Memes aside, what's the real problem with scientism?

>>3253179

It doesn't go far enough.

The conflict is between Christianity (american) and science. Christianity is dying swine in the west and a cornered animal always lashes out.

>>3253179
Scientists have their own biases

File: xaw2d.jpg (55KB, 599x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 599x500px

>>3253183
fpbp

>>3253179
It attempts to use "science" (and in practice, some kind of humanist empiricism) for problems that are either meaningless by such methods or wholly unsuitable for it.

How do you use "science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical in a business setting? To show a good sonnet as opposed to a bad one? To equitably distribute wealth across a society? To determine the proper bounds of self-defense laws? To come up with a government that is capable of functioning effectively?

>>3253179
>Early racial theories, peaking in Nazi Germany
>Modern American activists usurping "science" for their political needs

Basically nothing on the pleb level. Unless people make a theory based on their ideology and call it science.

>>3253179
is it really a surprise to people that pop culture isn't very well versed in philosophy? it's literally just stupid things normies say being taken as a real position that needs refuting.

What experiment would you run today to prove if abortion is morally correct?

File: Awful.jpg (81KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1000x662px

>>3253179
Inhumane.

>>3253231
>How do you use "science" to determine
By applying logic of utilitarianism.

>>3253238
hand out flyers with pictures of dead fetuses on them

>>3253241
And how have you determined that utilitarianism is the best tack to take?

It can answer what, why, and how, but not why you should care, and it's reductionist.

>>3253179
Science is a nature only tool that relies on observation, testing, and repetition.

Scientism makes outlandish conclusions from literally nothing. Like "man came from a missing link".

There's nothing fucking factual in that statement whatsoever. No observation, no testing, no repetition, nothing. Just pure false religion.

>>3253179
It's killing science.

>>3253179
It presumes too much, such as taking natural materialism for granted. Ironically the elevation of science to the be all, end all arbiter of truth is a thoroughly unscientific position and is just another manifestation of man's basic need for a point of worship.

>>3253241
And here we go with Hitler thought gassing the Jews was a utilitarian process.

>>3253247
I'm not saying it's a good course of action, but it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical in a business setting by measuring which are the most efficient.

>>3253179
It doesn't actually exist. People just use science as crutch for their moral/political beliefs, dropping it when convenient. For example, a liberal might "fucking love science" when it comes to climate change, but not when the topic is GMOs or nuclear power.

>>3253272
No it isn't.

What principle of any scientific field can get you an ideal government model?

>>3253272
>I'm not saying it's a good course of action, but it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical in a business setting by measuring which are the most efficient.
Not without making a rather glaringly large assumption that efficiency=ethicality. (And besides, efficient for whom? It would be efficient from the point of view of stockholders to screw over their employees with incredibly restrictive noncompete agreements and bilateral agreements with other firms not to hire each other's leaving employees. Is that ethical?)

>>3253241
What's the scientific position on the Repugnant Conclusion? What experiments did you perform to reach this position?

>>3253231

Several of those problems you list would in fact benefit from more evidence-based decision making. Science can't tell you the "right" outcome to strive, but it can tell you what the consequences of your actions (and thus how to achieve that outcome). Oftentimes political opponents can't even agree on basic facts.

Science believes that it can answer the questions of philosophy in the same way that religion used to be used to answer the questions of science.
Philosophy and science are two complementary studies that for some reason people argue are mutually exclusive leading to retarded religious extremists who think dinosaurs are a scam and autistic nihilistic cunts who think nothing matters.
The future isn't science and the past isn't religion, the future and the past is both of these concepts together.

>>3253241
If the logic of utilitarianism were applied to music, we would all be listening to Taylor Swift, would we not? It's the greatest and best music because the most people enjoy it?

There's very little wrong with placing a poor understanding of science on a pedestal, right up until whoever believes it gets legislative power.

"Scientism" isn't any more inherently good or bad than religiousness, it's just that "scientism" is slanted more towards utilitariansim than deontologism.

Also, it really seems to me that people who use "scientism" as a bad word are either anti-intellectuals or people who are extremely upset that their political opponents use the "wrong kind" of scientific data against them.

>>3253298
But the questions surrounding them are generally about what is the equitable distribution of some sort of resource or power, not how to achieve that once you've got it.

> Oftentimes political opponents can't even agree on basic facts.
Learning factual background is hardly something restricted to the scientific method.

>>3253286
The percentage of Liberals and Conservatives opposed to GMOs is pretty even.

>>3253272
>I'm not saying it's a good course of action
>it's possible to "use science" to determine what sets of actions are ethical

But if your set of actions is Scientifically™ ethical, why are you so unsure they'll be good?

>>3253331
I was describing somebody I know. Maybe it was a bit of a loaded comparison.

>>3253303
Science = find a mathematical relation between A and B.
Science doesn't believe anything. Doesn't answer some mythical questions. But the knowledge that science gives redefines our framework.

Philosophers/theologians only have the human mind to set the boundaries of the questions. By redefining the framework we realize that most of the time the questions asked were nonsense.

That's what happens when people say "science answers the questions like philosophy/religion did".

Science is still in its infancy, but if it is truly rational, it will come to enforce a belief in God as well. Anything that is too skeptical of spirituality, is erroneous.
The evidence of God : fine-tuning, abiogenesis, human consciousness, and human evolution.

>>3253377
lol

>>3253382
You laugh now but soon there will be someone there who will be laughing louder than you.

>>3253377
>Reminder that most of the greatest scientists of the past were deeply religious (Newton, Leibniz, etc.)
Science is more mature now. Why is the religion ignored now? Because using non-material explanations in your model (ie God did it that way) is BAD SCIENCE.

Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.

>>3253377
>The evidence of God : fine-tuning, abiogenesis, human consciousness, and human evolution.

Allahu Ackbar.

>>3253398
Oh yeah well you can't disprove that there's somebody laughing louder than them.

I'm thinking of them now, they're laughing perfectly loudly. Therefore they must exist.

>>3253407
>Why is the religion ignored now? Because using non-material explanations in your model (ie God did it that way) is BAD SCIENCE.
>Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
>Religion is ignored because it's BAD SCIENCE!!!!!!

>>3253304
>I'm a pleb who would enjoy nothing more than listening to Taylor Swift and only listens to more sophisticated music to make myself feel smart
Sad.

File: 1e9d2d0bc930c4e312db0607aea08a40.jpg (131KB, 736x1101px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 736x1101px

>>3253179
The problem is that they became such an unquestionalble authority for a lot of people that they blindly listen to anything that begins with
>A Study shows
>A new research has demonstrated
>Dr.
And most people don't even know why they believe the things they believe
The flat earth mania that went on in social media was great because it showed to a lot of people that they can barely explain why the earth is round and that they never thought about it by themselves, they just assumed it was because science says so.
Not even talking about all the so called "sciences" political, sociological, economical that just try to push some ideas under the cover of the objectivity of Science.
>90% of scientists agree that climate change is real, you are not against science now are you ?
>A new study shows that homosexuality is a gene but it's actually not, it's formed in the womb but actually it is a social constuction while being a mental disorder
The crown of worship, and moral guidance doesn't fit on Science's head

>>3253298
I agree, but then science is one more tool to use in conjunction with others, not an all-compassing discipline that does away with those others.

>>3253265
>Ironically the elevation of science to the be all, end all arbiter of truth is a thoroughly unscientific position
How so?

>>3253179
It's dogma posing as science.

>>3253826
It's amazing how many people believe that uncritically accepting whatever scientists tell you because you've been taught to do so makes you smarter than people who uncritically accept whatever religious figures tell them because they've been taught to do so. "Being smart" in modern society simply means accepting whatever ideas the scientists of today are trying to sell you, even the ones that have nothing to do with science.

>>3253826
>The crown of worship, and moral guidance doesn't fit on Science's head
It didn't want to in the first place.

>Needing to worship something
Lol

>>3253774
Two axioms in science
1. Go where your data leads you
2. Don't use non-material explanations
otherwise it's like cheating at solitaire

>>3253970
That doesn't even address anything I said you retard.

>Religion is ignored because it's bad science
This statement is judging religion by the standards of science as if they were trying to accomplish the same thing. Then you wrote:
>Stop mixing concepts. Religion and science are different things.
And yet you yourself treat them as if they were the same thing.

File: which one.png (131KB, 657x401px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 657x401px

>>3253965
"It" doesn't want anything because "it" isn't a conscious entity
>I am so above worshipping lmao
Okay dude, and even so it doesn't mean it's the case for others

To add to this Science is seen as the last legitimate autority since the fall of the church and metaconstructions to explain the universe but since people still think just like in the middle ages they still gobbles whatever wears anykind of scientific semblance and believe uncriticaly in anything. It may be true or not it doesn't matter, what matter is: Is this blind faith in science more beneficial than blind faith in anything else ? Can science answer the questions of purpose, ethics, consciousness ? Would it be better if people belived in some mythological fantasy that told them how to live instead of a nihilist pragmatic narrative that "let them do whatever they want" ? Can science by itself actually lead to a better life ?

File: 1501812483457.jpg (128KB, 608x1024px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 608x1024px

>>3253179
1. It sets no goal and therefore is only a tool to archieve one
2. People ignore this
3. It's boring. Subjects involving (radically) unknown stuff have no place in discussion, despite them beeing the most interesting.
4. Nihilism and Marxism widespread / kikes
5. Too much authority, new ideas don't get a grip because of the "top scientists"
6. Snobs
7. ppl in the pst wre so dunmb lOL xD

File: 393fec2c569dee4093936b5e3d9a8269c3bdad4b_1_600x274.jpg (56KB, 600x274px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x274px

>>3253179
>Memes aside, what's the real problem with scientism?
not enough pic related

File: 1501026046482.jpg (57KB, 750x725px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 750x725px

>>3253179
This

File: 1502746295211.jpg (30KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 785x757px

>>3254176
>1. It sets no goal and therefore is only a tool to archieve one

the goal is to discover the truth about the natural world through direct observation and experimentation

>2. People ignore this

>people ignore my strawman argument
ftfy

>3. It's boring.

only for brainlets

>Subjects involving (radically) unknown stuff

like what? if it's (radically) (lol) unknown, how do you know about it?


>have no place in discussion, despite them beeing the most interesting.

they have no place in scientific discussion because they aren't real

>4. Nihilism and Marxism widespread / kikes

random non sequitur

>5. Too much authority, new ideas don't get a grip because of the "top scientists"

anyone can test hypotheses. new ideas are always occuring and being published around the world every day, you're just ignorant of them

>6. Snobs

not an argument

>7. ppl in the pst wre so dunmb lOL xD

not a thing

>>3253410
Top kek

>When all you've got is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
Scientism is the idea that all problems are nails to be solved with the hammer of science. The thing is, though, that some very important problems are not nails, but screws.

>>3253179
It's a descriptor of purely physical reality.

>>3254211

i.e. the only reality

File: laughing while thinking.png (14KB, 165x205px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 165x205px

Is "scientism" really a problem, or has it become a overly-broad label used drum up a "controversy" in the culture war?

>>3254210

you can hammer in a screw

File: IMG_0279.gif (2MB, 424x346px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 424x346px

>>3254251
>he hasn't had a breakthrough entheogenic experience
Shame

>>3254285

>he hasn't had a schizophrenic delusion

ftfy

Because scientism requires unteable philosophical scaffolding

'scientism' can't justify itself, you need philosophy, and when you get into the scaffolding it just can't justify the existence of scientific unobservables

there is no objective external world, there are no actual atoms, out there in some sort of void

also there's the issue of the hard problem of consciousess. consciousness can't explain itself scientifically, and it is through consciousness that science functions (through observations)

also this entirely:
>>3253231

scientific instrumentalism IS the case

The problem is that scientists are humans just like everyone else. They're biased too.

File: thumb-1920-451262.jpg (215KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1920x1080px

>>3253231
/thread

>>3254270
And you can answer some philosophical questions with hard science.

Will it work? Possibly.

Will it ALWAYS work as you need it? No.

Will people get very mad at you if you fuck up and ruin everything because the thought of securing without using a hammer disgusts you? Yes.

>>3253298
Evidence-based decision making is unrelated to science unless specifically using scientific methodology (i.e. controlled experiments).

>>3255243

Nah, man, you see, everything that's, like, useful is actually science in action.

>>3255137
This

>>3255249
Wtf I fucking love science now.

>>3253179
It can only lead to nihilism

>>3253826
>>90% of scientists agree that climate change is real, you are not against science now are you ?
It's actually 97 percent.

>>3253179
Man, I missed these threads. We used to have a lot more of these, now it's mostly just shitflinging with /pol/.

>>3253179
It's better to tweak things a little on the scientism side to offset people's natural superstition, so at least there's some reasonable starting point for civic discussion between strangers.

>>3253198

The difference between Christianity and other ancient religions, is that science can make its god/gods real.

Also immortality, heaven, and hell... All that jazz.

>>3253179
WTF is scientism?

>>3255345
We worship the Space AntiGod Scientos The Nihilistic.

>>3255347
No, really.

>>3253179
Science is all about scrutiny and testing theories, that is what makes it so reliable. However going from accepting science's excellent reliability to casually assuming its infallibility is a step too far and also hypocritical.

That said, "scientism" is a bit of a meme. I only see this term being thrown around by people upset that scientists don't agree with them on something, they are not criticizing pseudoscience or the argument for authority logical fallacy or anything.

>>3253179
It's reddit af

>>3253179
>scientism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xt46ZUxiJ4

>>3255444
Scientautism.

>>3253286
You can be against GMO for reasons other than it is unsafe

,
>>3255477
What other reasons? Killing diversity is just something to consider but there are no noticeable cases were this happens.

>>3255380
>Science is all about scrutiny and testing theories, that is what makes it so reliable. However going from accepting science's excellent reliability to casually assuming its infallibility is a step too far and also hypocritical.

On a tangent, modern way of doing science and pop-sci is killing us, since everyone wants to be(or has to be, to secure some fucking research funds) the new Niels Bohr, discoverer of new fancy shit, and no one wants to be the geek actually rechecking those studies, which is a massive part of the scientific method.

Which is a huge problem recently, given about HALF the studies checked from an issue of a popular peer-reviewed magazine had huge methodological issues.

>>3253179
It leads to racism.

>>3253179
I use to want to be a scientist until a learnt the truth, If youre really good, you can get a private job, but for most its the public sector

Welcome to youre life in a lab as a mere lab rat tester, having any idea you think of stolen by your superior while you write constant papers on experiments that were solved years ago but your boss really wants to fleece the government for every penny it has, so acquires funded grants by making up science and then writes some long essay thats total gibberish but sounds good and intellectual.

Scientists today are parasite on the over bloated corpse of the state, All the good scientists were private citizens who messed around with chemicals in their private laboratories and made huge profits by patenting it.

Government thought it could get in on that great money maker, but one problem,(real) scientists(not (((real))) scientists) are 0.01% of the population

So why is scientism bad?

Because science is inherently the pass-time of the super genius / aspergers, the common man needs a god, so he tries to replace god with science, yet he is left impotent, because science is not all powerful or all knowing.

>>3253286
Or genetics.

>>3253960
When you think about it, this pretty much is the key to understanding why it's not religion that's the issue. It's people taking ideologies at face value without thinking critically about them. Regardless of where you lean on the political spectrum or what have you, a major issue with any group of believers is that they do so with faith rather than reason. People killed the gods of old, but only made new ones.

It's why I like a lot of 'liberals' who claim to think scientifically a lot less than certain religious folk. The latter are outright trying to use faith as their main point of focus, because that is the essence of trusting in something unknowable. A lot of so-called 'rationalists' act irrationally, and treat their modern ideologies as they would religions, when the whole point of said ideologies is critical thinking.

>>3256239
>>>3253179 (OP)
>I use to want to be a scientist until a learnt the truth, If youre really good, you can get a private job, but for most its the public sector
>Welcome to youre life in a lab as a mere lab rat tester, having any idea you think of stolen by your superior while you write constant papers on experiments that were solved years ago but your boss really wants to fleece the government for every penny it has, so acquires funded grants by making up science and then writes some long essay thats total gibberish but sounds good and intellectual.

wut? You don't have much idea on how expert committees work for funding science, do you?


>Scientists today are parasite on the over bloated corpse of the state, All the good scientists were private citizens who messed around with chemicals in their private laboratories and made huge profits by patenting it.

Private citizens lab? Maybe if you were in the 18th century. Definitely not now.

>Government thought it could get in on that great money maker, but one problem,(real) scientists(not (((real))) scientists) are 0.01% of the population

Science research has never been a great money maker, at least for the state.

>So why is scientism bad?
>Because science is inherently the pass-time of the super genius / aspergers, the common man needs a god, so he tries to replace god with science, yet he is left impotent, because science is not all powerful or all knowing.
Science is a past time for aspergers. Totally agree with that. Scientists definitely don't work for money. There isn't enough money in the world to make someone work as hard as scientists.
I've met people from labs from many parts of the world and a great part of them were either workaholic or somewhere in the asperger spectrum.


tl;dr: wut?

>>3255380
>I only see this term being thrown around by people upset that scientists don't agree with them on something
My personal experience has been different. I've met several people who have told me in all earnestness that

>Why do we still have philosophy? We can just use science!

>>3256239
Is this pasta or incredible satire?

>>3255821
A solution to that might be to make peer reviewed studies more valuable than ones barely looked at, especially if they are reviewed by someone with a good reputation.
>>3256402
Well, now that philosophy has yielded science, it has done its job and is less useful than it was. It is kind of like asking why we need to learn blacksmithing in the industrial age. Tbqh it is not important for most students, they don't need to know how the steel industry was built from scratch, just its present state and how to get a job in it.

>>3256457
>Well, now that philosophy has yielded science, it has done its job and is less useful than it was. It is kind of like asking why we need to learn blacksmithing in the industrial age.
What the fuck? Are you high? This is so ridiculously off-base, I'm not even sure where to begin other than to say you're wrong and stupid. Do you think things like ethics and aesthetics can be parsed out by science? Or that we no longer need them? What about differing theories of justice? The proper level of social inclusiveness? How much of the economy should be driven by the private sector or the public sector?


>Tbqh it is not important for most students,
Science is also not important for most students.

>>3253179
Overconfidence and lack of scientific morality. You can derive morality through science and logic, but good luck getting atheists to agree on a system.

File: Lion-faced_deity.jpg (9KB, 150x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x184px

>Falling for the demiurge's tricks

>>3253238
Darwinism.

Mother's who abort their children remove unwanted and defective offspring from the gene pool. You are left with wanted children.

Very simple voluntary eugenics.

>>3253231
These are all queations well suited for a scientific approach. At least as part of a broader and comprehensive analyses.

>>3256502
No, they are not, because they are ultimately not empirical questions. For the last example, science could help us determine HOW to set up an economy with 30% public sector spending and 70% private sector spending, but there is no empirical, let alone scientific method of coming up with that set of numbers and saying "This is ideal". At best you can take a number of assumptions such as

>Utilitarianism is the best ethical theory for promoting happiness
>Happiness is the best good an economy should ultimately strive for.
>Utility is maximized in this particular cluster of economic assumptions

And then solve for that. But those fundamental precepts you're trying to reach are not themselves questions that can be empirically answered.

File: 1458259446383.png (29KB, 778x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 778x458px

>>3256507
any one got the one with medicine, maths, engineering and the like?

>>3256512
First. Effectiveness is very much a measurable quality. It is the rate of goals achieved.
Second. Non-scientific methods also lean heavily on assumptions.

>>3256602
>First. Effectiveness is very much a measurable quality. It is the rate of goals achieved.
But the types of goals themselves must be subject to scrutiny as ones worth pursuing. Should we be celebrating the Nazi efficiency in Poland? After all, they managed to kill about 95.8% of the Polish Jewish population, and about 20% of the overall population. They didn't quite get all of them, but it was a fairly good run, especially with only about 5 years to do it all.

>Second. Non-scientific methods also lean heavily on assumptions.
I never said they didn't. I said that your claims that we can discard all other non-scientific methodology in favor of science is idiotic. Precisely because you cannot avoid assumptions and non-empiric judgments of value, you can never reduce policy to something that can be scientifically calculated, which means you need stuff other than science in order to function. Scientism, by definition, seeks to do away with that framework, which is why it's idiotic.

>>3256602
>First. Effectiveness is very much a measurable quality. It is the rate of goals achieved.
Effectiveness isn't what is being measured though. It's "how ideal" it is. Which isn't quantitative, it's relative to the experience of individuals.
>Second. Non-scientific methods also lean heavily on assumptions.
I feel like you're missing the point. Assumptions are only "bad" if you're using an empirical approach, which is what science does. Other methods don't rely on empiricism so there's no issue with them relying on unproven assumptions as the base of their reasoning.

So it's like that guy said: science is best suited to things that can be empirically observed and tested, but things which cannot be quantified or empirically tested are best left to other philosophies and disciplines.

>>3256363
Don't conservatives prefer ignoring that too? You either got personal responsibility or sinn causing people's missfortune.

>>3256618
>But the types of goals themselves must be subject to scrutiny as ones worth pursuing
Agreed. I never said science was the only method. Just that it is, at least a useful tool and applicable to this particular question

>I never said they didn't
So we agree

>>3256638
>Effectiveness isn't what is being measured though. It's "how ideal" it is.
No. You started with:
>>3253231
>To come up with a government that is capable of functioning effectively

>Assumptions are only "bad" if you're using an empirical approach, which is what science does. Other methods don't rely on empiricism so there's no issue with them relying on unproven assumptions as the base of their reasoning.
This is the most retarded thing ever.

>>3256695
>Agreed. I never said science was the only method. Just that it is, at least a useful tool and applicable to this particular question
But if you're saying that, you're fundamentally against scientism, which by definition is the replacement of other value systems with "Science", a concept that barely even makes sense.

>>3253926
Science as a system does not pretend to be as much, basically. It sells itself as a tool for use on what is measurable and repeatable and is utterly fantastic at its job. If a phenomenon is non-measurable or non-repeatable, that's not science's domain and it becomes more a frame for guesswork. Scientism involves the refusal to accept that fact and bizzarely demands that the entirety of existence be subject to scientific scrutiny so that science CAN be the grand arbiter of truth. It's basically a normie-tier deification of a system the worshipper only half understands.

>>3253179
In practice, its subscribers almost always ignore the is/ought distinction, and pretend that there is always some self-evident philosophical or ethical response to any objective scientific fact. Conveniently, these "self-evident" conclusions are always the ones that the supporters of scientism have.

>>3256700
The problem with scientism is the same as with all the other -isms.
Take them all in moderation.

Also I started out debating >>3253231
Which is a comment on science, without the -ism

>>3256730
>The problem with scientism is the same as with all the other -isms.
No, not really. The problem with scientism is that it is attempting to use a tool for a purpose in which it is not fit for. Other "isms" are mostly deontological theories, and are as such fundamentally different beasts.

>Which is a comment on science, without the -ism
And as the guy who made that comment, I've noticed you've focused on one sub-part of a chain of claims and ignored the part that was actually intended (albeit perhaps expressed badly). Science cannot function in a non-empirical framework. When you're trying to come up with questions of value, I don't see how it can possibly be relevant, let alone helpful. I haven't seen you say anything to the contrary, just a repeated assertion (that I agree with, for the record) that it can be useful for solving for utilitarian outcomes in distribution of resources or likely consequences of actions. But without a framework to determine which set of outcomes to optimize for, that doesn't get you very far, and I've yet to see a scientific framework for something like that.

>>3255286
This. We're having too many threads about race and fascism as of late.
They can be interesting but having too many of them becomes tiring fast.

honestly, the big problem isn't folks who subscribe to it, they're a small and completely unimportant minority
the problem is religions equating all science to scientism just so they can try to justify attacking scientific problems in a religious setting

>>3256773
but the problem is that a good deal of mass opinion of science is limited entirely to scientism. similarly, the same pop-sci degrasse loving ""nerds"" equate religion to pure rationality, so they can justify attacking religious problems in a scientific setting

>>3256472
>you're wrong and stupid
If you are a super smart philosopher you should be able to apply the same reasoning in my post to law or some other nonscience related field. I shouldn't have to spell everything out for you.

A law student's priority is to study law not Kierkegaard for example.

>>3256472
Philosophy has yielded many fruits. Logic. Systems of ethics. Science. However you eat the fruit, you don't nibble on the bark of the tree that bore it.

>no one wants to be the geek actually rechecking those studies, which is a massive part of the scientific method.

Geeks watch Netflix and buy vinyl figures, you meant to say "nerd"

Who cares
Problems are defined in accordance to a certain imagined ideal,
People can believe in whatever they want eventually they have the power to construct the story they call life in infinite different ways and it will always be just a fraction of an explanation of what actually exist which is infinite and incomprehensible, they can believe the sky is a bunch of atoms or the residence of the gods eventually things are as real as a society experience them, the only thing science has that's actually interesting is elaborate technological solutions to every day annoyances and even that had proven to be basically valueless in the hands of a inept society, so what does it give you? A very elaborate tale of what a things is, sometimes very beautiful sometimes pretty boring, so far just the progression of mythology through thousands of years, and a bunch of sophisticated gadgets that supposed to make you happier but arguably don't do much in that respect as depression and suicide are massively prevalent today,which seems to indicate that maybe this kind of problem solving which only creates more problems is not *that* good, it's just incredibly limited as an outlook to view life from, insufficient for anyone who put the effort to research these monumental philosophical questions for more than two seconds through popular media or just an excuse for people to feel safe with their understanding of reality because no one wants to feel like he doesn't understand what's going on, no that's a scary situation for anyone, So they invented a whole narrative about reality and they're dependent on it out of animalistic fear
The truth is non of that stuff matters the only thing that matters is the light of God's creation to live truthfully and as fully as possible
All these stories are just what they are, stories, the truth is one and beyond human explanation.

>>3253179
>Memes aside, what's the real problem with scientism?

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

The problem is, that it has nothing to do with science.

Now go ahead and try to claim it is a religion or something ... fucking desperate christians I sware to reason.

>>3256652
There are actual Nazi marches this very day fills with people claiming there is a genetic difference in predisposition towards certain behaviour as well as intelligence between ethnic groups. You may have noticed a small news story somewhere about an event they had in Virginia.

File: IMG_1278.jpg (94KB, 620x916px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x916px

Facts can't come to moral conclusions for you. The Bible, when held to scientific scrutiny, granted will not retain its integrity, but the ontological wisdom it professes pertaining to the nature of life and how to conduct yourself accordingly is invaluable. What's not rational about striving to procure what ever you want whenever at any potential cost that others may incur independent of you? Wouldn't that be, in the evolutionary regard, the highest optimal good? Science can provide substantive insight into how our world functions, but not into how you ought to conduct yourself.
https://youtu.be/4x-pvcdLTJg Jordan Peterson talks at length regarding this in this lecture vid.

>>3256759
>Science cannot function in a non-empirical framework.
I will agree to that. But I must add that all the sudjects you posted as examples, value items included, fall -at least partly- within an empirical framework.

The science may not directly and immediately give you the answers you seek but it can help you make sense of some related ir underlying topics.

To stick with organising a government or economy: I think the decisions you make there are never 100% empirical based. But I can't imagine any succes when that number us 0%. You would at least want to calculate expected outcomes of certain choices. Before you do the actual choosing

>>3257198
I don't think the bible is even that great of a moral guideline, anything those superstitious prophets can assert about empathy and kindness or slaying your enemies or stoning adulterers, I am capable of figuring out on my own, with the added bonus of no supernatural baggage or politicized dogma.

>>3257328
but you wouldn't be moral if you could get away with it, be honest.

>>3257198
You can use science to analyze your brain and its desires.

>>3257328
>I am capable of figuring out on my own

No you're not. It's highly unlikely that you would've thought differently from the people who wrote the Bible if you lived in that era, and it's also highly unlikely that the current morals you have are your own, and not simply instilled in you from mother's milk.

>>3253298
>more evidence-based decision making.
opposing scientism doesn't mean abandoning common sense and backing a polar opposite viewpoint. do you think someone's going around saying ABOLISH EVIDENCE NOW EVERYTHING MUST BE DECIDED BY GUESSWORK

>>3257340
Maybe not, maybe I would, you don't know.

>>3257369
So what, I'm healthy and well adjusted and smart, I'll give it my best shot with whatever information and intelligence I have available. At the end of the day that's what everyone does anyway. Christians just default to the bible because they don't know any better. I don't need to dig through some bible to try to salvage some rules to live by to please Christians.

>>3253179
The fuck is "Scientism?"

>>3257394

So you're not moral, in other words.

>>3257385
That's pretty much exactly what theocrats and capitalists want, which is why they lobby and campaign against global climate change policies.

>>3257416
I can try to be like anyone else, I'm saying you don't automatically get a free pass because you join the Bible club.

>>3254210
like Ann Frank. I'd screw her.

File: wteKPWI.png (494KB, 874x1760px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 874x1760px

>>3253241

Check this image out, a bunch of utilitarians that deeply disagree. Naive util or rule util? Positive or negative? Sentient, average, total, motive, two level? And as soon as you try to apply it, you'd begin noticing lots of problems about assessing different people's values, and accounting for your own uncertainty about things.

Utilitarianism is like the most basic description of what a moral system might sound like - so basic as to be useless. It's like scientism more broadly in that sense - implying a hell of a lot more scope than it has.

>>3257198
>The Bible, when held to scientific scrutiny, granted will not retain its integrity,

Bullshit.

>>3257412
Elevating science to a false religion by making the claim that mankind's knowledge is approaching the infinite.

>>3253179
>scientism
Only point when communist,humanities,religion people,feminist,nazis,left and rigth, had common opinion fuck science if you don't tell me I want.

File: KJU.png (820KB, 668x547px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 668x547px

>>3253179
Nothing is wrong with science as an empirical method for gathering knowledge.
Scientists however cannot be trusted, especially when they come in contact with lots of money from private sector interests.

File: fatality.jpg (131KB, 983x713px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 983x713px

>>3253377
If you have any honesty you'll look up refutations of "fine-tuning"

Human consciousness is just a self-aware feedback loop powered by the analytical engine of the mind. That such complex structures could assemble in a vacuum from the humble beginnings of proteins surrounded by oily membranes shouldn't seem like much of a stretch to you since you are willing to believe God's complex consciousness requires no physical justification whatsoever and has simply "existed forever."

Also the fact that God never talks to anyone except the people who claim to know what God thinks is quite telling.

>>3253179
It has no moral basis, and society needs a moral basis to keep the stupid people in check.

File: 10.130.1158_001.jpg (1MB, 3147x3147px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3147x3147px

>>3253231
You are not saying why Science is bad, but rather, why philosophy is still necessary.

Science is merely an empirical philosophy.
To do science, is to do a very specific form of philosophy geared towards a pressing but limited problem.

>>3258645
I have never tried to argue that science is bad. I have tried to argue that scientism is bad. Scientism, at least by the definition I usually see, is the substitution of science for things like philosophy or religion or ethics or what have you, because these disciplines are no longer useful with the advent of science.

Precisely because there are questions which cannot clearly be answered empirically, you need something more than just science.

>>3254069
>Muh questions for the sake of questions
t. Philosophy majors.

File: man-vs-snake.jpg (621KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1200x800px

>>3253179

B E L I E F

>>3258636
>Human consciousness is just a self-aware feedback loop powered by the analytical engine of the mind.
>just
Fuck off with your reductionism. That consciousness is those things you said doesn't make it any less real.

>>3253272
>the most efficient
It would be most efficient for factory farms to do what they do but people know that cruel abuse to animals is pretty fucked

>>3254262
>I Fucking Love Science

>>3253241
But utilitarianism isn't supported by scientism.

>>3257136
Nazis are like the polar opposite to conservatism.