Scientific degeneracy

1.) Bulverism
2.) Straw man fallacy
3.) Straw man fallacy that's been "refuted a thousand times"
4.) Where I state any of that? Are you resorting to defacto presumption of counter argument?
5.) If you are attacking the mainstream scientific theory, then please, by all means, disprove all fo the scientific data. I'm waiting...

>overpopulation
It's not our fault that people keep shitting out more and more kids. Technological development is the only reason that not all of these babies are starving.

History does not have a teleology. Technology is correlated to but does not precede history. Thus technology cannot be blamed.

Just call them retarded. They are deliberately bringing you out into deep water by invoking vague ideas of a "noble" human spirit and various philosophical garbage to invalidate your arguments.
Just call them out for what they are: luddite retards who are grasping at the last straws remaining to them.

>Just call them retarded.

not all scientists are simple-minded materialist retards.

Everything in the universe strives to create more of itself.

>Everything in the universe strives to create more of itself.

how do you explain NEETs and MGTOWs ?

I respond by asking you to go back to pol

>pol is sophisticated and deep, sci is dumb engineers and autists

i want this meme to die

>nature has a metaphysical Cause which transcends it

No it doesn't. End of response.

>espousing certainties

equally foolish

This is true. It's no coincidence that the Archetypal Monster is Materialist/Positivist.

>espousing certainties is foolish
>we can't know nuffin

are you certain of that? because that's an inherently self-contradictory worldview

>inherently self-contradictory
Only if you think certainties are required to take a position on something.

>ITT: Word-savvy pseudo-academic attempts to justify the reality of non-reality by banging pots and pans together about ultimate causality and metaphysical phenomena.
> Thread is accompanied by an equally comical picture

When you read the entire piece absent in its marring verbosity, its distils into the words of a small child, finger-waggling accomplished science: "y...yeh, well...,I have SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, and you can't prove that its not true because it's exempt from obervation and quantitative analysis, you guys!". It's akin to that one child with an intelligence-complex who over compensates with ridiculous, outlandish postulations in the hope that someone will think of him as clever

>monstrous fruits it produces
Vaccines.png

>13.772 billion
>using a dead kike on a stick as a reference for counting years
>making fun of people who worship said kike

>Only if you think certainties are required to take a position on something.

then you should've said "perhaps that's foolish, but I don't know..." in order to be consistent with your agnosticism.

Also, no one claimed certainty, you just assumed it and then made a general implication that "being certain" is foolish in principle. As if certain knowledge is impossible.

It's impossible to deny 'certainty' or 'objective truth' in principle without contradicting yourself. The agnostic must allow for their possibility.

I disagree.

It is impossible to be certain of things which require external perception. The awareness of this is entirely internal. For the same reason was can say math is certain, because it is entirely constructed by our own mind, we can be certain of our inability to be certain.

There is as much "proof" of Immaterial Phenomena as there is of Material Phenomena. Materialists choose to ignore it not because it is incompatible with the "Scientific Method" - very little Materialist Literature is anyway - but because it disproves Materialism. The only thing it is exempt from is your Ego.

>vaccines.meme

There is not even a faint correlation between Materialism/Positivism and Technological novelty. The qualitative leap from not using fire to using fire, from no missile weapons to missile weapons, from no agriculture to agriculture is much larger than that between the lack of any subsequent Technology and its appearance. Either:

1. Prehistoric Man was incommensurately more Materialist than us

2. Those Technological leaps were not done by Prehistoric Man

3. There is no correlation between Materialism and Technological novelty

If anything they appear to be inversely proportional, i.e. Materialism yields diminishing Technological returns as far as quality of novelty.

>Prehistoric Man was incommensurately more Materialist than us
You assert this based on what?

"no"

I don't assert it. YOU would have to assert it if you vouch for any link between Materialism and Technological novelty.

And yet you will surely garner more practical knowledge than I, as per the ways of burger flipping.

You're a fucking idiot. Increasing cognitive ability leads to easier comprehensions of tools and tricks.

Our world was bought with immeasurable blood and tears and frustration, not some jackoff who wants to pose superiority and dominance over the universes of existing facts.

The low hanging fruit of technological strategies will be decisive amongst bodies of knowledge and cognitive ability until the predominant gamespace is littered with such knowledge and cognitive ability.

It has nothing to do with materialism/immaterialsm you stupid jack ass of a bridge.

Furthermore, lets look at this whining faggot of a manchild. He compensates for a lack of total knowledge by appealing to a "holy" class of knowledge as if it justified his complete fucking ignorance and boorishness.

"YOU would have to assert it if you vouch for any link between Materialism and Technological novelty."

Yes, technological novelty wasn't bought by the efforts of countless people experimenting, failing, and (rarely) succeeding with manipulations of physical objects on ever-increasing criteria and complexity.

Get the fuck out of here, onanist.

So which one is it?

1. Prehistoric Man was incommensurately more Materialist than us

2. Those Technological leaps were not done by Prehistoric Man

3. There is no correlation between Materialism and Technological novelty

"1. Prehistoric Man was incommensurately more Materialist than us "

No fucking shit. We interface with the world in increasingly generic, stereotyped, and symbolic ways.

Caveman had to assess the "chaos" of "natural" worldpictures by paying far more attention to the sensory cues of their lifeworld. They were literally "more materialist" than we could ever hope to be.

>Those Technological leaps were not done by Prehistoric Man

?????????????? Leading up to agriculture, technological leaps were ages apart. An endless age separates those who fled from fire and those who put it on a fucking stick and understood how to recreate it.

That shit just keeps going, too
philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
I want to get off this ride

>vaccines.meme
>There is not even a faint correlation between Materialism/Positivism and Technological novelty

This is not the argument I was making, user. You appear to have your intentions invested in producing these overly-eager rebuttals of arbitrary relevance other than projecting worldview philosophy.

>incommensurately
>thesaurus.com
kek

Let me guide you through my previous point again, user.The original post cited a piece, presumably a spiritual individual's, which within made the statement that: "What we have called the 'inhuman' character of modern science also appears in the monstrous fruits it produces". This is one of those subtle claims which lands in the category of 'neither here nor there'-tier. Apart from the paradox the author creates when titling what he or she sees a monstrosity a 'fruit' (which in the correct context is the benefit of a given labour), the author of the piece fails to understand the duality of any progression of our scientific understanding - the particular nature of something is objectively neutral. We place the benefit on landmarks of scientific discovery ourselves. The author must take into account those which are not montrosities in developing his point.

>'diminishing returns'
>Firstyeareconomist.ogg

>degeneration of humankind
kill yourself and leave Veeky Forums.

Yes, both the character and the fruits are Monstrous. The only people who can afford to ignore this fact and can afford the luxury of invoking dualism or neutrality are the people not at the receiving end of the basic dehumanizing aspect of Science. There is no dualism or neutrality in the state of affairs where the limits of the Material World are taken as the limits of everything and the idea that dedicating your life to hoarding as much Matter as possible through its Mathematical reduction (Money) is the greatest virtue.

Interesting, so Materialism has actually fallen out of favor as time went on?

" nice verbose-speech, word-salad-boy "

Don't blame science for the shit people do with its results. Science tells you how to split atoms. Political philosophy tells you how to use this knowledge in military context. Science is ideally without value judgements.

>to know that nature has a metaphysical Cause
The whole point of metaphysics is that you cannot truly know anything about it. Fucking pseudo-intellectual brainlets.

>science tells you the white man is superior to other races
>don't blame science for colonialism
>science tells you we are animals
>don't blame science for people celebrating and rewarding animal-like behavior
>science tells you people with ostensibly different modes of thinking are inferior
>don't blame science for insane asylums
>science tells you only that which can be observed in the material world is worthy of consideration
>don't blame science when the general population is reduced to their material productivity
>science tells you newborns don't feel pain
>don't blame science when doctors cut them open with no anesthetic

The only thing that even allows you to pursue these lines of masturbational thinking is that there are enough materialists working to better the human condition that you actually have free time and won't starve by pursuing them.

Fie on your "degeneration" due to scientific progress. The Greeks didn't have abortion. They killed their own young to weed out weaklings. You want to go back to those days, your all-knowing above-the-frayness?

Mass employment and hard labor are Materialist inventions though. Your average slave had more free time and food security than your average middle class American.

>the Greeks
>"the Vikings"

>Your average slave had more free time and food security than your average middle class American.

Average middle class American is much happier though, (at least they were before the marxists started trying to drive them all into an early grave). Who's the 'materialist' now? Holding up slavery as some kind of ideal? pshaw!

>"science tells you the white man is superior to other races" [citation needed]
>""""white""""
>he means caucasian
men are not a race, the state of being male or female is gender, user

>"don't blame science for colonialism"
>"don't blame science for people celebrating and rewarding animal-like behavior (sic)"
>"don't blame science when the general population is reduced to their material productivity"

These are products that result from the frailty of the human condition, and thus your argument which attempts to shoe-horn science into possessing direct causative agency, can be dismissed

>"science tells you people with ostensibly different modes of thinking are inferior"
>"don't blame science for insane asylums"

>"different modes of thinking"
Weasel-phrasing.gif

People are not put in asylums for alternate or abstract thinking; they are put in asylums because they are deemed a danger to social welfare - a fundamental civil liberty. By all accounts, I would deem your worldview of spiritual sycophancy, a questionable 'mode' of thinking. However, you will never be put in an asylum for holding onto such a belief system.

If anything outside of the current physics exists and has any effect on the physical universe, then it's not metaphysical, and will be part of physics.
If it has no effect, it is not really of importance.

If think that's what people think.

>The only thing that even allows you to pursue these lines of masturbational thinking is that there are enough materialists working to better the human condition that you actually have free time and won't starve by pursuing them.
I think I just experienced a pan-dimensional kek.

>>/b/

This is exactly it. If it doesn't have an effect on the universe, how do we even know it exists?

>losing an argument

Have you considered the idea that Physical effect is analogous to a pool cue? And that the thing which generates it is neither of the cue, of the balls, or off the table?

>no longer replying to trolling retards spamming non sequitur shit

theres no good reason to believe that though

And what's your example of something that could be better explained by "magic behind the scenes is doing it"?

Why?

because youre generating something which is unmeasurable and redundant when we can explain everything through the physical universe.

outside of the bounds of empiricism, hypotheses become fairytales.

The infinite nature of Human Language and the fact that Mathematics is a Linguistic construct, the fact that Consciousness has never been observed or even measured in the Material World, the fact that no theories about combinations of determinism and randomness can explain the appearance of this comment, not to mention the fact that Materialists themselves are saying increasingly spooky things about Matter now that they're looking harder at it.

Just a few things...

I can explain your comment as a thing generated by electricity flowing through my computer. I don't see why it's any more sensible to assume that it was generated by another random Material aggregate like your brain.

Pic related is how I responded.

i dont get what any of that proves.

what about the idea that if you mess with someones brain they cant do math or speak anymore?

i think the idea of measuring consciousness (which i assume youre talking about qualia) is a nonsensical statement. we can however deal with the soft problems of consciousness and are beginning to do that; look at how the sense of self is developed in the brain.

im sure that the appearance of your comment is explainable it just comes from extremely complex circumstances.

im sure if you were a physicist and knew what they were talking about then it would seem alot more logical and isnt how you convey it. im not a physicist but im pretty sure a massive load of physics ideas are completely misunderstood by the general public.

>The infinite nature of Human Language

You'd have to prove this is a thing and define it first.

>Mathematics is a Linguistic construct

Math exists with or without language.

>the fact that Consciousness has never been observed or even measured in the Material World

Define consciousness and we can talk about how it's been observed.

>the fact that no theories about combinations of determinism and randomness can explain the appearance of this comment

They can't do it totally... yet. In a few decades, we'll probably be there.

>spooky things about Matter

Quantum physics still follows rules and can be used to make predictions. No magic to be found there.

If you mess with a radio you can get some wild results. Just a nudge will cause it to go from Black Flag to news about Trump to someone reading the book of Enoch. Plus our main way of altering each other's Minds is by Language - immaterial.

I mean how would you make judgement about by Consciousness compared to that of another person's or to that of an Ape's? It's worth noting that Physicists have largely abandoned this endeavor and are now pushing the idea that Consciousness "isn't even real" instead. Which makes me wonder if they're not speaking the truth as far as they're concerned.

You can make, use, and modify infinite Symbols and potentially assemble infinite string of infinite Symbols of infinite qualities.

What is one Mathematical thing you can know or speak of without the use of Symbol?

I consider Consciousness basal and having no definition other than itself but I guess observer and/or agent would work.

Really? Did determinism generate randomness? Did randomness generate determinism? If they both simultaneously came to be and operate as such then to what degree can you even call them determinism and randomness? No one has even the vaguest idea about any of this.

See

the nudging of the radio is explainable so i dont get you.

and no, communication is completely material. we can measure it through the electrical and chemical activity in your brain, the muscles in your larynx and mouth, in the vibrations that project through the air and then are recieved by someone elses brain and interpreted.

judging if someone has consciousness is a problem of definitions rather than anythign else.

consciousness isnt the area for physicists.

>interpreted

Casually think about that for a while.

Everyone doesn't have to be good at everything. We work together(most of the time), use our skills and intelligence where others lack them and build upon the previous generations' achievements. And those "monstrous fruits" are caused by lack of intelligence and an unequal distribution of knowledge, not by science nor even by technology(when used with enough knowledge of the consequences). Sometimes knowledge is outright rejected and sometimes a lack of intelligence is supported, as "diversity" or 'because it's normal.' As illustrated by OP's green text.

>You can make, use, and modify infinite Symbols and potentially assemble infinite string of infinite Symbols of infinite qualities.

That's not an issue. There's nothing magical about that, it's a logical extrapolation from being able to put one thing after another. You might as well complain about there being infinite numbers.

>What is one Mathematical thing you can know or speak of without the use of Symbol?

Things still exist with numbers without you being there to give the numbers names.

>I consider Consciousness basal and having no definition other than itself

If you can't define consciousness, we can't really discuss if it's being observed. We're not talking about what has consciousness, but what consciousness is. Is it being self-aware? Is it being able to reason? Having emotions? Once you put it in concrete terms, it becomes observable.

> Did determinism generate randomness? Did randomness generate determinism? If they both simultaneously came to be and operate as such then to what degree can you even call them determinism and randomness?

This is irrelevant to the question. We don't need to know the exact beginning of the universe to know how things work now. No matter how things began, your brain will follow rules, we could in theory simulate you and get your comment again. It's beyond current technology, but it's still possible.

How do I respond? Redirect them to

>Things still exist with numbers

A Number is a Symbol.

But there can still be 2 of something even if there's no one around to call it 2.

>When the only answer you got is bak2bee

To what degree do you think an "Objective" pair of things would behave like the Symbol of 2 and lend themselves to Material operations analogous to immaterial Mathematical ones?

Your argument is completely faulty because you assume the discovery of fire was a "greater" technological accomplishment than more contemporary ones. It's not even an invention or a technology. It was discovered already existing and required no material understanding. The more complex a technology is, the lower the chance of discovering it randomly and the more science you need. Take your meds and stop capitalizing random words.

Statistics on people always tend to fail this way.

why does that make a difference about interpretation. its a physical process thats explainable. look up the free energy principle. theres explanations for how neurons in the brain can extract regularities in the environment to create not only perception but meaning.

Literally anything you don't like can be called "dehumanizing." This is such a childish argument. Come back when you can show me something immaterial. Until then keep your schizophrenic babbling to yourself.

Ok I considered it. Now what? It's an utterly useless proposition. Either something is observable and we can say something about it or we can't. You are trying to talk about what you know nothing about. You are literally parading around your ignorance as a virtue and just making shit up.

Why not?

Everyone point and laugh. The pseud finally put some skin in the game and it's just a bunch of arguments from ignorance and appeals to things appearing "spooky." You should be ashamed of yourself you arrogant hypocrite.

Numbers don't exist outside of their material representations and the physical reactions of our brain to this symbols, so what's your point? You keep assuming immaterial things exist without proving it. Because you can't. Your entire philosophy is based on semantics and hoping people won't realize the difference between an idealization and the real thing.

If you're an inventor, you're responsible for how people use that technology. Apathy is the cowardice root.

>If you're an inventor, you're responsible for how people use that technology.
That's either some decent bait, or some idiotic logic.

If you introduce a technology to the world, and it's subsequently weaponized or used in an inhumane manner, you should be mature enough to hold yourself morally culpable. Science is not some pure and innocent autonomous system, priming wonder and inciting future pathways along some thirsty altruistic pursuit. All of its practitioners are influenced by a crude and irrational limbic system. If you're not receptive to responsibility, you're probably not capable of great discovery.

...

The principle of sufficient reason cannot be verified empirically. It has no place on Veeky Forums

Everything relates to something. Sep up user, this is haki level.

>but may at the same time be incapable of understanding the ultimate causality of things; this amounts to an illegitimate and monstrous disproportion, for the man who is intelligent enough to grasp nature in its deepest physical aspects, ought also to know that nature has a metaphysical Cause which transcends it
Nah, I'm not convinced. The fact that there is a "natural" does not necessarily mean there is a "supernatural", and to claim you know if such a thing exists and what it is is to pretend you know what the essential nature of the natural, and effectively bullshit the people around you. Science grounds itself in what can actually be observed because that's how you get results within the physical world. And this shit
>What we have called the 'inhuman' character of modern science also appears in the monstrous fruits it produces, such as the overpopulation of the globe, the degeneration of humankind, and, by compensation, the means of mass destruction.
This shit is even worse in that it doesn't even relate to the first point, unless you are to say that the "metaphysical" concept that you made up is somehow more human in its nature than the natural world we can determine that humans came from. You're essentially conflating, as you people always seem to do, the concept of an original cause with a human-like entity ho must be at the core of all existence, which is really a sort of unwarranted, arrogant worldview when you come right down to it.

>The principle of sufficient reason cannot be verified empirically
>empirically
do you even know what does this term mean, user-kun?

pic familia

I said a leap in quality, not a leap in complexity.

>principle

Adding another lair of random assumptions to random assumptions doesn't make them less random.

Language is immaterial. A morpheme cannot even be reduced to sound waves, let alone more basal Physical processes.

Any rebuttals to go with this worthless comment?

Can you tell us the difference the "Idealization" of a thing and the "real" thing?

Also, you're acting hysterical at the sight of innocuous clusters of pixels on your screen. Ascribing meaning to Objectively meaningless data is a telltale sign of Schizophrenia. Why not commit yourself? I promise to start liking the Materialist thought police so it won't dehumanize you.

I was gonna leave it at that but then I noticed this perfectly ironic bit:

>You are trying to talk about what you know nothing about.

No, I'm talking about what YOU know nothing about. And, hilariously, you're talking about what you know nothing about as well. Your empirical knowledge of Material Phenomena is functionally null. You have neither observed, nor replicated anything that could qualify as evidence, nor even contemplated the supposed Material causal agents of the World. All you did was literally read about it in a book.

what do you mean? why are those random assumptions. its a highly thought out theory based upon decades of research.

and language is material. a morpheme cant be reduced to sound units but it can be reduced to the interactions in your brain. my sentence about free energy was supposed to cover that. the brain can extract meaning. and whats more if you lesion someones brain you can make it so they wouldnt be able to understand the meaning of any kind of words or morpheme.

*yaaaawwwwwwwwwwwn*

>>science tells you the white man is superior to other races
>>don't blame science for colonialism
Nothing wrong iwth colonialism

>>science tells you we are animals
>>don't blame science for people celebrating and rewarding animal-like behavior
Science tells us that we evolved to be better than animals. Animalistic behaviour is anti-intellectualism and the polar opposite of the intellectual endeavours which led to science and civilization in general.

>>science tells you people with ostensibly different modes of thinking are inferior
>>don't blame science for insane asylums
If they are scientific geniuses like myself, they are superior. Only brainlets are inferior.

>>science tells you only that which can be observed in the material world is worthy of consideration
>>don't blame science when the general population is reduced to their material productivity
Mad because your sky daddy isn't worthy of consideration?

>>science tells you newborns don't feel pain
>>don't blame science when doctors cut them open with no anesthetic
Nothing wrong with that.

Apathy is the logical consequence of having a superior intellect.

>you should be mature enough to hold yourself morally culpable
Why? Because you tell me to? Who are you to impose your naive conception of morality onto others? Grow the fuck up, kiddo.