How does Veeky Forums feel about scientism?

>>empirical evidence is the only valid way to discover scientific truths
What non-empirical evidence would you suggest considering?

Faggots doesn't always mean homosexuals, faggot.

>Faggots doesn't always mean homosexuals, faggot.
"Faggot" is a homophobic slur.

Do your parents know that you're gay?

>empirical evidence is the only valid way to discover scientific truths
this is what makes humans different from monkeys or brainlets

It will be our doom.

None that I can think of, off the top of my head. I'm perfectly fine accepting this axiom. Doesn't mean it's not an axiom though. And my statement that I'm willing to accept it is not different in kind to a religious person admitting they are willing to take the bible axiom on faith.

I hate when soyboys or lefties try to use one scientific study to enforce social policy and brush aside all criticism or opposition by screaming antiscience.

The modern scientific industrial complex is a huge flaming pile of shit and has nothing to do with real science or the beauty of discovery. Real science stalled a hundred years ago and has been replaced with applied science, with a few bones thrown here and there to the impulse for pure exploration and pure discovery to people so they won't notice they are being duped.

Current scientism, even at the level of experts, is a fucking mind-plague that will destroy the possibility of science for all time by cementing the current, broken as the only way to do things, as THE way of doing things. That's not to even mention the worthless hordes of retarded pop science drones who just want something to worship.

The real discovery of the universe and its secrets is being replaced with the mono-goal of engineering a giant fucking iPhone pleasure palace in space so that humanity can ferment in its own piss for all eternity. Kids are given a tiny drop of wonder for truth for every bucket of "AND ALSO, LOOK AT ALL THE COOOOOOL GADGETS WE CAN BUILD!!!" they imbibe on a daily basis.

Neil de Grasse Tyson and that autistic chinaman are both hollowed-out zombie slaves of industry. The whole fucking thing is interconnected. All the pop documentaries, the websites, the blogs, the Youtube industry, it's all one giant webwork of cynical businessmen who want to fuck your mouth. The greatest joy they feel is when you parrot their bullshit for them, for free. It means the constant inundation of propaganda worked.

DESTOY Neil de Grasse Tyson, ALL AUTISTIC CHINAMEN fuck off, real science will return only when pious scientist-monks with unlocked Super-Autism come together to seek after the true mysteries of space and never use an iPhone again. DESTROY NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON, elon musk fired into sun

This should have stopped being funny long time ago.

What the fuck?

it is good.

scientism IS NOT about science becoming a religion
It's about people surrendering their critical thinking abilities to an authoritative power.
In the world of politics the act of trusting someone is thought of as a commodity. It can be traded, bartered, and stolen for personal gain. Politicians have noticed people putting lots of trust in science, and are now using the name of "science" to borrow or steal that trust. This doesn't make science in general bad, just those who try to abuse the good faith and trust that's been put into it. Once the name of "science" has been used up and when people stop trusting science, the politicians will move onto the next trust worthy thing that they can milk dry. It's a continuing cycle. Science is a victim in all of this, not the villain.

As someone who'd you call a soyboy I say GOOD FOR YOU! You shouldn't let people tell you what to think! Make up your own damn mind about stuff. This is called critical thinking skills and I believe it's severely lacking in today's society. But don't keep doing it just cause I told you do, you should decide for yourself if you want to keep thinking for yourself.

It's too broad to be an axiom, axioms in STEM are never so vague. It's regularly broken too, so it's more like a guideline.

Nonexistent. Made up to treat "science" as some monolithic entity, to easily dismiss it in favour of baseless and often empty beliefs.

Scientism is the position adopted by many philosophers of science. E.g. Mario Bunge, James Ladyman, Alex Rosenberg etc.

they eat the poopoo

This. Fuck Neil and fuck chinese "people"

On Veeky Forums it is a term of endearment

While we may derive from the higher art of mathematics our language and a few neat tricks, I can assure you, in science, when we derive from the physical plane to found our algorithms upon. They are as solid as the smallest particals we can detect and the harnassable energies we use in our constructs. The proof is in the laserbeams.

it's definetly a thing.
Basically whether a worldview gains momentum a lot of brainlets will flock to it (natural instinct of the less intelligent, to "fit in") and will misunderstand everything important and/or subtle about it then proceed to spout moronic nonsense, making the whole thing look bad.
Scientism is idiots thinking they are being scientific when in reality they are ignoring basic epistemology and being as irrational as they theists they say to oppose.

On the other hand, some intelligent people who are simply ignorant of science also incur into scientism and think that marvelous discoveries and inventions will happen just because "science always finds a way" (or simimar bullshit).

>the addition axiom is on par with the Great Flood
Okay

Heard NDT's branched out into psychology now, pic related

faggot

subjective experience

>make up your own mind
Yeah see we have descended so far that is iffy to encourage this because the overwhelming majority of people are retarded, illiterate, and apathetic

Correct. Science has stalled. Most things are engineering now. We'll probably have to wait for the current generation in charge to die off before we are free enough for another scientific boom.

>Implying humans deserve freedom
We need a god emperor to keep us from regressing every 3 life spans

>Scientism is a term generally used to describe the facile application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.

Doesn't sound like science to me, so I don't think much of it other than it's some normalfag shit.

I blame the methods of our education.
We're trained not to think by the way the education system works.

Since day 1 in 1st grade, the teacher tells us what to think, what is real, and what is not. You don't get to make deduction, discoveries, or think for yourself. You adsorb facts from your superior, the teacher in this case, and if you question those facts you fail. The entire system has brainwashed an entire generation and even the people doing the brainwashing don't realize they're doing it. It's not malicious, it's just one big accident with drastic consequences. The consequences being that anyone can assume the role of "teacher" and input "facts" into a persons head, even if they're falsehoods.

It's like the trusting trust problem in computer science. There's no clear solution except rigorously redoing and cross checking previously done works of science to confirm they're accurate and trustworthy.

also, fact checking sources and methods

>the addition axiom
Guaranteed biocuck.

faggot

>faggot
What's wrong with you?

>What's wrong with you?
I know right. Trolling use to be an art form. Now they just shout FAGGOT and get 100 replies.

so you're saying, now it's a science?

> (OP)
>A bunch of faggots appropriating science for their new atheism cult. Most of them don't even know calculus.

Scary fact. Medical Doctors generally don't take calculus for Pre-Med studies. ...and think they can model our chemo-physical systems.

All premeds take gen chem x2, gen bio x2, calc x2, gen phys x2, orgo x2, biochem, and biostats.

>>empirical evidence is the only valid way to discover scientific truths
It is, though. A scientific truth is, by definition, discovered and verified empirically. There may be other truths that can be derived non-empirically, and I doubt there are many scientists who would argue that there are not, but for it to be a scientific truth it must be empirical.

You're both idiots. In the last ten years humanity as a whole has
>spent billions of dollars to build the LHC and observed the Higgs Boson for the first time
>for no practical purpose.
>spent billions of dollars on the LIGO and detected gravity waves for the first time
>for no practical purpose
>discovered thousands of new species
>no practical purpose
That's just off the top of my head. We're living in a golden age of scientific advancement.

The annoying militant version of metaphysical naturalism.

>You adsorb facts from your superior, the teacher in this case, and if you question those facts you fail. The entire system has brainwashed an entire generation and even the people doing the brainwashing don't realize they're doing it. It's not malicious, it's just one big accident with drastic consequences. The consequences being that anyone can assume the role of "teacher" and input "facts" into a persons head, even if they're falsehoods.
What kind of shitty school did you go to? I questioned and challenged my teachers all the time and they loved me for it, or at least tolerated it. I went to public school too. Where does this meme come from?

>Where does this meme come from?
America.

Philosophy of science is also important. Operating under naïve realism just leads to aberrations like this.

It's better than believing something is true just because an ancient book said so

Are you trying to say it's not an axiom because you define it to be true, or are you agreeing with me?

>A scientific truth
>truth

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here.

you seem like the kind of person who would say "quantum mechanics is bullshit"

>Where does this meme come from?
Early-to-mid 20th century schools, where teachers were expected to hit you in the mouth for questioning them, since it was perceived as an affront to their authority, even if the question was a perfectly sensible. In fact, that often applied to most schools across history, since you only allowed to even start questioning by the time you were a fully grown up man, and even that might no protect you from beatings.

There's two problems when it comes to introducing the public to science.
>tards who believe current scientific knowledge is infallible and thus "worship" it despite the fact that a lot of the information that they've been exposed to is simplified or not true in practice
>tards who use the concept of scientism to dismiss well-researched evidence of an effect or lack of effect in relation to certain substances because it contradicts their unsupported ideas
Both are part of the reason why I was happy when Net Neutrality got repealed

its a strawman attempt. poor one at that

anyone care to explain how this is different from fine tuning?

I glanced through the wikipedia article and I'm still not sure I really understand what it is.

Like, if we're railing against I Fucking Love Science, I'm all for that. If we're railing against people who don't really understand the limits of science, ok, but those people probably aren't even scientists.

But, does this really need a special term? I'm content to call a dumbass a dumbass, without trying to fully categorize in what specific way they're being a dumbass. If you want to point out the flaw in someone's thinking, address the flaw in their reasoning directly instead of making a slogan.

What are the limits of science? I would say everything else is limited because nothing else can actually describe the world accurately.

By that I meant the limits of the scientific method to give a satisfying answer about some questions. Although, I should probably say limits of technology, because this really comes down to how well we can confirm an idea, which is based on what tools we have.

Like say we're studying something about the brain, which has plenty of mysteries despite lots of advances in biology. I think in the absence of the tools we want, it's possible to make good observations borrowed from what we know about not just cell biology and physiology but also a bit of psychology to draw inferences and propose ideas that we can (hopefully) later test. Although maybe that's just still Science.

I dunno, that article said something Soft Sciences so that's sort of the angle I was taking.

>all logical and mathematical axioms
>all
L0Lno Lrn2axioms fgt pls

>an art form
a art form, you mean

IF ANYBODY HERE IDENTIFIES AS A "MATERIALIST"/"PHYSICALIST" PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME:
>how do you formulate your view?
it can't be "physical facts are the most fundamental facts" because there are obviously more fundamental facts, like facts about what a fact even is, what fundamentality is, what it is for something to be physical or to have a property at all, facts about logical relations, possibility & necessity, identity & difference, etc. etc. --- i.e. tons of logical and metaphysical facts which are preconditions of any physical fact

Shit bait, dead meme.

You can be a physicalist and a mathematical realist.

elaborate

The fact is, no physicalist/materialist will deny metaphysical facts. That would be positivism that is the OPPOSITE view of materialism.
The most famous metaphysicist of the 20th century, David Lewis, was an ardent materialist.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-metaphysics/

That is, you question only applies to positivists (empiricists) and some nominalist versions of materialism. But most materialists nowadays do not deny abstract facts like possibility, identity, relations. They may consider these as actual physical facts or modal (or more general) necessary facts. There are more sophisticated versions of materialism like ontic structural realism that deny the existence of objects, that is, only the relata exists. There is no difference in a mathematical structure and a physical structure in this case.

>no difference in a
*between a

>no physicalist/materialist will deny metaphysical facts
but if they don't reduce those facts to physical facts, how are they materialists?

You are confounding nominalism (abstract objects or facts do not exist) with materialism (mental processes do not exist by themselves).

That is, you can deny the existence of the self, the soul and other mental entities and at the same time accept the existence of the real numbers, vector spaces etc.

that's a weird definition of materialism
you're implying i can say "i'm a materialist but i don't believe everything that exists is physical and i believe there's a lot that is more fundamental than the physical"
i can literally be a Platonist and still be a materialist
also, if the only thing materialism reduces is the mental, what about ethics? on your definition i can think normative facts are nonphysical and still be a materialist

>i can literally be a Platonist and still be a materialist

Sure. Quine, perhaps the most influential philosopher of the second half of the 20th century was a platonist and a materialist.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/

A materialist can be either a non-realist or a realist about ethical facts. The metaphysical nature of ethical facts belogs to a field called metaethics.

A realist about normative ethical facts usually will try to reduce them to physiological facts and processes like homeostasis. For example, you should follow this diet to mantain a healthy blood glucose level. The normativity derives from the optimal physiological states selected through the evolutionary history of the organism.

i actually didn't know quine was a platonist -- it must have been a pretty thin kind of platonism if he could still qualify as a materialist, and i don't really see how that is supposed to work
i mean, frege's platonism about propositions seems to obviously rule out calling him a materialist so idk what would be different about quine
anyway my point was specifically not about modern lower-case p platonism, that's why i capitalized it
and you didn't really answer my point about normativity: if materialism is only about reducing mind, what if i think normativity is real but irreducibly nonphysical? can i still be a materialist?

>and you didn't really answer my point about normativity: if materialism is only about reducing mind, what if i think normativity is real but irreducibly nonphysical? can i still be a materialist?

The problem is: it's difficult to admit nonphysical normative facts and deny mental facts. You would need to show that these normative/teleological facts are not mental, that is, they do not involve any sort of intensionality.

sure, maybe, but that doesn't change my question
as far as i can tell, the reason your definition of materialism is unworkable is that it only defines a local materialism ("materialism about X"), not global materialism
you're only defining materialism about the mind, but there are also issues of materialism when it comes to ethics (eg naturalism vs nonnaturalism) and life (eg mechanism vs vitalism) and also other entities like the logical and metaphysical ones i mentioned (which btw shouldn't necessarily be analyzed according to the questionable modern "abstract/concrete" dichotomy)
i'm attracted to a nonphysicalist realism on all of those points, and the bizarre thing about your definition is that if i just went physicalist on mind (and nothing else) you'd call me a materialist full stop

Materialism is usually defined as a position with respect to the mind (in contrast with dualism and idealism/spiritualism).
A materialist would also deny vitalism since the existence of an elan vital would presuppose some sort of intensionality. The same goes for non-physical moral facts. Mathematical structures are not a problem for the materialist since they do not presuppose intensionality or any other mental attribute.
Now, a materialist nominalist would deny the existence of abstracta.

However, any materialist would deny the independent existence of things like qualia, selves, subjectivity etc. These things should be either reduced to physical processes or eliminated from our ontology (eliminative materialism).

so you don't think there's a problem with this thing i said before
>i can say "i'm a materialist but i don't believe everything that exists is physical and i believe there's a lot that is more fundamental than the physical"

Some juicy meatballs to go with that pasta

I think there is no problem.

then materialism is not a global metaphysical theory but just a particular theory in the philosophy of mind?
also:
>the existence of an elan vital would presuppose some sort of intensionality. The same goes for non-physical moral facts. Mathematical structures are not a problem for the materialist since they do not presuppose intensionality or any other mental attribute.
i don't see why this has to be the case
i assume you mean intentionality, and i don't see how moral or vital facts necessarily have intentionality in a way that logical or other metaphysical entities don't

all those things are defined that way for convenience

what things are defined what way

The more fundamental facts

what about them

>>only when pious scientist-monks with unlocked Super-Autism come together to seek after the true mysteries of space

lol but with you
kek
agree. but whether its entirely an accident is questionable. could just be a mistake though, control never works out.

but yeah the church of scientology is in the light again, for a reason. also many within science subscribe to a kind of elitism, which is bad for everyone.

It's what retards and reddit tend to do.

>observations are objective
and further more
>shared observations are objective
science rests on these two axioms and probably more
brainlets always deny this

It's still infinitely superior to being religious

>can't come up with anything better
no u

wrong, it's worse because at least religious nuts get told they are insane on a daily basis, scientism plebs have groupthink circlejerk media as a global safespace

A term created by Creationists and other pseudoscientists to smear mainstream science as being dogmatic because their retarded ideas aren't accepted as science (and rightfully so).

>>>/reddit/

>Promoving science in the name of freethinking while ironically you are helping to reduce human existence to its minimum with the purpose of create a mindless consumerist population . At the same time, you are draining power from humans, reducing their freedom and make them like pets totally dependants of the current system

Good job reddit