, it's formed in the womb but actually it is a social constuction while being a mental disorder
The crown of worship, and moral guidance doesn't fit on Science's head

I agree, but then science is one more tool to use in conjunction with others, not an all-compassing discipline that does away with those others.

>Ironically the elevation of science to the be all, end all arbiter of truth is a thoroughly unscientific position
How so?

It's dogma posing as science.

It's amazing how many people believe that uncritically accepting whatever scientists tell you because you've been taught to do so makes you smarter than people who uncritically accept whatever religious figures tell them because they've been taught to do so. "Being smart" in modern society simply means accepting whatever ideas the scientists of today are trying to sell you, even the ones that have nothing to do with science.

>The crown of worship, and moral guidance doesn't fit on Science's head
It didn't want to in the first place.

>Needing to worship something
Lol

Two axioms in science
1. Go where your data leads you
2. Don't use non-material explanations
otherwise it's like cheating at solitaire

That doesn't even address anything I said you retard.

>Religion is ignored because it's bad science
This statement is judging religion by the standards of science as if they were trying to accomplish the same thing. Then you wrote:
>Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.
And yet you yourself treat them as if they were the same thing.

"It" doesn't want anything because "it" isn't a conscious entity
>I am so above worshipping lmao
Okay dude, and even so it doesn't mean it's the case for others

To add to this Science is seen as the last legitimate autority since the fall of the church and metaconstructions to explain the universe but since people still think just like in the middle ages they still gobbles whatever wears anykind of scientific semblance and believe uncriticaly in anything. It may be true or not it doesn't matter, what matter is: Is this blind faith in science more beneficial than blind faith in anything else ? Can science answer the questions of purpose, ethics, consciousness ? Would it be better if people belived in some mythological fantasy that told them how to live instead of a nihilist pragmatic narrative that "let them do whatever they want" ? Can science by itself actually lead to a better life ?

1. It sets no goal and therefore is only a tool to archieve one
2. People ignore this
3. It's boring. Subjects involving (radically) unknown stuff have no place in discussion, despite them beeing the most interesting.
4. Nihilism and Marxism widespread / kikes
5. Too much authority, new ideas don't get a grip because of the "top scientists"
6. Snobs
7. ppl in the pst wre so dunmb lOL xD

>Memes aside, what's the real problem with scientism?
not enough pic related

This

>1. It sets no goal and therefore is only a tool to archieve one

the goal is to discover the truth about the natural world through direct observation and experimentation

>2. People ignore this

>people ignore my strawman argument
ftfy

>3. It's boring.

only for brainlets

>Subjects involving (radically) unknown stuff

like what? if it's (radically) (lol) unknown, how do you know about it?

>have no place in discussion, despite them beeing the most interesting.

they have no place in scientific discussion because they aren't real

>4. Nihilism and Marxism widespread / kikes

random non sequitur

>5. Too much authority, new ideas don't get a grip because of the "top scientists"

anyone can test hypotheses. new ideas are always occuring and being published around the world every day, you're just ignorant of them

>6. Snobs

not an argument

>7. ppl in the pst wre so dunmb lOL xD

not a thing

Top kek

>When all you've got is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
Scientism is the idea that all problems are nails to be solved with the hammer of science. The thing is, though, that some very important problems are not nails, but screws.

It's a descriptor of purely physical reality.

i.e. the only reality

Is "scientism" really a problem, or has it become a overly-broad label used drum up a "controversy" in the culture war?

you can hammer in a screw

>he hasn't had a breakthrough entheogenic experience
Shame

>he hasn't had a schizophrenic delusion

ftfy

Because scientism requires unteable philosophical scaffolding

'scientism' can't justify itself, you need philosophy, and when you get into the scaffolding it just can't justify the existence of scientific unobservables

there is no objective external world, there are no actual atoms, out there in some sort of void

also there's the issue of the hard problem of consciousess. consciousness can't explain itself scientifically, and it is through consciousness that science functions (through observations)

also this entirely:
scientific instrumentalism IS the case

The problem is that scientists are humans just like everyone else. They're biased too.

/thread

And you can answer some philosophical questions with hard science.

Will it work? Possibly.

Will it ALWAYS work as you need it? No.

Will people get very mad at you if you fuck up and ruin everything because the thought of securing without using a hammer disgusts you? Yes.

Evidence-based decision making is unrelated to science unless specifically using scientific methodology (i.e. controlled experiments).

Nah, man, you see, everything that's, like, useful is actually science in action.

This

Wtf I fucking love science now.

It can only lead to nihilism

% of scientists agree that climate change is real, you are not against science now are you ?
It's actually 97 percent.

Man, I missed these threads. We used to have a lot more of these, now it's mostly just shitflinging with /pol/.

It's better to tweak things a little on the scientism side to offset people's natural superstition, so at least there's some reasonable starting point for civic discussion between strangers.

The difference between Christianity and other ancient religions, is that science can make its god/gods real.

Also immortality, heaven, and hell... All that jazz.

WTF is scientism?

We worship the Space AntiGod Scientos The Nihilistic.

No, really.

Science is all about scrutiny and testing theories, that is what makes it so reliable. However going from accepting science's excellent reliability to casually assuming its infallibility is a step too far and also hypocritical.

That said, "scientism" is a bit of a meme. I only see this term being thrown around by people upset that scientists don't agree with them on something, they are not criticizing pseudoscience or the argument for authority logical fallacy or anything.

It's reddit af

>scientism
youtube.com/watch?v=4xt46ZUxiJ4

Scientautism.

You can be against GMO for reasons other than it is unsafe

,
What other reasons? Killing diversity is just something to consider but there are no noticeable cases were this happens.

>Science is all about scrutiny and testing theories, that is what makes it so reliable. However going from accepting science's excellent reliability to casually assuming its infallibility is a step too far and also hypocritical.

On a tangent, modern way of doing science and pop-sci is killing us, since everyone wants to be(or has to be, to secure some fucking research funds) the new Niels Bohr, discoverer of new fancy shit, and no one wants to be the geek actually rechecking those studies, which is a massive part of the scientific method.

Which is a huge problem recently, given about HALF the studies checked from an issue of a popular peer-reviewed magazine had huge methodological issues.

It leads to racism.

I use to want to be a scientist until a learnt the truth, If youre really good, you can get a private job, but for most its the public sector

Welcome to youre life in a lab as a mere lab rat tester, having any idea you think of stolen by your superior while you write constant papers on experiments that were solved years ago but your boss really wants to fleece the government for every penny it has, so acquires funded grants by making up science and then writes some long essay thats total gibberish but sounds good and intellectual.

Scientists today are parasite on the over bloated corpse of the state, All the good scientists were private citizens who messed around with chemicals in their private laboratories and made huge profits by patenting it.

Government thought it could get in on that great money maker, but one problem,(real) scientists(not (((real))) scientists) are 0.01% of the population

So why is scientism bad?

Because science is inherently the pass-time of the super genius / aspergers, the common man needs a god, so he tries to replace god with science, yet he is left impotent, because science is not all powerful or all knowing.

Or genetics.

When you think about it, this pretty much is the key to understanding why it's not religion that's the issue. It's people taking ideologies at face value without thinking critically about them. Regardless of where you lean on the political spectrum or what have you, a major issue with any group of believers is that they do so with faith rather than reason. People killed the gods of old, but only made new ones.

It's why I like a lot of 'liberals' who claim to think scientifically a lot less than certain religious folk. The latter are outright trying to use faith as their main point of focus, because that is the essence of trusting in something unknowable. A lot of so-called 'rationalists' act irrationally, and treat their modern ideologies as they would religions, when the whole point of said ideologies is critical thinking.

> (OP)
>I use to want to be a scientist until a learnt the truth, If youre really good, you can get a private job, but for most its the public sector
>Welcome to youre life in a lab as a mere lab rat tester, having any idea you think of stolen by your superior while you write constant papers on experiments that were solved years ago but your boss really wants to fleece the government for every penny it has, so acquires funded grants by making up science and then writes some long essay thats total gibberish but sounds good and intellectual.

wut? You don't have much idea on how expert committees work for funding science, do you?

>Scientists today are parasite on the over bloated corpse of the state, All the good scientists were private citizens who messed around with chemicals in their private laboratories and made huge profits by patenting it.

Private citizens lab? Maybe if you were in the 18th century. Definitely not now.

>Government thought it could get in on that great money maker, but one problem,(real) scientists(not (((real))) scientists) are 0.01% of the population

Science research has never been a great money maker, at least for the state.

>So why is scientism bad?
>Because science is inherently the pass-time of the super genius / aspergers, the common man needs a god, so he tries to replace god with science, yet he is left impotent, because science is not all powerful or all knowing.
Science is a past time for aspergers. Totally agree with that. Scientists definitely don't work for money. There isn't enough money in the world to make someone work as hard as scientists.
I've met people from labs from many parts of the world and a great part of them were either workaholic or somewhere in the asperger spectrum.

tl;dr: wut?

>I only see this term being thrown around by people upset that scientists don't agree with them on something
My personal experience has been different. I've met several people who have told me in all earnestness that

>Why do we still have philosophy? We can just use science!

Is this pasta or incredible satire?

A solution to that might be to make peer reviewed studies more valuable than ones barely looked at, especially if they are reviewed by someone with a good reputation.
Well, now that philosophy has yielded science, it has done its job and is less useful than it was. It is kind of like asking why we need to learn blacksmithing in the industrial age. Tbqh it is not important for most students, they don't need to know how the steel industry was built from scratch, just its present state and how to get a job in it.

>Well, now that philosophy has yielded science, it has done its job and is less useful than it was. It is kind of like asking why we need to learn blacksmithing in the industrial age.
What the fuck? Are you high? This is so ridiculously off-base, I'm not even sure where to begin other than to say you're wrong and stupid. Do you think things like ethics and aesthetics can be parsed out by science? Or that we no longer need them? What about differing theories of justice? The proper level of social inclusiveness? How much of the economy should be driven by the private sector or the public sector?

>Tbqh it is not important for most students,
Science is also not important for most students.

Overconfidence and lack of scientific morality. You can derive morality through science and logic, but good luck getting atheists to agree on a system.

>Falling for the demiurge's tricks

Darwinism.

Mother's who abort their children remove unwanted and defective offspring from the gene pool. You are left with wanted children.

Very simple voluntary eugenics.

These are all queations well suited for a scientific approach. At least as part of a broader and comprehensive analyses.

No, they are not, because they are ultimately not empirical questions. For the last example, science could help us determine HOW to set up an economy with 30% public sector spending and 70% private sector spending, but there is no empirical, let alone scientific method of coming up with that set of numbers and saying "This is ideal". At best you can take a number of assumptions such as

>Utilitarianism is the best ethical theory for promoting happiness
>Happiness is the best good an economy should ultimately strive for.
>Utility is maximized in this particular cluster of economic assumptions

And then solve for that. But those fundamental precepts you're trying to reach are not themselves questions that can be empirically answered.

any one got the one with medicine, maths, engineering and the like?