Scientism

>scientism

Why do people in STEM have such myopic world views? I thought "because science" was just a thing in general society, but people in physics seem to just as fundamentally misunderstand empiricism and the goals and bounds of science.

Why do people believe that science is asocial and apolitical? Why do they believe that "science" is the only valid form of knowledge? It sends a shiver down my spine when these kids in my classes, who are obviously bright, are so neglectful of the world outside their cozy academic bubble. You are not a better person for knowing science, and knowing science does not qualify you to comment or hold an informed opinion on things outside the realm of science.

And science is not everything. That statement makes me want to rip my fucking hair out.

>t. brainlet

Why do you keep making this thread?

If we're gonna play this game, I'm an honors physics major in a highly selective program and I do computational physics research with a professor in a world renowned theoretical physics institute.

>Why do they believe that "science" is the only valid form of knowledge?

Are you suggesting that you can have knowledge about something outside of nature?

>not doing engineering to fuck some sweet boi pussy
>not in phd program at an ivy league school
>brainlet

Are you suggesting that the natural sciences are the appropriate tool for understanding everything in the world? Like knowing what country I live in or my name or what the color blue looks like?

>fuck some sweet boi pussy
faggot

What "toolls" exactly do you need in order to know your name? You're going to have to come up with better examples than that. And if you're going to use the word "understand", then talk about something which requires understanding. So far you've just mentioned factoids.

Humans create many concepts in culture which you must learn in order to be well adapted to society. But it's a stretch to call them anything more than factoids or, in some cases, rituals which can have complex sets of rules. But, ultimately, if you want to understand culture you have to understand humans, which requires science.

And yeah, if you want to understand what the color blue looks like, you need science. Even the philosophy of individual perspective is slowly becoming the domain of science as neuroscience is making huge leaps in recent years.

I'm sorry if you're tired of people blindly following science, but you probably also know that it's human nature to begin to dislike things, ideas, that are experienced over and over again. It's true, science is everywhere and it can become nauseating how it seems to creep in to every aspect of life and be so god damn successful. I'm sorry but you're just going to have to adapt. Science is the only method we know of that discovers real truths about this strange place that we have found ourselves living in called nature.

>You are not a better person for knowing science, and knowing science does not qualify you to comment or hold an informed opinion on things outside the realm of science.

I think being a thoughtful person qualifies you to have better opinions in general about topics of the human condition. And science has a way of forcing you to be more thoughtful about your conclusions because, in science, the truth is concrete and irrefutable, so you cannot delude yourself in to thinking you were close, or right in another way etc.

Maybe you should take a course in epistemology

>Why do they believe that "science" is the only valid form of knowledge?

I think most people think that science is the most valid form of knowledge because behind science there is the notion of "logic". I think most people recognize that there are other forms of knowledge that are extremely powerful to an individual but in terms of conveying knowledge, it is accepted generally that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge that can be communicated among others. Other forms of knowledge just can't be reproduced readily. For example, I've never had a religious experience in my entire life. I won't attempt to deny others haven't but I also won't accept someone's religious experience as knowledge for me to base my life around.

Again, for example. I don't want to attract /pol/turds

How neat! I too am an """honors""" physics major in a """highly selective program""" and I also do computational physics research with a """professor""" in a """world renowned theoretical physics """""""""institute""""""""""".

the irony is that neoliberals have this "scientistic" (?) view of the world, in which they talk about economy as the most important thing ever. well, the neoliberal leaders are mediocre people, they are mostly there because they are either part of the economic elite or because they are useful fools that defend the current social status, economy is far from science, and yeah, science *is* subordinate to politics and the society in general (think about tech trends, money and [lack of] regulations ).

I guess this could be your response, OP. we live in a neoliberal society, in which supposed technocrats manage our lives, in which there are no real political/economical options/differences. you'll notice that liberals/leftists/right-wingers/nationalists all represent the same thing, even if their discourses differ.

>scientism
This phrase indicates the user's insecurity in his personal beliefs which cannot be substantiated by anything, and which most people disagree with. Instead of questioning such beliefs, user turns his anger outward and attacks those who disagree by claiming that thinking rationally and relying on evidence rather than ideology are somehow flaws. The user will make up a shadow ideology complete with devoted, smug adherents. Of course, this only further serves to ingrain the user's irrational beliefs while alienating those whose approval he secretly yearns for.

It's simply the fact that we believe in system where knowledge and logic should hold more weight than selfish gain. It's inherently flawed, but paradox is always found when one contemplates a perfect system. Of course sciences are not immune to the politics of people, but I would have fucked off working some mindless 9-5 job from the start if I knew I d have to suck dick either way to get ahead.

Fuck the academic system and Fuck you for thinking that my views originate from some condescending armchair world view

>people in physics seem to just as fundamentally misunderstand empiricism and the goals and bounds of science.

Because many new atheists think a physics/astronomy/biology major is seminary for atheists. They tend to also be the ones that hate engineering for "tainting the sacred halls of science and not dedicating themselves to the true calling of science which is the eradication of religion".

...

>what country do you live in
can be determined by a computer that compares the location of your house to a political map. That's math done on a map that was drawn by natural sciences.
>what is your name
hook some sensors up to your brain and start hurling sounds at you until the sensors detect your brain lighting up in response to a sound that you recognize as 'your name'
>what the color blue looks like
a 500-450 nm wave

It is sad to see Veeky Forums posters not appreciate the value of philosophy because they think of it as just a shitty form of science that isn't testable.

>It's simply the fact that we believe in system where knowledge and logic should hold more weight than selfish gain. It's inherently flawed, but paradox is always found when one contemplates a perfect system.
>my beliefs are inherently flawed but also perfect but it's okay that doesn't make any sense but I'm also trying to be logical
All of my wut.

Who are you quoting?

What is godels incompleteness theorem?

I'm in engineering? Did you expect any different. Still not as good as cleaning my boyfriends' cocks after they fuck my ass.

Not whatever you think it is.

>physics
>not pure math

>muh scientism strawman

You've seen some shitty retard posts on reddit and conclude that _all_ people in STEM are _always_ behaving like this?

Looks like you're not cut out to be a philosophical thinker.