Why do you people think scientism is wrong?

false

>The way I see it is that science is the only way forward.

Already you are constructing teleologies around science which have nothing to do with science itself and everything to do with political, ethical and sociological ideals.

I’m guessing you either have some bland sort of utilitarian notion about science’s role in our lives. Or if not that then some sort of transcendental idealism which sees mankind taking over the course of its own evolution and eventually merging with sentient machines to become immortal and blah blah.

All these ideals which you see science as intrinsically serving having nothing to do with science.

There's nothing wrong with Science, you just don't want to go overboard with it. It is undeniably useful and has benefitted humanity to a great extent, but, like any one thing, you can't expect it to be the 'answer to everything', you just have to realize that some things are beyond the grasp of science, i.e. qualia, meaning, etc.

Rational, scientific thought caters to the masculine, orderly side of the human psyche, and when pushed to its limit it can lead to neglecting the opposite, but equally important aspects of the psyche like passion, creativity, spontaneity, etc.

People think that they can drive any idea to its extreme and find an answer when the place where you really want to be is that balancing point between thinking and experience, order and disorder, known and unknown, a place called Wisdom.

>qualia
Have you ever stopped to consider that adopting a different model of reality might be better than manufacturing paradoxical concepts to justify your current one?

Care to elaborate?

Qualia is such an absurd concept that it should disprove the entire idea of subjective perception. The claim is that qualia produces no effects in the material world, but this is a paradox because the act of people discussing it is an effect in the material world.

Ship of theseus should also disprove emergent identities instead of leading to a baseless model of gradual change.

What's the point to scientism in the long run? Remember, we all die. All atoms will one day be stretched far a part.

There's nothing wrong with science. "ism"s are the problem.

/thread.

>Why do you people think scientism is wrong?

Because science is not the sole bearer of truth about the world. Even positivists acknowledge this.

>The way I see it is that science is the only way forward.

In what sense? Scientism is not an ethical standpoint.

>If I'm standing and I drop a pen, I can assure you it will hit the floor, so where's the flaw?

You can't actually guarantee this, and even if you could, it's not an argument in favor of scientism.

>Qualia is such an absurd concept that it should disprove the entire idea of subjective perception. The claim is that qualia produces no effects in the material world, but this is a paradox because the act of people discussing it is an effect in the material world.
That's just dodging the question. You refuse to try to grasp what the problem is, or maybe you're just unable to think abstractly.

>Ship of theseus should also disprove emergent identities instead of leading to a baseless model of gradual change.
Humans can't think without forming identities, and science pretty much relies entirely on human thought. Besides, this is all just opinion, we're in no way discussing something objective.

Science (research) doesn't work well with the way funding works. We have a problem of mediocre papers (sometimes fake) and reproduction, because researchers have to cater to corporation and the government wants. Peer review is pretty bad as well.

The only one dodging questions here is you. I stated what was wrong with the idea of qualia, and you provided no rebuttal.

If you can prove that the very existence of the universe itself isn't a paradox, I'd give you some credit.

Science doen't even encompass reason; let alone all that exist in the world or in the human experience.

What you did was pull a strawman. It's not true that qualia can't affect the real world, but the only way it can is through a conscious human communicating its existence. That doesn't lead anywhere, so it might as well not have any effect on the physical world.

>That doesn't lead anywhere
Are humans not made up of matter that can be studied like any other matter?

Consciousness isn't.

post proof

So then a perfect material copy of a human will fail to work because it's impossible to replicate consciousness?

because lac of free wll hurts their feels and they don't want to embrace utiltarian antinatalism

Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts. Get a brain, take it apart, and there's no proof it ever existes. A single neuron doesn't experience qualia, or maybe it does; therein lies the hard problem of consciousness.

That's not what I said.

>Why do you people think scientism is wrong?

People that think scientism is wrong don't actually understand science but rather hold vague abstractions as to what science is or ought to be.

Those blind fools will continue in their mental masturbation until they breathe their last breath, while the world ala science passes them by.

>Get a brain, take it apart, and there's no proof it ever existes[sic]
post proof

Scientism is wrong because it's just another system of belief. Doesn't really matter how many checks and balances are put in place, it's bound to produce wrong results, as the history of science itself shows.
Therefore putting dogmatic status to the knowledge produced by science is ill-advised.

It's just better to let people be free and think for themselves what they think the answers are, instead of repressing thought.

That's what's wrong with scientism.

So you're saying it's impossible to study living brains.

what the fuck is "scientific" about antinatalism

Read Kaczynski.

Can't the same be said of pop science followers?

No. It's impossible to objectively study qualia, which by definition is subjective.

The existence of qualia causes measurable behaviors in the brain. The brain can be studied, therefore qualia can be studied. You can't just say it's impossible when everything said up until this point indicates otherwise.

You can drop that pen and it falls on the floor equally well in a Newtonian or an Einsteinian world. Once we thought the universe worked under ruleset A; then we discovered ruleset B.

You can drop a pen on the floor and have it prove quite a lot of things. Lycurgus could walk into your room and say, see, while this guy was sitting around dropping pens on the floor and thinking about science, twelve Spartan youths conquered his entire city. Now the city is ours, along with this bizarre apparatus they call a particle accelerator. How unusual these people are!

Everything proves everything. What we need is the richest and deepest possible explanations for these things.

>If I'm standing and I drop a pen, I can assure you it will hit the floor
What if I grab it first?

MATERIAL NIHILISTS BTFO

>its true cuz i sed so nd sew it
I understand it better than you, most likely.

It's garbage.
It's not useful, it's disgusting.

>not being a skeptic
>implying you can prove that you're actually reading this post
I don't even know that I'm real, how can you prove to me that you are real?

You'll measure behaviors in the brain though. You'll not measure qualia.
At best, you'll study the biological bases of qualia, but it's still not qualia.

Can the brain be studied? How do you know that the brain actually exists? How do you know any fundamental laws of chemistry and physics are valid? Because you observe them? From what basis can you hold observation to be accurate?

I'm and it seems I never assumed any position in any way about the questions you're asking me

we don't know what 95% of the matter in the universe is or what the rules are for it

If you're going to adopt that mentality, then qualia is STILL no different from anything else. The idea that we can't study something because we can't access it "directly" applies to everything, and not just qualia.

But you can't actually believe that because it means you think that knowing anything is impossible.

>knowing anything is impossible
Exactly. How can you know when nothing can be proven?

You can't argue that knowing things is impossible because all arguments are made with the assumption that knowing things is possible.

How do you know that we are conversing? For all I know these words are created by monkeys flinging their hands on a typewriter. If even I cannot be sure that these words are mine how can you then know whose they are.

I'm the person you're replying to.
I'm not particularly adopting that mentality, I didn't say I was subscribing to the idea of qualia. It was just an extent of the definition.

Still, qualia apart, the example I was responding to makes me think of a biological reductionism which I don't find particularly happy. Then the question of knowing if other realms are accessible by other means than science is another one.

>The way I see it is that science is the only way forward.
funny you word it that way, science inherently views things regressively.

anyway, there isn't anything wrong with science, it's an important tool, but that tool is not the be-all end-all approach and has literally more failures in its track record than successes.
It's a necessity, but you can't utilize the scientific process to be your answer to everything

>Arguments have to be made
An utterance is not an argument.
Utterance: knowledge does not exist.

That is it.

Don't confuse an is and an ought user, it might get you into trouble.

You guys are being so stubborn. Science =/= scientism. Science is a methodological tool humans use in order to find out both physical laws as well as methods to manipulate said laws. Scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the only route to what we collectively label 'truth.' Now, science garners immensely important and even fascinating results in the fields of practical technology, theoretics, engineering, medicine, etc., but to suppose that it is THE philosophical compass to the treasure of truth is highly presumptive. Epistemologically speaking, science is nothing without the philosophy of science, which is by definition outside the realm of 'scientism.' However, this isn't to say 'scientism' is 'wrong,' per se, because that would be making a falsifiable claim. It is to say that 'scientism' contains limits that are epistemologically and ontologically insurmountable—a scale cannot weigh itself. And when you say "forward," what are you suggesting? Scientific/technological progress? If so, obviously a scientistic viewpoint would be technically 'progressive,' but if we're speaking in philosophical, epistemological terms, then the claim is absolutely absurd.

You talk all that shit, but you won't bet any money that the next pen I drop won't hit the ground.

See

'Scientism' is not 'I use science' or 'science is sometimes useful', it is the ridiculous notion that 'natural science is the only source of real knowledge'.
So 'scientism' is a dead-end and to eschewed by anyone with sense.

This post reeks of dialectics.

>laws
doesnt real
Illusions can have continuity.

user, 'doesn't real' is not only not an argument, it isn't proper English. I'd appreciate it if you expanded a bit more on what exactly it is that you mean

>arguments are good because i said so
There is no 'proper English'

Can science tell me what justice is? If it cannot, then there must be some limit to the sort of questions answerable by science and scientism is incorrect.

tfw no gf

Underrated

There's a lot of questions that science can't currently (if ever) answer. Nothing wrong in following scientific reason but most people need more in life than that.

kys non-prescriptive subhuman