Scientific degeneracy

>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?