What caused contemporary Western societies fetishization

>>2709961
Rejection of Christianity but still demanding something to believe in and keep them alive
Religion is human nature

The failure of medieval scholasticism to fully bring philosophy and theology together.

>>2709961
Gave us better medicine, food, habitat, transportation and communicative abilities.

This crazy Internet shit, maybe

It's overwhelming and unparalleled success.

>>2709977

Some of those are engineering

File: bazingasheldon-171623.jpg (80KB, 655x370px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 655x370px

Because it's infallible and objectively true as long as it conforms to my political views, duh.

Because Science. It works, bitches.TM

>>2709961

Because of the overwhelming success of science in explaining the world and elevating civilization. Because it's your only option if you care about reals over feels.

>>2709961
Its a reaction politically motivated anti-intellectualism, Christianity, etc.

>>2709961
Because people don't know anymore how to use ethics and morality as a talking point, so they choose to use science as a foundation for their arbitrary opinions, hoping that the listener may mistake this association with objectivity.

The worst offenders are not the academics themselves: they know how shacky the whole system is, and how hard it is to make an actual unbiased prescriptive statement based on scientific evidence. Blame pop scientists, youtube personalities and pseudoscientist on the internet for that: they're the ones doing the nitpicking.

>>2709997
That's to be grouped under "science".

What's with Anglos and their constant arbitrary exclusion of fields from the umbrella term "science"?
It even irks me that they are limiting it to the natural sciences. That's a dumb distinction.

>>2710042
>don't know anymore how to use ethics and morality as a talking point
People never did.

>>2710030

Science just produces a series of facts, societies "advancement" I'd only done via the proper use of those facts

>>2709977
Also bigger bombs.

Rather than solve the issue of opinions going over facts in the humanities or education in general, it was decided to invent buzzwords like "quantify" and "falsify" to make science look extra authoritative in comparison.

The problem is not literally science, the problem is you and the general public's misconception of what that word actually means.

Science is just the way we determine facts by removing all irrelevant factors and doing experiments. It brought you medicine, it brought you cars, it brought you computers, it brought you atom bombs.

Science is not the doctor from Half Life teleporting cats and it is certainly not present when these pop scientist debate religion because most religious beliefs are untestable and therefore outside the domain of science.

>>2710112
uw0tm8

>>2710069
They did (in the most vulgar form through cheap theology), especially in the public discourse.
Since now there is no clear way to identify the "right" choice and behaviour, and since educated people are taught to be discard what we usually refer as common sense, science becomes the last foothold for the educated that want their opinion to look "valid, objective and based on reason".

More importantly, why do you keep on making this thread every single day as if we care about your anti-sciencism echo chamber?

If you want to "dethrone" science, it's simple. Give more to the world than the men in white coats have. Can't? Then keep bitching, nu-male.

>>2710139
>They did (in the most vulgar form through cheap theology), especially in the public discourse.
And now they do exactly the same thing, except with dumbed down versions of ethical systems such as utilitarianism or deontology.

There is no difference of categories.

>>2710147

This is the fist thread I've created and I'm not trying to "dethrone" anything

>>2710179
>fist thread

No, it isn't, and you're bad at lying over TCP/IP. This thread ends the same way every single time, aimless bitching at the people who give more to the world than you do. If you want that to end, give more to the world than they do. It's that simple.

>>2710167
There is. The first option begs for a compromise, for you can say that you simply disagree and conjure equally reasonable statements as your opponent most of the time.

In this case, instead, you're immediatly trying to prove the objectivity of what you're saying, using a much wider system such as science as a shield. This call for objectivity is in itself infinitely more dishonest than the call for "common sense" and "reason" in ethical discussions. It is in itself a far more effective and insidious way to obscure the real nature of your arguments.

>>2710196
Do you think that, when the are Tengri arguing about what is right and appeal to the Sky God, they just end their disagreement with saying "oh, I guess we disagree about the properties and motivations of the Sky God"?
No, both sides, in their "cheap theology", will claim that their opinion is objectively right and the interlocutor is objectively wrong. If anything, this tendency to appeal to objective theological truths was far more intense in the past.

>>2710194

If you want to believe that it's your business, but this is the first time I've made this thread

>>2709961
>Science =/= Magic

No, back in the day Magic was the only Science.

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this adequately, but I'd like to hear other anon's opinions of the importance of science vs. history/philosophy/general humanities/etc. in society.

For example, my opinion is that while the important and necessity of science in modern society is great, its importance relative to other fields of study has been overinflated. Basically the focus on the "how" has overshadowed the importance of the "why", when both questions should be given weight.

>>2710243
Theological disputes are almost nonexistent (and they exist, they're basically irrelevant) in orthopraxical religions, anon.

>>2710386
I don't believe that. Religions are too complex for people to not come into theological disputes, and even if a dispute between two layman could be attempted to be solved by a priest, all it takes is for two priests to disagree for the dispute to surface again.

How do you think new branches of orthopraxic religions get created?

>>2710412
Dude, if you thought the most important aspect to Athena was X and someone else thought it was Y, you did nothing close to what would happen in a similar situation in christianity. You would basically set up a temple to Athena X and the other guy to Athena Y, that's basically it and you'd be still friend with the other guy.
In religion that focus on orthodoxy, you either resolve the issue, or split up and bad blood accumulates between the two of you.

>>2709961
Because understanding even just a little bit of science makes idiots feel smart. That's how we see people at the science march holding banners claiming that their 100 genders are legitimate and real.

They're just retards who like to play pseudo intellectual dress up.

>>2710042
>Blame pop scientists, youtube personalities and pseudoscientist on the internet
Kind of like how bill nye is fucking worshipped now and nothing he spews can be wrong?

>>2710436
>In religion that focus on orthodoxy, you either resolve the issue,
But does that happen instantly, which would be required for the religion to be free of disputes? No, the resolving or catastrophical split takes time. Until then, there's a dispute.

>you did nothing close to what would happen in a similar situation in christianity.
Is Christianity not a religion now?

Also, why are you even bringing up pagan religions? I just brought one up to illustrate, but this thread is about science in Western civilization, which has been dominated by Christianity for almost the whole time it existed.

It's the religion of a liberal secular society. And arguably the god of science can be much kinder to humanity overall, with evidence, than any other god so his worship can be much more easily justified.

>>2710459
>That's how we see people at the science march holding banners claiming that their 100 genders are legitimate and real.
Have studied human biology?
Not saying that you're wrong, but you say it so confidently, you'd look pretty much like an "idiot that feels smart because he understands a little bit of science" if you didn't extensively study the subject.

How many studies about the number of genders have you read? Have you done a full literature review about it?

If not, then maybe you shouldn't do exactly what you allege other people of doing, except with a minus sign in front.

>>2709961
Maybe the fact that unless we follow:
-progress trough scientific understanding of the world - in place of hypothetical one.
-useful creation of goods and values.
-constant perfection of our morality.

We don't progress and very importantly if younger generations do not exceed the older one in all these processes we're surely doomed to regress.

>>2710083
>Science just produces a series of facts, societies "advancement" I'd only done via the proper use of those facts

Right and you can't use facts if you don't have access to them (or you actively deny them).

It's a godless religion, with scientists as the priestly class, and the state as its protectors. Nothing has changed.

Shocking amount of success in improving material conditions, circular relationship with commitment to reason in the modern sense, and natural congruence with protestant ideals.

>>2710629
Not that guy, but claiming a hundred distinct genders is less defensible than claiming two genders. Might as well just claim "gender is an well established social classification derived in past from physical differences between sexes that has many forms of expression". Like sexuality, creating smaller and smaller classifications merely dilutes the message and the reality while arbitrarily labelling people in a prescriptive way. "If you are ________ you should behave like _________". It creates divisions where none really exist for selfish reasons.

>>2710725
>Like sexuality, creating smaller and smaller classifications merely dilutes the message and the reality
What "message"? If I jump 4,03 meters, how does saying "he jumped 4,03 meters" dilute the message, compared to "he jumped 4 meters"? One is just more precise than the other.
Should we do away with fractions of measurements? They dilute the message, after all.

I think even if there were a gajillion different genders, there'd only be 5-6 actually in widespread use. Nobody but experts would actually care to learn or apply them. AFAIK, not even people that actually care about this bother. They just exist for people to look up when they want to get a precise description.

>while arbitrarily labelling people in a prescriptive way.
From just stating the facts, you aren't necessarily prescribing new behaviour.

>It creates divisions where none really exist.
Multiple measurement points laying on a spectrum doesn't mean that the difference between them doesn't exist. Two sand corns aren't a heap of sand.

I don't know anything about this, though, and I frankly do not care.

>>2710710

Most of that is due to engineering

>>2710980
Engineering sciences are sciences.

>>2710037
>Anti-intellectualism
>Academics being anti-intellectual

ok.

>>2710994

The science and engineering communities don't see it that way

>>2711065
Okay. Guess I was mistaken in thinking that I was literally studying for a degree in Engineering Sciences at a German university right now.

File: 1474626559008.jpg (130KB, 794x491px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 794x491px

>>2709961
to show that they are intelligent, but just to show to assuage the enormous ego that is built up for individuals in modern society, you ask them of a theory they will bumble like any good politician they have been watching and subconsciously emulating.

what do you get when you cross "science" and &humanities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_humanities

all jokes aside, i think it's really interesting, hope you do too.

>>2710011
>He can't ™
>laughing_whores.jpg

>>2710030
>"""""reals"""""
Don't make me laugh. Feels are literally the only thing that is really real. You'd like to pretend that we're all just objects, but we're not. Facts don't exist, belief exists.

>>2709961

It's because 'science' is different to 'scientific thinking'.

File: nagarjuna_03.jpg (624KB, 1517x2336px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1517x2336px

>>2711181

>Feels and belifs are real

they are illusions, anon

File: 1458428373939.png (4MB, 1778x2014px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1778x2014px

>>2709997
What do you think engineers study? Not math, physics and chemistry but carpentry?

>>2711181
None of you feels>reals guys can ever properly tell me why without say effectively "Just 'cos!" or saying "GO READ EVOLA!"

Which will you choose?

File: 1483328856115.jpg (97KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x800px

>>2710037
>An interest in science is anti-intellectual
Really Darwin my Dawkin

>>2711200
Illusions of what?

>>2711221

illusions of reality

>>2711204

They apply science, which is the distinction

>>2711200
There is literally no distinction between reality and illusion, as long as the illusion is good enough.

>>2711235
t. never done STEM

And don't try lying about it either, no engineer would be this stupid.

>>2711242

no illusions are good enough, therefore there is a distinction between reality and illusion.

>>2711235
You're not up to date in the philosophy of science. The distinction between applied sciences and fundamental sciences has been given up already. It didn't work out.

File: 2rw1d2e[1].jpg (71KB, 750x579px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 750x579px

>>2709961
I would blame the Cold War for the popular enthusiasm for science, but it goes back to the natural philosophers of the 17th century attempting to describe as much of the world as possible in scientific terms.

File: Recreative Science.jpg (357KB, 1066x1400px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1066x1400px

>>2709961
>What caused contemporary Western societies fetishization of "science"?
>He thinks it's new.
The 19th Century called.
Oh children.

Little do millenials know there was a period when Science was quite literally the new god and everyone thought that it will just get better and better and we'd be colonizing space by 1999 or something.

And then WWI and WWII put a hurt on their feelings.

>>2711251

Explain how it's wrong, then

>>2711242
>It's not a lie if someone believes you
t. George Costanza

>>2711358
Pretty sure George said that it isn't a lie if YOU believe it, which is true.

>>2711382
How?

>>2711293
Why are you associating the world wars with negative opinion of science?

>>2711065
Post source/proof

>>2710083
You're talking about pure and applied science.
Which are still, as evidenced by their names, a product of scientific thought.

>>2711545

Applied science is engineering

>>2711532

>>>/Sci/

>hurrdurr, engineering
>>2709997
>>2710980
>>2711574
Do you have some kind of form of autism?

File: Chrisitan-Science-Vanderwarker-4782_Edited.jpg (443KB, 805x550px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 805x550px

>>2709961
I'm a bit more concerned as to what gave rise to this rampant intellectualism, aside from the obvious profit motive.

When science starts telling you stuff you don't want to hear, folks tend to start fighting against it.

I wish we had a "fetishization of science" problem, but much more common is the damnation of reason.

Both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches once held reason in high regard, sometimes just shy of the highest regard. They are responsible for institutions of learning and universities that gave birth to science and the renaissance.

So... I guess we blame Christianity for science? ...Blame protestants for the abandonment of reason.

>>2711950
>rampant intellectualism
rampant anti-intellectualism*

>tfw when one typo completely fsks up your post.

>>2711950
I blame entitlement and excessively high self esteem.

The average person is unwilling to accept the idea that they're totally unqualified to make a competent decision on an important issue.

"Science" is little more than seeking truth through trial and error

A bunch of idiots didn't like some of the results so they made a politicized opposition to it and now "Science" is something you like basd on what political team you're on

Politics fucking ruins everything it takes note of and turns it into a weapon to bash the other guys head in with.

>>2709961
is positivism making a comeback?

>>2709961
The Enlightenment

File: 1490970616913m.jpg (100KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1024x1024px

>>2711986
>excessively high self esteem.

I sort of wish I had this problem. How do other people get to feel so good about themselves.

>>2711512
They collectively crushed Vicotrian Utopianism. The idea of endless social, economic, and scientific progress lost its legs in the trenches then died in atomic fire.

File: >Atheists.jpg (9KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x168px

>>2709961
(((Mainstream media))) and (((academia))))

>Ricky Gervais
>Penn Jillette
>George Carlin
>Bll Hicks
>Patton Oswalt

Does anyone else find it fascinating that so many atheists find inspiration from comedians?

Nevermind that comedians tend to be the most cynical and bitter people on the planet but the fact that they tell jokes for a living seems like a hint not to take their opinions so seriously. . .

>>2711922
Its called STEM. Science, technology, engineering and Mathmatics. Notice how science and technology are two separate subjects. Otherwise it'd be called "SEM" or "TEM."

File: Penn-Jillette-Code-Black-CBS-618x375[1].jpg (29KB, 618x375px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 618x375px

>>2712127
>Penn Jillette is a comedian
>Telling jokes means your argument can't be taken seriously

This post gave me cancer

File: 1487563668867.jpg (162KB, 777x1024px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 777x1024px

>>2712165
Penn Jillette is definitely a comedian and you can take whatever you want seriously.

It's just funny to me that so many people take comedians seriously and that a lot of those people happen to also be atheists.

File: penn-jillette[1].png (285KB, 566x381px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 566x381px

>>2712172
>I-I'm not making a real argument, I'm just pointing out ~connections~ (read: fluff, anecdotes, navel gazing)

Trashed

File: 1486186700990.jpg (64KB, 532x559px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 532x559px

>>2712185
Thanks for the (You).

File: Comedian.png (28KB, 782x477px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 782x477px

>>2712185
>>2712165

File: Steampunk.png (880KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 900x900px

>>2712217
kek

>>2712159
That's just a convention to highlight some important keywords. It says fuck-all about topology.

It's also only Anglos doing that, by the way.

>>2712263
Even if science (the method) and engineering are loosely under one umbrella in the same way history, philosophy and literature are all under the humanities umbrella doesn't mean a theoretical physicist like Steven Hawkins and what he does has anything to do with Henry Ford and what he did.

>>2712284
The cookie had nothing to do with the fact that I feel good after it eating.

It was just the sugar in the cookie!

>>2712295
Look at my example again. What does an engineer and a theoretical physicist like Hawkins really have in common? They both use math and measurements. That's about it. Engineering is not the same ""Science""" as exemplify by dawkins, hawkins, ect. Even take Sam Harris. What do Neuroscientist and engineers have connecting them? Nothing. Nothing metaphysical. Nothing abrupt and obvious.

>>2709961
Big Bang Theory, Mythbusters, Rick and Morty and I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.

File: Oww3ByQ.png (505KB, 885x950px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 885x950px

>>2712311
NTG... But without guys like Einstein and Robert Boyle, working up nuclear physics and chemistry, you don't get guys like Oppenheimer and Ford to apply them.

If you got rid of all the academics and only kept the "engineers", the most advanced piece of technology on Earth would be a trebuchet. (And you'd be lucky to get that, given that it took the maths put together by "useless nutcases" like Pythagoras.)

>>2712311
> They both use math and measurements.
I think you're underestimating the huge methodological implications that alone has.

What exactly would satisfy an "abrupt and obvious metaphysical connection" to you?

>>2712379
Even historians, philosophers and writers use math and measurements. Only by that criteria everyone is a scientist.

>>2712384
Everyone kind of is, both due to the fact that the usage of the fruits of their intellect is so common, and that everyone today uses the basic tenets of cause and causation, with at least some of those fruits living in their skulls. It may be the case that not everyone is a systematic and professional scientist, but to one degree or another, it's so thoroughly integrated into our modern thought process, that everyone uses some rudimentary science nearly every day.

>>2712404
People have been using math and measurements in primitive forms since the earliest of mankind. If science is merely math and measurements then it's a term that really doesn't have valuable meaning. Mathematicians study and teach math. Scientist study and teach some subject of science. This could be biology, geology, neuron, ect.

File: 556666.png (74KB, 299x410px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 299x410px

Science is a
p
o
o
k

>>2712384
>Even historians, philosophers and writers use math and measurements.
I'd be perfectly fine with calling them scientists.

>Only by that criteria everyone is a scientist.
The difference between all the people mentioned so far and the rest of the world is that all the people mentioned so far do this much more systematically.

But math and measurements aren't all an engineer and Hawkins share. They share an idea of what scientific knowledge itself is, whatever that is at a given moment in time (logical empiricism, falsifiability, paradigms...).

File: leonardo-da-vincis-crossbow.jpg (55KB, 541x398px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 541x398px

>>2712427
Creating a mathematical model and testing it, is the very essence of basic theoretical science.

Folks have been coming up with the theories for those models have been around near forever, yes, but what you're proposing is that they are useless and should be eliminated.

They may not have called themselves scientists, but that's what they were. Now we just actually have a name for them. By proposing the elimination of science, you're really proposing eliminating all systematic reason, and everything that's spawned from it.

While you're harping on the likes of Hawkins, whose theories have very little application in his own time, save for observation and exploration, keep in mind that Einstein's relativity had very little application in his time, when nothing was in orbit, and few things moved faster than the speed of sound. Yet now, everyone who ever pulls up an electronic map on a phone or in their car, or ever uses any sort of satellite based service with a timer on either end - which is pretty much everyone in the developed world 24/7 - depends on what you would have referred to, had you been alive at the time, as "useless theoretical bullshit".

...and the car you drive relies on a whole lotta theoretical chemistry and metallurgy that similarly, had no use when the academics theories on how chemical bonds might work.

Even the Amish often rely on simple machines which were thought up by people who never actually built them.

So unless you're ready to go live like an aboriginie in the outback, and just mankind go extinct with the next cosmic golf ball, you're going to need more than "engineers" in your life.

Death of God. Science is the new God and moral touchstone.

There isn't anything wrong with science or anything like that. I think it's more or less of the fact that people keep arguing their points with "studies" without actually reading through them which has lead to alot of people citing bullshit studies and the sort. There's no fetishization of science, just pseudo-intellectual assholes trying to make themselves look smart and people falling for it because the general public just takes their word for it.

>>2712172

Because life is a fucking joke

>>2712044
And also clouds of mustard gas; dont forget those.

>>2712044
Machine gun used on African tribesmen:
>Jolly good show, chaps. We gave the blighters a real thrashing!

Machine gun used on the Western front
>What horror hath science wrought?

>>2709961
The enormous improvements in our standard of living brought about by science. Also muh moon landing.

>>2709961
they want to le science the shit out of this

>>2709961
>Western societies fetishization of "science"
>implying implications

Maybe on some niche internet forum or something.
Most people either hate or ignore science altogether. Politicians hate science too but the pragmatic ones leave some scraps for the science guys that might make them some product latter.
Other than that science for the sake of knowledge will mean you have to flip burgers as your second job.

>>2712044
Except that's wrong, the '50s might have been the most "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" decade of the 20th century.

>>2710122
>because most religious beliefs are untestable and therefore outside the domain of science.

let me translate: made up and not true

File: 969e67d5e8316bcc966878e532b26c40.jpg (44KB, 627x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 627x600px

>>2713051
Yeah, everything in the 50's was "Atomic cars, atomic ovens, atomic shavers, it's the atomic age, yay!" (Cuz I guess the atom bomb won the pacific war, and no one gave a shit about the consequences.)

The the USSR got the bomb...

Then the hippies of the 60's got all on this "return to nature" and "stop thinking so much, man!" anti-science shit.

Then come the 70's and 80's (especially the 80's) suddenly the religious go all anti-science, and the religious right becomes a thing. Science suddenly becomes the new Satan.

Then the 90's come along and science starts giving various warning about environmental damage and the like, so suddenly, the factory owners the petroleum industry (and more importantly the folks who own them - who in turn own everything else) goes anti-science.

So now science is taking hits from pretty much every stance imaginable.


It's really just a matter of time before we're watering our crops with gatorade.

>>2709961
>What caused contemporary Western societies fetishization of "science"?

Where? The "science fetishists" are always the creme of society, and always a minority.
The "western societies", as shown by their majority, are increasingly more skeptical (lol) of science and trusting of traditional voodoo wisdom.

I am very amused whenever someone from this majority tries to act oppressed and play the rebel against the secular people or the science fanatics, despite these being very, very few in number pretty much anywhere on the planet.

Liberals are OBSESSED with the idea that they're the smartest people in the room so in order to try and prove this they watch shitty science shows from Le Black Science Man (who is a cunt in real life) and Bill Nye (who is also a cunt in real life)

I've met both at a dinner in Cambridge and they were a waste of space, so is Stephen Fry but everybody already knew that.

>>2709961
Bill Nye the Science Guy and Neil Degrasse Tyson

>>2713217
What did you not like about them?
What did you like about them?
What did you talk about?

I've only heard positive things from people that have met them so far.

>>2713217
Is that why you eat obsessively, so they occupy less space than you?

>>2709961
Neoromanticism sparked by muh science fiction

>>2711001
>>2711217
I think he meant a reaction to anti-intellectualism mates.

>>2710461
As annoying as that bill nye degrasse tyrone shit is, I can't blame them. Science education/popularization is an important job and someone has to be the guy to do it even if that means being shit on occasionally. The real problem is braindead normies who jerk off over the feeling of seeming superior to their other mouth breathing friends.

>>2714011
> The real problem is braindead normies who jerk off over the feeling of seeming superior to their other mouth breathing friends.

The real problem is fucktards who can't accept scientific fact because their pwecious feewings get hurt. Christkeks, Muzzies and /phil/fags fall into this neatly.

>The real problem is fucktards who can't accept scientific fact because their pwecious feewings get hurt. Christkeks, Muzzies and /phil/fags fall into this neatly.

Oh I absolutely agree. I just meant as far as bill nye dick sucking being obnoxious.

>>2714043
Sure. He is good at one thing tho: being the guy that immediately explains to the audience what the scientist man said after another guy says "In English Doc.".

>>2714050
And that's why I don't mind the "I fucking love science xD !!" crowd around him. Its just a unfortunately side effect of what's otherwise necessary.

>>2714050
Apparently he's been doing it in the most obnoxious way possible lately though

>>2710030
>Because it's your only option if you care about reals over feels.

What did he mean by this?

The masses need to believe in a greater purpose. Science replaced religion as a means to grant a sense of order to people.

The majority of "science fans" don't know much real science. Turns out that shit is boring and you cant learn it from spending 45 minutes on wikipedia.

I mean, ill take neil degrasse tyson over any medieval pope but still.

File: gXyCMdx.png (152KB, 616x725px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 616x725px

>>2709961
>contemporary Western societies fetishization of "science"
I wish this was real. These people don't get neither the funding or respect they deserve.

>>2714158
>apparently

Humanities autists are easily triggered tebehe. I quite like Bill, but haven't followed up on him lately.

>>2714410
Look up his most recent show

>>2709961

In the absence of an articulated ethical/philosophical/religious ideology, tacit ideologies develop. The ideal of Science (which is much more than the sci-method) is filling a gap that most people fill with religion. Unfortunately, they don't realize that just because the scientific method is dope, doesn't mean Science is a suitable holistic ideology of society---especially regarding social ethics (See: Eugenics).

File: FB_IMG_1493136718243.jpg (69KB, 929x768px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 929x768px

>>2709961

>>2713217
>Stephen Fry
Besides making almost exclusively what could be considered mistakes in his life, what does he really know? I don't get why he gets so much creedence.

He was funny in A Bit of Fry and Laurie and Blackadder, but how is he actually valuable as a source of information?

File: Euphoria.gif (1MB, 230x172px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 230x172px

>>2713132
>hurr this metaphysical claim can't be tested in my physical world, therefore it cannot exist!!1!

I dunno, eradicating smallpox and polio might have something to do with it.

>>2714730
There's no reason to assume they're true, and thus it's reasonable to assume that they're untrue.

>>2713155
What reasoning are you using to believe that one is the majority and not the other?

>>2709961
Just humans going gibs muh dat for inventions that improve their lives.

>>2713886
#burn
nice one

>>2714730
You at least don't have any legitimate reason for believing in its existence, especially not for believing in its existence over some 100% opposite concept

>>2714746
>>2714753
You can occam's razor it, sure, but you look like a faggot telling people their physically unverifiable and untestable metaphysical beliefs are dumb

Reading this thread has convinced me that we should all submit voluntarily to a dictatorship of empiracists and immediately pogrom the subjectivists.

>>2709961
The brainfuls are getting too much these days. They should be shot and put back in cage like they belong.

Us brainlets need to rise up and take arms against those science people. No one needs science, our lord and savior jesus christ already foretold what will happen.

>>2714781
You are my bitch and carry my children.

>>2714781
Sure, I can agree with that, which is why I don't typically do it outside of a board for discussion of such matters.

File: 1491913429068.jpg (774KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1080x1080px

>>2709961
How can one cause something that doesn't exist?

le epic mechanical engineering man and black science man

>>2715080
Le unemployed man

>>2715016
I don't know what goes on in the head of autistic NEETs and why someone came to the conclusion that knowledge is fetishised.

>>2709964

This

Alexis De Tocqueville keenly points out that at the core of every religion is hope which is so dear to the human heart, that's why it will never go away.

File: 1485961631632.png (107KB, 500x272px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 500x272px

>>2712058