Scientism

Why is this still a thing?

>inb4 muh iPhone
Yeah, material living conditions got better, no different from the introduction of the fork.

Humanity and life as a whole didn't get any better. In fact it got worse in several ways, like forcing people into antinatural lifestyles that they don't want.

Other urls found in this thread:

researchgate.net/publication/312223244_Hadza_sleep_biology_Evidence_for_flexible_sleep-wake_patterns_in_hunter-gatherers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#In_culture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>antinatural

Fake news

Disprove hard physicism without resorting to zombie arguments. I'll wait.

>muh "muh iPhone"
t. Basement dwelling oxygen thief that wants the it

Farmers getting displaced and forced into the cities (while their land is owned by big corpos that produce plastic vegetables). Worldwide btw

Few of them adapt to the benefitial and healthy life of waking up at unnatural times by a machine to go 9-5 (or more) in front of a cancerigenous screen inside a cubicle just to go back to a small flat for some hours before going to sleep (previous pill taking) to repeat the cycle ad infinitum until they die or kill themselves. That, implying they got a job and didn't end on the street, of course

So natural!

Nice argument

Magical thinking produce some human comprehensible stories rootedness in human relations when material relationships are incomprehensible.

"Scientism" is a strawman used to (vainly) fight against whatever pet cause you know nothing about and are told you are wrong about. No scientist "worships" science and everyone involved in science knows just how fallible human understanding is. Only morons and philosophy undergrads thing anyone involved in science doesn't grasp this.

And no, the "i le love le science XDDDD" retards don't 'worship' science either, they're just curious and want things put into nice easily digestible soundbites.

If you want to complain about the destruction of humanity that liberalism causes, go right the fuck ahead but don't blame it on science.

funnily enough agriculture was the original "antinatural lifestyle"

>No scientist "worships" science and everyone involved in science knows just how fallible human understanding is

I meet plenty of positivist and popperian falsificationists running bad stats thinking they're producing real knowledge about a real world.

>everyone involved in science knows just how fallible human understanding is

Come now, you clearly know that's untrue.

> "Scientism" is a strawman used to (vainly) fight against whatever pet cause you know nothing about and are told you are wrong about. No scientist "worships" science and everyone involved in science knows just how fallible human understanding is.
> don't blame it on science.
Figures

End soft drug prohibition

>forcing people into antinatural lifestyles that they don't want.
The fuck are you talking about, you're free to fuck off to live in the woods if that's what you want.

>No scientist "worships" science

No, but they *have to* believe that what they are doing gets them closer to the Truth, or they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

So the underlying motivation is a religious search for Truth.

It is not legal to do that.

By what statutes

What third world dictatorship do you live in if you can't go live in the woods?

How are you going to pay property taxes, user?

What property? The tree under which I take shits?

You can't just "go innawoods," you'll either be on public or private land

non-STEMfags trying to larp as one is not really Scientism desu. If anything it is a dispute of methodology

>Disprove hard physicism without resorting to zombie arguments. I'll wait.
Take a seat over there please

Because science has proven by a vast stretch to be our most effective tool for understanding the world around us and bettering our lives.

>but antinatural lifestyles!

Going back to being hunter-gathers, or even predominantly agrarian is not an option. Science offers our most promising option of making the best of our situation.

>Humanity and life as a whole didn't get any better

Yeah I hate not dying of polio or the plague

>Going back to being hunter-gathers, or even predominantly agrarian is not an option. Science offers our most promising option of making the best of our situation.
Sad but true.

>Farmers
>Few of them adapt to the benefitial and healthy life of waking up at unnatural times
Scientific studies on sleep patterns showed that farmers and industrial workers have similar sleeping patterns, but they are very distinctive from the sleeping patterns of primitive hunter-gatherer societies, the original humans. Since around 8000 years we sleep differently than we used to do the 100'000+ years before. So going back to "farmer" won't do you any good.

Humanity and society is evolving since the agrarian revolution and it is only getting faster. Saying this is a bad thing and wanting to stop and going back to whatever point you feel most cozy with is just naive and impossible.

science is awesome, instead of dying of smallpox in some house made of literal shit after spending your life growing grass seeds for lord Chad, you get to fly to thailand, fuck ladyboys and live to 93, there is also a small possibility you might achieve biological immortality or something if science goes too far

if you're too much of a brainlet to take advantage of it just kill yourself and stop bothering superior people

unrelated to the general theme of the thread
Ironically polio got more hazardous as society advanced till the point of vaccinations when mortality completely dropped
As a child you receive antibodies from your mother when breastfeed who create a passive immunity against disease. The body does not become able to produce its own antibodies and given time they will all disappear from the body.
Since polio is a waterborne disease people in places with poor water sanitation will be exposed already as babies at a time when they still have the antibodies they received from their mothers. The antibodies help the child to survive the disease and make it less severe. When the immune system has cleared the body from disease they will have active immunity against Polio when they are exposed to it again later in life.
In rich places with good water sanitation children will not get polio when they are really young and instead get it when they are older and lack any passive immunity against it making it deadlier.

how do you expect a society funded on materialist ideals not to worship science, factories and technology? the middle class fetish with labor-relations and movements is not a coincidence

The mere fact that people mix technological advance with their orgasm when buying a new product that smell ''fresh plastic brand new'' is the proof most people base their opinions with cliches and slogans

>Why is this still a thing?
Its just the modern equivalent of people who find God due to fancy buildings and art.

[spoiler]Also capitalism[/spoiler]

I'd trust scientific results way more than any of the roughly 3 millions gods that humans pray to.
No offence, but not everybody is looking for god, for a majority of people in the Western society, religion has lost meaning.

This. There's no going back. You can't put the fucking toothpaste back in the tube. Now what are you gonna do? Double down? You're gonna have to come up with something better.

the thing is if man is to retain his agency among the hyper capitalist world we see

where Corporations are literally more human than human and regarded as such

and these corporation use millions of dollars each day to see how they can get one over on you (read:advertising/PR)
people need to become anti-natural
becuase all the manipulative powers understand all too well how "the natural human" acts and behaves.

We see no transparency
we see no trust
we see no benefit to us
so we must rebel against our own nature
since we are unable to defeat the monster
we must now burn down everything around us
even at the risk of our own health and safety.
so that we may build a better cage for this monster
and build up our surroundings to safeguard against it.

To be fair however one only needs to start meditating and increasing there awareness to do this. ANd meditation has nothing but benefits for you, and not too many risks to health or livelyhood.

The problem here is capitalism, not technology. Exploitation is unpleasant in a field as much as in a cubicle.

Bite the hand that feeds you scraps !

I'm talking about STEM post docs and acas. Feyerabend was right. Nothing is true. Everything publishable is permissible.

It's impossible to think of humanity without science
Our ability to experiment, to reason and gain understanding of the world is one of the core aspects of our species.

Even the oldest human tribes were engaging in science when they tried to create a better handaxe or new way to make fire.

There is no going back to a time before "science" while remaining human

A whole bunch of capitalist societies didn't engage in scientism in the 20th century. Thatcher, for example, was the first BSc PM. You can run an effective society in capitalism on classics degrees. (Yes Minister; Yes Prime Minister)

Urgh. You really need to read some HPS / STS works. Try Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions.

If you're so convinced I'm wrong then it should be possible for you to at least post even the slightest argument as to why I'm wrong rather than just pointing in the direction of a book

Science is a specific name for a specific set of cultural practices which evolved in Europe subsequent to, significantly, Galileo's craptulant posturing.

Science is a specifics cluster of Dawkins "memes" it isn't an ahistorical summary of "inquiry". It is a set of unique practices regarding the cultural relationship to the material world, the cultural world, and epistemology.

Popper. Kuhn. Lakatos. Feyerabend. Get back to us when you're read in the seminal sources to have an opinion worth reading. Insemenate yourself in your fucking head you undergraduate paper wipe from arsehole to cunt.

>The problem here is capitalism
I always enjoy to read a one dimensional and dogmatic answer to a complex multifaceted problem from a euphoric young man with staunch beliefs.

I see, your argument in it's entirety comes down to semantics

wow, what a weird post. Man, now I almost doubt the scientific method and 500 years of progress based on it.

Kuhn talks about how its not really scientific progress that led us from classical Newtonian mechanics to quantum physics
but rather completley different ways of thinking.

I read something of his about how scientific paradigms work

hes more a sociologist of science.

please be aware that I am not the user you are replying to.

while I do like the appeal of Kuhn, I don't think it directly applies in this case.

Lyskonism is what happens when "science" becomes "religion"

Good. So I'm engaged in science right now. God tells me you're a fag. Only semantic differences lay between this assertion and a rigorous participant observation where I fuck your flaming arsehole. That's philosophy of science. How to demonstrate one is not science and one is science. Science and technology studies takes it a step further and double blind rapes you. Sorry. That's semantics. You must have consented because you're a flaming Bitch.

Read the basic texts.

That's a good start. Maybe after you've got through against method you can write the accompanying text for method that Feyerabend hoped his interlocutor would produce, but the bastard chose to die instead.

>Feyerabend
Didn't new I had a philosophical ancestor in my family...

The weird thing is that Lysenko produced economic results in the early period of his hegemony of Soviet biology. Now these results were what we'd consider "economic" rather than "biological". But if we posit some gross human transformed material quantity as the measure of STEM efficacy then Lysenko was more "science" than genetics was in the Soviet Union.

AND THAT CHILDREN IS WHY WE NEED A PHILISOPHY OF SCIENCE RATHER THAN SCIENTICISM BECAUSE LYSENKO WAS A FUCK PIG.

I said almost. In fact your post ensured me that there is still not much of legit criticism towards modern science around.

Good for you. I am always depressed and disappointed when I see old tired men dismiss everything that go against their moral comfort and pretend they're the reasonable ones.

>You might say that I'm young
>You might say I'm unlearned
But if you are so reasonable you will admit that this, too, is an old and tired argument.

philosophy of science is nonsensical to begin with given philosophy is a form of science, just one that no longer holds up to the standards required by today's research institutions

Yeas you convinced me fully, Capitalism is the root of all evil and only Saint Karl Marx and his teaching will absolve us. The world is this simple! Halleluja!

Maybe you should try to specify what modern science is. Feyerabend actually supports your "everyone knows, anything goes" position regarding journal papers. Popper's standards were higher but problematic, in the real sense that attaining them would require a shitload more of %gdp.

>just one that no longer holds up to the standards required by today's research institutions

I'm sorry but doctorates are still awarded in philosophy and permanent mixed teaching research positions are still appointed in philosophy. Philosophy meets the standards of modern research institutions. So does theology. And "sports science".

> Coherent Pro-science argument
> Hates liberalism

Wtf am I reading???

I didn't attempt to. You are not interested in politics and I am not interested in having you on our side.

Just telling you that being scornful is not the same as being intelligent.

Science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. It uses the scientific method as its main tool. I'd say it is an ongoing enterprise since at least the early modern age, but with predecessors dated way earlier.
And yes, science fucks theology and philosophy, naturally they are not happy for being demoted form the throne, but then neither philosophy nor theology provide real answers for a modern society any more.

philosophy is still being awarded because it's a successful scam
It's managed to convince the world philosophy is prestigious to have, therefor a prestigious university should have a philosophy doctorate, it's the athletics scholarship of doctorates.

However philosophy in itself is not used for any purpose other than trying to justify the existence of philosophy these days.

Demonstrate that "science" is anything different to your description of theology. You probably have fourty years and as manu research grants as you're capable of winning.

Just telling you that simple one line answers to complex global phenomena are usually wrong and a tell tale sign of a flaccid and fruitless colloquist.

Modern science requires proof, theology and philosophy do not.
As a direct result scientific theories can be objectively disproven allowing faulty ways of thinking to weeded out with much more efficiency.

The weird thing is that a) analytical philosophy is highly respected by practicing academic scientists in allied fields like mathematics or cognitive science; and, b) most doctoral training of scientists shows a worshipful respect of the problems of episistemology and scientific ethics of knowledge uncovered by hps/sts respectively.

Science as a social practice Ian clever enough to incorporate its critics.

The they just publish whatever in journals regardless of no real method but post hoc inserting method, shitty stats work, and frankly unsustainable claims.

Pretty simple, You could trash whatever natural science you want, like burn all books, forget al findings, and when you do it all again, it will show the exact same results no matter what.
Do the same with religion or philosophy and you'll end up with a totally new god, prophet whatever.

>requires proof
No. It does not. It requires when beatnik practices "falsification" (Popper)

Read him. He was a noted anti Platonist anti Marxist in his politics.

Science proves nothing. At best it disproves everything other than what we
Currently agree.

>No. It does not.
Bullshit, the scientific method explicitly requires proof. Name-dropping Karl Popper wont change that nor make your post look intelligent.

How long did "flood" geology last in the journals? You've just argued that science is culturally constructed by the by.

Fuck you phone poster.

This. This gentlemen is proof of scienticism as a cultural phenomena. The true positivist in his natural habitat. Failing an Australian IT degree while shitposting on Veeky Forums.

Why wouldn't it be a thing? Just take a glimpse at the world around you and you'll see how science made everything you enjoy possible.

>Vaccines and modern medicine in general
>Food preservation
>Understanding of electricity (which enables you to use the computer and complain about science)
>Cars, trains, planes, etc.
>Just about any other useful technological device (as scientific principles needed to be understood before utilizing natural forces)

It goes a lot further than just "muh' iPhone"

flood geology is not science and did not make any respectable papers nor was it accepted scientific theory. Perfect example for
a) Relfags try to abuse science for their bullshit
b) this doesn't work because science requires proof and not preset ideas.

Thanks for the ad hominem, I'll take this as a sign that you run out o arguments.

I think you are mixing two different things.

What you are complaining about seems to be libertarian-style materialism, not scientism. Where they confuse material comfort with happiness. Where they see a society with increasingly higher rates of suicide, mental illnesses, drug abuse and think that the society is improving because people are buying Iphones and more expensive shoes.

I think this kind of thing is common among feminists.

Scientism is a term made up to describe other people and not one's self, nobody has ever described themselves as a supporter of scientism because it's a fucking slur straw man ass term used by unknowing anti-intellectuals (usually from the humanities) who want to moan about the technology(namely programming) and empiricism encroaching on their areas on intellectual pursuit, for example you got a push back from English lit professors when their students thought it might be interesting to analyse books/an entire book to check the frequency of certain works and phrases quickly.

see
Or Neil Degrasse Tyson

Between 1600 and 1850 flood geology was normal science. Ffs.

Well you're wrong. The length of the answer has no relation to its accuracy.
OP could have asked why construction workers fall down to their death sometimes, and I could have answered it's because of gravity and I would not have been wrong despite using one simple word to describe a complex global phenomenon.

Capitalism is also a complex global phenomenon. Pointing out in a few words that it's in that direction that OP should look for the causes of the misery of modern life is not wrong, does not occult the complexity of the issue, and here it's more appropriate than writing an essay.

Just because something has a name does not make it simple.

It requires that observations correspond to what would be expected given the hypothesis (at least to level that has been agreed by the community to refute the null hypothesis.) There's a lot of itenstional logic tied up in this and there's a sense that this process confers the mantle of "scientific" only on those things that we have the conceptual and physical tools to observe and about which we can make predictions.

People get pissed off when those things we can't yet conceptualise are written off as unworthy of attention, when, in fact they just require different kinds of exploration (philosophy, psychology, history etc) and different standards of valuation/verification.

I don't get what is so difficult about this and why both sides get so anally devastated at the mere existence of the other.

>for example you got a push back from English lit professors when their students thought it might be interesting to analyse books/an entire book to check the frequency of certain works and phrases quickly.

English literature senior lecturers were why a PDP was installed at my undergraduate university so that they could do seminal corpus analysis.

Fuck off antihumanist straw manner.

Interestingly enough, modern Geology as a science was created around 1785 by James Hutton, and the first thing he did was showing that flood geology is humbug and not science.

> Scientific studies
Bones, pls

Mate you can have as many philosophical thoughts about science and the scientific method, the thing is just it produces reliable reproducible results for centuries now. Something that cannot be said about either philosophy or theology.

And yet it took 75 years for flood geology to cease being science. This is why science is an interesting philosophical and Historical topic. His publications did not cease the flood of what we as enlightened moderns would consider grossly incorrect papers. How do we demonstrate that a paper is grossly incorrect. Do we disprove it or do we falsify it or do we spend fifty years accusing a fellow proffesor of being a child rapist?

USA

But science didn't prevent you from being a virgin at 35 and inside your room 24/7 fapping to traps

If science makes you better why do you behave like a chimp?

a sound opinion

Well? Explain this

researchgate.net/publication/312223244_Hadza_sleep_biology_Evidence_for_flexible_sleep-wake_patterns_in_hunter-gatherers

also take a look at the studies regarding historic sleep patterns cited in this article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep#In_culture
and here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_and_polyphasic_sleep

It ceased being science the very day Hutton published his results. It took 75 years to kick the charlatans out off the scientific world and correct the bullshit they stated. Being under constant enormous pressure from Religion because science can prove 1:1 that the Bible is wrong and that science holds the answer to the formation of the Planet and many more questions. Yet in the end, the scientific method prevailed over religious dogmas.

Human bodies have evolved to eat a hunter gatherer diet and show problems when on agricultural food. Sugar and brit dental hygiene aggravate the problem significantly.
Problem is there is to many people on this ball to feed them with hunting-gathering, either 85% of the people on earth spontaneously decide to starve themselves to death or we will keep on producing our food with agriculture.

meanwhile in philosophy there are still folks parroting socrates

a summary, new born babies in all societies show a polyphasic sleep pattern with several sleep phases all over day and night. Adults in hunter gatherer societies show the same polyphasic pattern. Adults in most if not all modern societies show bi or monophasic sleep patterns that means full night of sleep and maybe a nap.
current hypothesis is that sleep was different before agriculture and sleep patterns adopt to lifestyle.

Have you heard of nominalism?

Could you explain where Socrates was wrong?

>Farmers getting displaced and forced into the cities (while their land is owned by big corpos that produce plastic vegetables).

Those massive corporations are borne from individual farmers engaging in partnerships, or cooperation, with each other. They collectively funded development of many products (first being GMO foods through selective breeding, the railroad network, then the tractor, chemical fertilizers, flying crop dusters, GMO foods through direct modification, and now self-driving vehicles) which then find uses in urban areas.

Former dairy farmer here, 9-5 is a fuck ton more natural then 3-6

>Scientism
The fuck outta here with this cuckservative lingo

That motivation is rarely "science" itself though. It's either borne out of a desire for money (like from a patent), a product (like a laser gun), or a proper religion (eg Mormonism).

As used here, "scientism" generally refers to how the mainstream media and mainstream society worship pop sci as a modern day religion, which itself is not wrong. But this isn't a religion as it has no rites, core text or leadership, it's just some reporter on CNN regurgitating some statistics he doesn't understand from an .edu website that could better explain the phenomenon themselves.

This is not a good thing (Neil Postman warned about the decay of political discourse in his books "Amusing Ourselves To Death" and "The End Of Education") but it's not "science" being worshiped as a religion. It's being used as a justification for any argument, as "science" itself has stopped having any sort of coherent form with the overall destruction of traditional academia by the Internet. Everyone can do "science" now, for better or worse, and this means the term is used and abused. But it's not a religion.

Case in point: man-made climate change where /pol/ entirely rejects decades of observation that indicates it is likely real. On the flip side, liberals do huge amounts of damage to proper science by trying conflate gun ownership as a "disease control" issue with their constant attempts to get gun ownership labelled as a "epidemic" or a "symptom" of mental disorder. This speaks to a much greater contradiction in proper academic science itself: the whole "assigned gender" debate which mainstream doctors won't approach for social bias, and the contradiction between genetic research and race which scientists avoid by choosing not to study any correlation between the two (even if they look for similar correlations, eg "intelligence genes", in other research).

This is way less about "science as a religion" and much more about the destruction of civil discourse.

>Farmers getting displaced and forced into the cities (while their land is owned by big corpos that produce plastic vegetables). Worldwide btw

Thats a capitalist consequence. With some positivism behind it.

you stil are going to die :3