Does scientism as an ideology inherently lead to the implantation of social Darwinism and adherence to a racial...

Name some

Even in what you just described, scientism still inherently results in a dehumanizing reductionist conception of humanity that foists upon us an identity as a means of production in an economic system, where one must have utilitarian value in order to be seen as valid.

Darwinism and the successive expansions on the theory are undeniably the root cause of all ideologies of racial supremacy that permeated through the mid 19th and 20th centuries as well.

Anyone who denies worldviews that cannot be empirically quantified or does not adhere to the scientific method, anyone who believe that the whole of reality is decidedly comprised only of physical matter,

Autistic people and children

What are your personal ideological oppositions with scientism?

>undeniably the root cause
>of all ideologies of racial supremacy that permeated through the mid 19th and 20th centuries as well

How about religion?
Specifically, the curse of Ham?

>The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries

TL;DR, racism has just progressed from a misinterpretation of religion, to a misinterpretation of science

>but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries

Businessmen spread lies to sheepeople to up their sales. News at 11!

Different poster, and this thread is shitty, also didn't read so fuck any context. But:
Hurr seeing is believing durr

I diagnose OP as mentally ill, and therefore OP is inherently genetically inferior.

I motion Veeky Forums for euthanasia or at the very least forced care and the limiting of OPs interaction with society.

Religion inherently understands the human identity in dualistic terms of a body and a soul as one. The sons of Ham are also divided into several very specific cultures within the people of Africa, the progenitors of Egypt, Canaan, Kush and Put, and do not represent Afticans as a whole. Each descendent of Ham had a unique character and not all remained out of Gods favor. In contrast to the cursed nature Canaanites, the Kushites of Ethiopia found salvation and were woven back into the tapestry of Israel, becoming the new home of the tribe of Judah and the Priests of Levi after Israel was scattered by the Babylonians and Assyrians. Not only that, but racism is explicitly addressed and rebuked in the Bible through interactions between the tribes of Israel and their reaction to Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman. You're reaching hard to find justification for racial supremacy in the Bible, as the spiritual nation of Israel is diametrically opposed to such ideas.

In the other hand, scientific racism can and has been wholly justified through Darwinian evolution in the circles of intellectual elite of particular societies that had wholly accepted and purported Darwinian evolution as a scientific truth

Role play is fucking gay and you should feel ashamed of yourself.

I second this motion

How would you counter someone who was attempting to make this assertion about a necessary observability within the nature of all things in reality?

What exactly about my questions here is irritating to you?

>In the other hand, scientific racism can and has been wholly justified through Darwinian evolution in the circles of intellectual elite of particular societies that had wholly accepted and purported Darwinian evolution as a scientific truth
You can't be fucking serious.

>Hurr seeing is believing durr
It's hard to argue with the results.

Not roleplaying.
I'm on Heartland Alliance's Consumer Advisory Board.

>anyone who believe that the whole of reality is decidedly comprised only of physical matter,
so anyone that isn't retarded? gotcha.

I am serious. What about that statement do you not agree with?

It's narrow minded of you to dismiss metaphysical perspectives of reality off hand.

>it's narrow minded to dismiss utter nonsense
k

It's not our conflict in ideas that is the issue at hand. I find your materialist conception of reality to be just as absurd as you would likely find mine, but I won't dismiss you off hand or attempt to belittle you for having it.

Not that user, but no it's not.
And neutrality of the unknown and positivity towards the empirical isn't dismissing.

To quote Socrates:
"If there is a reason to believe then there is a reason to believe; if there is reason to doubt then there is reason to doubt. Presumption is not reason."

The reason to doubt is a lack of evidence, and to counter that would be the fallacy known as "the argument from ignorance".

All belief requires reason, and conjecture is not reason.

>Scientism
>Social darwinism
These words are almost always used by idiots who don't know what science or natural selection is.

> anyone who believe that the whole of reality is decidedly comprised only of physical matter,
What the fuck would it be made out of then user?

Fucking hell Veeky Forums is filled with humanities retards.

>Not believing in magic is absurd
Faggot.
Why the hell would not believing in bullshit have an tism at the end of it?

>scientism
Fuck off Veeky Forums, this is a retarded buzzword the humanities idiots and chritards over there use against people who like basic reason.

Socrates also purported the concept of a transcendent metaphysical realm that the human soul acted as a mediator for to our physical bodies and material life. You're tying to defend empiricism by quoting a man who inherently believed in divine intuition.

So... reasonable individuals.

desu it's 2016, the fact that yall are still so convinced magic isnt real when people all around you have been doing it for years is pretty embarrassing

How would you define the concepts in contrast to how you think they are misunderstood by these idiots?

It's the assertion that, in contrast to materialism that sees only the physical as the fundamental source of all nature, reality is also comprises the metaphysical, which does not begin with or act beholden to the material

What is the metaphysical in contrast with the material and why should anyone believe it exists?

Rationalism is inherently a short sighted, reductionist ideology that seeks to curtail all conceptions of the human experience into their most base and inferior aspects with the goal of attempting to impose a logical system of quantification upon phenomenon that are inherently irrational and do not conform to empiricism. Rationalism is not an adequate model for understanding the reality of the human experience and in fact actively denies all things truly unique and of a higher order within humanity.

All aspects of the human experience that are beyond being driven by the base nature of material life, such as the struggle for survival or breeding. The metaphysical is the realm of the irrational, of all things uniquely human such as symbolic meaning in artistic expression and the perception of contemplative mystery within reality.

Again, you're still using the "argument from ignorance" instead of sticking to neutrality.
You can never champion something "possible" as "probable" without evidence.

Do you have evidence?
No. Then drop it.

Secondly: Metaphysics doesn't equate possibility with probability.
Stop using that false equivocation.

Your entire conception of "evidence" is itself inherently based on a reductionist system of thought that asserts if something cannot be reduced to numerical quantification and wholly removed from the metaphysical and understood entirely within the material it does not exist. Even your basic understanding of what "reality" or "real life" is inherently adheres to this short sighted perception, asserting that there is necessarily no part of life that isn't understood through a materialist lens.

>All aspects of the human experience that are beyond being driven by the base nature of material life, such as the struggle for survival or breeding.
Why is that beyond material life? You're just saying things you don't understand are not material. Textbook argument from ignorance.

That's wrong. There is nothing inherently material about rationality. If you could show ghosts or whatever exist and are not material then rationality would demand that this be accepted. The key here is to show what you're claiming, not to show that it's material. Otherwise there is no reason to believe your claims. They're simply arbitrary.

They don't result from material interaction. Artistic expression begins as a metaphysical thoughtform entirely set apart from the material that is then expressed within the physical through the artist, who is of a physical body and a immaterial mind.

>Artistic expression begins as a metaphysical thoughtform entirely set apart from the material that is then expressed within the physical through the artist, who is of a physical body and a immaterial mind.
You are begging the question assuming thought is not material when all the evidence we have tells us that thought is a product of the brain. Changing the brain changes thinking and behavior.

And if the metaphysical interacts with the physical, it should be easy to empirically show this. But you won't, you just keep making claims. So no one believes you.

Rationalism at the core of it's conception of reality imposes as it's metric for determining what is within rational reality the requisite that all nature must fit within a logical system that necessarily begins with the physical individual. It inherently denies illogical aspects of the human condition such as intuition.

>duh physical and nonphysical are valid definitions
duh

The human mind is the gateway between the material and the metaphysical. Your assertion that all thought within the human experience is entirely of a physical nature, suggesting that each human being lives in an entirely subjective reality of their own personal field of experience and share no immaterial connection with one another, does not account for the collective aspects of thought, such as our innate connection to shared instinctive memory and knowledge through our hippocampus that defies this materialist notion of individual subjectivity of thought to it's very foundation as an idea.

>Rationalism at the core of it's conception of reality imposes as it's metric for determining what is within rational reality the requisite that all nature must fit within a logical system that necessarily begins with the physical individual.
You have it backwards. All *discussion* of reality must work through logic. It's our understanding which is logical, not what we are understanding which is logical. If you are being illogical then you are not understanding, and if you are not understanding then you are not saying anything meaningful. You might as well be saying gibberish.

So far everything you have proposed as "metaphysical" is the result of the mechanical human brain. You have presented no reason to suppose these results are immaterial. So again, you fail. Now you are going to reply by attempting to use *logic* to convince me of the illogical. You are the one being narrowminded by being unaware of the irony of your contradictory position.

>Rationalism is inherently a short sighted, reductionist ideology that seeks to curtail all conceptions of the human experience into their most base and inferior aspects
How is it not glaringly obvious to you that your just stating your personal feelings, rather than making any kind or argument?

>They don't result from material interaction. Artistic expression begins as a metaphysical thoughtform entirely set apart from the material that is then expressed within the physical through the artist, who is of a physical body and a immaterial mind.
Fucking prove it.
Don't just assert shit because it makes you feel good.

>The human mind is the gateway between the material and the metaphysical.
So prove it.

>Your assertion that all thought within the human experience is entirely of a physical nature
Where did I assert this?

>suggesting that each human being lives in an entirely subjective reality of their own personal field of experience and share no immaterial connection with one another, does not account for the collective aspects of thought, such as our innate connection to shared instinctive memory and knowledge through our hippocampus that defies this materialist notion of individual subjectivity of thought to it's very foundation as an idea.
This is silly. All humans should share instinct and knowledge because our brains are a result of the same evolutionary process. The idea that what I said implies everyone's brains should be completely different and "unconnected" is just a silly strawman. If you can't actually contend with my arguments then leave.

Your entire conception of what is required for an argument to be held as valid "proof" inherently requires that it's subject be entirely removed from the metaphysical and reduced to it's lowest material functions so that you may draw an interconnectedness between it and the rest of your conception of physical reality so that you can attempt to make the claim that it is wholly quantified within materialism and therefore has no metaphysical aspect. I'm expressing my belief that the material and metaphysical exist in a contrasted dualism, that the self aware consciousness of our mind is separate from the intellect of our brain. The essence of thought cannot be reduced to purely physical function.

>All humans should share instinct and knowledge because our brains are a result of the same evolutionary process.

Rekt

So far all you have done in this thread is whine about people demanding you convince them through logic, and conflate logic with materialism, simply because material stuff by some "coincidence" has been the only thing to have been shown to exist through logic. I'm expressing my knowledge that you're wrong, because the evidence is against you. Now you have three options:

1. Convince us that you're right

2. Continue spouting gibberish and feigning annoyance when no one understand what you're trying to say.

3. Close your browser and cry yourself to sleep at night.

>the self aware consciousness of our mind is separate from the intellect of our brain. The essence of thought cannot be reduced to purely physical function.

Yes it can. Your argument is dumb and so are you.

You've revealed another dehumanizing result of the ideology of material reductionism, the inadequate model of mechanism as a means of explaining the nature of things. Your entire understanding of the nature of the human brain is cursory, only taking into account the outward appearance of things while wholly failing to conceive an explanation as to why outside of strictly mechanical terms. You understand the purpose of movement to merely be the change of physical location, failing to grasp the essential reason for the movement beyond a material description of it's mechanistic functions.

OK, so you chose option 2.

The basis of your assertion that all thought is the result of purely physical interaction inherently requires that you believe the human mind to share no immaterial connection with the minds of others, each human being living within a subjective sphere of their own perceptions.

In what terms would you define the validity of an argument that is levied as proof of a metaphysical concept?

What is the foundation for your understanding of where logic begins in terms of discussing a concept that is inherently illogical?

Again, where did I assert this? I simply said there is no evidence of the negation or of immaterial anything. You continue avoiding this point as if everyone should simply agree with you because you repeat your position over and over again. Again, why should anyone agree with you and not with materialism? Why should anyone agree with you and not with the statement "invisible purple unicorns farting rainbows orbit Pluto"?

That would depend on the argument, obviously.

It's easy to *discuss* an illogical concept in terms of logic. What is impossible is proving that concept using logic, which you would be attempting to do if you could even muster a coherent defense of your position. But thank you for agreeing with me that you are being illogical.

No offense OP or whoever took up his argument, but you are stupid. You obviously have some pet believe that can't be verified with science and therefore you are on a crusade to discredit the the application of science, trying to get reality to fit your belief instead of the other way around.

An admission of ignorance is not a point. To be consistent with your line of thinking, why would one inherently reject the existence of the metaphysical and accept a materialist worldview? The rejection of the metaphysical conflicts with the claim of neutrality

What makes you believe that everything within the nature of reality can be quantified through the lens of modern science? I'm not having this discussion because of some petty chip on my shoulder, I truly believe that the advent of modern science and its ideologies has, even with all of it's advances, been one of the most devastating forces to ever take root in human civilization

>An admission of ignorance is not a point.
Where did I admit ignorance? We have plenty of evidence of the material workings of the brain, none for anything immaterial. Your argument is based on ignorance.

>To be consistent with your line of thinking, why would one inherently reject the existence of the metaphysical and accept a materialist worldview?
Because there is no evidence for it. Do you accept the existence of invisible purple unicorns farting rainbows orbiting Pluto?

>The rejection of the metaphysical conflicts with the claim of neutrality
I never claimed to be neutral, I claimed to be rational. Reading is not as hard as you are making it seem.

Materialist thought only offers a mechanistic model to explain the nature of things, which is an absurdly inadequate model that fails to even grasp the reason for basic movement beyond a physical description of function. Materialism would fail to offer any explanation as to the essential reason for the workings of the brain

>Materialist thought only offers a mechanistic model to explain the nature of things, which is an absurdly inadequate model that fails to even grasp the reason for basic movement beyond a physical description of function.

Not who you're arguing with, but your reasoning is absurd. I bet you're a huge Deepak Chopra fan.

Just because "materialist thought" is currently unable to explain absolutely everything in the universe doesn't mean you can just pull bullshit theories of "metaphysics" out of your ass with no evidence to fill in the blanks. You may as well just go full religion and say "god did it."

>Materialism would fail to offer any explanation as to the essential reason for the workings of the brain

You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. The more we learn about the workings of the brain, the more we find that it IS the physical, material workings of it which are responsible for all thought and consciousness.

Your other mistake is looking for an "essential reason" for the workings of the brain - you're assuming there is an ultimate purpose. You haven't grasped the concept that there most likely isn't. "Reason" implies intention - nature doesn't operate on reason or intention - it just is.

>I truly believe that the advent of modern science and its ideologies has, even with all of it's advances, been one of the most devastating forces to ever take root in human civilization
And yet you've not even attempted to explain WHY.

You've just repeated that materialism is wrong and bad over and over, and whined like a child when anyone has challenged those claims. Put up or shut up.

The mechanistic reduction of the brains physical functions does not form an adequate model to explain the purpose of it's nature. Reducing the human mind with materialism does not give you insight into it's essence. Mechanism fails to grasp the reason why the human mind is able to perceive contemplative mystery in reality

It brought about the rejection of all that makes us truly human within civilization

This is what liberals actually believe

It is a leftwing cult that compels people to deny race

>It brought about the rejection of all that makes us truly human within civilization
Why should I believe you?

You're making claims, but you're not actually supporting them. I could claim that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean it actually is.

> taking the bait this hard

Veeky Forums is truly a pathetic shithole of pretentious teens with an inferiority complex

everyone posting in this garbage thread should just go back to forming vitriolic opinions based on the first five lines of a wikipedia article

fucking cretins

The end point of the ideologies materialism and biological reductionism is the permeation of nihilistic absurdism in all aspects of the human experience

I'm pretty damn sure you hold some belief that isn't verifiable by science, and that is the source of your disdain for science whether you realized it or not.

More often than not it is belief in God, but it could be other things.

No it isn't.

Complete load of meaningless buzzwords (purpose of it's nature, essence) and repeating of points already refuted (specifically the "purpose" argument). I see there's no sense in pursuing this discussion further. Thank you for your time.

So is the OP basically arguing "I don't like it so it isn't true"? It sure as hell sounds like it. Does he also beleive atomic theory is wrong because atomic bombs are bad?

Whether you like it or not doesn't matter, OP. What mattes is that science is the best tool we have for determining how reality works. We observe, we observe some more, we theorize, we observe five more times, we construct a theory, and remain skeptical of everything. It's worked better than any other way of approaching the mysteries of reality.

You don't realize it, but the quality of thought within the cultures formed by humanity since the ideologies of modern science have been the popular zeitgeist have ultimately amounted to a humanity that is uniquely ignorant of it's purpose and identity. Understanding our existence through the lens of empiricism and the scientific method doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

>Make absurd claims without justification.
>Get called on absurd claims and asked to support them
>Ignore request, reply with more claims
>Repeat

I can you're highly skilled at this "filosofey" thing.

Even if that were true (it's not btw), that is still not evidence for a metaphysical realm and a refutation of science.

Could anyone translate the OP image to me? I guess that it's about how a particular undesirable race (gypsies, most likely) outbreed the indigenous white population of a nation in 120 years, but I'm not sure I'm right.

>The metaphysical is the realm of the irrational, of all things uniquely human such as symbolic meaning in artistic expression and the perception of contemplative mystery within reality.

Try even reading the wikipedia definitions of shit before you start getting mad about it. Metaphysics is philosophy that deals with the notions we use to understand the world. It is not an anything goes spirit world that exists beyond matter.

What value is there in understanding how "reality" works?

Metaphysical literally just means beyond physical. Maybe you shouldn't rely so much on wikipedia yourself.

Get back to me when they prove the soul or qualia or whatever to be real and not just some shadowy thing we haven't dragged up yet

...

As opposed to... not understanding how it works? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Why is making up shit and not understanding reality while pretending to better?

wow, this holds for mathematics too. nice founding.

If, by social Darwinism, you mean that homo-sapiens experience a change in the heritable traits over successive generations, then it is naturally occurring.

If you mean to say that we should influence our own evolution to select traits, we already do that as well. The promotion of interracial couples to create a homogeneous species would be one example.

Race is quantifiable and genetic. The maximum benefit to our species would be eugenics.

>metaphysical means beyond physics?
Chink here. I thought meta meant something that involves little versions of something being encompassed or controlled by something else, like metastudy?

Pls help with West Germanic witchcraft.

No.

>Even in what you just described, scientism still inherently results in a dehumanizing reductionist conception of humanity that foists upon us an identity as a means of production in an economic system, where one must have utilitarian value in order to be seen as valid.

Scientism is the notion that science - and more generally logic, reason, evidence, math, etc. - is the best and only reliable way to learn about the world around us.

In a certain context, it is correct to say that scientism is value-free. One is free to insert utilitarianism, egoism, or any other moral theory that you want.

> Darwinism and the successive expansions on the theory are undeniably the root cause of all ideologies of racial supremacy that permeated through the mid 19th and 20th centuries as well.

Are you really suggesting that hatred of Jews originated /after/ Darwin? Lol. Please. Learn some history.

>I find your materialist conception of reality to be just as absurd as you would likely find mine, but I won't dismiss you off hand or attempt to belittle you for having it.

Well, I will use appropriate amounts of ridicule for your beliefs about external reality that have absolutely no evidence to justify them.

No, our demand of evidence does not require that you make mathematical models.

It does require that you have performed tests or observations that would allow you to determine if you live in a world where your beliefs are right vs a world where your beliefs are wrong, e.g. falsifiability.

If you haven't made tests or observations that support your beliefs about external reality and that "might have been otherwise", then you don't have any reason to believe that your beliefs about external reality are true.

PS: If you go to "but skepticism means we should be skeptical of skepticism", I will try to hate you to death for your probable dishonesty, or rank ignorance.

That might be true, and rationalism and scientism could show that it is true, in the hypothetical world where it is true.

However, based on evidence, we know that human consciousness is the result of physical processes going on in the material brain, so you're wrong.