>he says 'scientism' unironically

File: 1448998666672.jpg (678KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 3192x2124px

>he doesn't realize that we live in an age of autism

I've literally never seen or heard anyone use the word scientism, here or otherwise.

File: ykk01.jpg (93KB, 1000x288px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x288px

>>8151336
The mentality is definitely strong here though. Lots of people on /lit buy the STEM/Humanities dichotomy.

>>8151343
It should not be a dichotomy but pop science is on the offensive, constantly picking battles that require the humanities to be a part of the conversation, neglecting to admit at all that their field is stepping into territories where the two fields should meet, and pretending they've won when they inevitably get their shit slapped because they are playing academic games while down a player.

The humanities as we know them don't have those pretensions.

>>8151249

Positively scientismic TCdrone

File: Muh science.png (3MB, 1716x1710px)

3MB, 1716x1710px

>>8151343

I do use 'scientism' unironically, because STEM enthusiasts always shit on the Humanities; or make stupid claims to the effect of philosophy/etc being no longer relevant. I rarely see the opposite, outside of /lit/ anyway.

Make no mistake, there are PARTS of the 'Humanities' I'd love to do away with; 'Gender Studies' and all that shit.

In my world, Science involves the pursuit of knowledge, whilst the Humanities entail the pursuit of wisdom. Both compliment one another, and arguably cannot live without one another.

'Scientism', on the other hand, is the millennial approach you see on "I Fucking Love Science"-esque Facebook pages, and 'Pop Scientists'. Disgusting.

I had a mocking spurdo reaction pic, but I opted to extend the olive branch with this instead.

>>8151343
>>8151373

Nietzsche/Wittgenstein also lead the charge when it came to fighting back against 'Scientism', for anybody wondering.

>>8151249
isn't "scientism" a different word for positivism

File: ykk02.jpg (344KB, 860x1032px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 860x1032px

By the way, what would be the complementary group of the "I Fucking Love Science/Science explains fucking errything" crowd be on the Humanities side ? People buying into Occultism, or would it extend to Religious people ?

>>8151483
"spiritual" people. buying into the prestige and glamorous image of it all

>>8151483
I don't think they exist in immediately tangible groups, but I'd think anybody in the humanities who becomes a little too absorbed in their field qualifies.

Maybe MFA students.

>>8151373

dude like i have much respect for heisenberg (how could i not, he's done serious academic work for physics), but plato's forms have exactly nothing to do with quantum physics

File: ykk03.jpg (167KB, 720x903px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 720x903px

>>8151488
Spiritual people just haven't thought about it, they are in that group by default. What I mean is people subscribing to the idea that a specific faith is more likely than another faith. Usually called the "leap of faith".

>>8151507
you'll see what I mean when you run into the billionth rank smelling bimbo with a henna who insists on telling you about her "journey"

>>8151343
I think you have an extraordinary misreading of this. There is no dichotomy, but that's not the point. The resistance is against a single thought process.

>>8151507
>implying it's not a leap of faith with believing in only reason/logic/science
>implying we don't all make the wager and the coin falls on God or vanity
>inb4 agnostic or indifferent people don't make the wager. death turns maybe into no

>>8151498

>plato's forms have exactly nothing to do with quantum physics

Gonna have some hearty keks in years to come, when you guys are proven wrong.

the real problem is normies who think anything thats in a "study" is proven fact

>>8151498
Read your Cassirer.

File: 2.jpg (1MB, 1296x1936px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1296x1936px

>>8151534
By saying "buying the dichotomy" I implied there is no dichotomy.

>>8151373
what exactly happened between then and now

File: 2001-anime.png (202KB, 600x600px)

202KB, 600x600px

>>8151538
I did not imply anything of that.

Scientism is one of the root causes of the absurd sense of undeserved arrogance that has permeated through modern society.

File: 1328979183002.jpg (52KB, 640x345px)

52KB, 640x345px

>>8151556
1) More people were becoming aware of scientific world-views
2) Saw science as competition, caused a traditionalist reaction
3) Science people didn't like the reaction, which caused Dawkins

>>8151562
Religion was the root cause for Scientism to come into existence

File: Science ain't free.png (38KB, 853x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 853x600px

>>8151556

>>8151557
i misread you please forgive me

I also just finished reading Pascal's Pensees and he has infected me with reducing everything to dualities

>>8151566
It's also the cause of science itself.

File: Nietzsche (by Edvard Munch).jpg (47KB, 720x895px)

47KB, 720x895px

>>8151569
There are reasons other than science to burn churches.

File: 1345922616007.jpg (142KB, 960x642px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x642px

>>8151572
Sounds like Pascal. The wager was also typical, it HAD to be either Atheism or Christianity. Not maybe atheism and 5million other faiths, like any other philosopher would have seen.

File: arthur_and_friedrich.jpg (264KB, 940x658px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 940x658px

>>8151574
Philosophy is the cause of both Science and Religion.

>>8151585
read within the context of the Pensees it makes much more sense and pretty much any objection I had for it slithered away

dude munchausen trilemma lmao

File: zapffe.jpg (8KB, 300x244px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x244px

>>8151605
A specific brand of Christianity is the only option to Atheism ? Is there proof or did you just like the book ?

>>8151617
read the book nigga I ain't your encyclopedia

File: ,.,.png (54KB, 564x550px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 564x550px

>>8151333
>>8151333
>>8151333

Nice triples.

File: Carlo_Michelstaedter.gif (57KB, 170x335px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 170x335px

>>8151662
But I don't wanna. Anyway, which reference system should I use to determine whether he is right ? And what reference system should I use to determine truth at all ?

>>8151682
the one found within the book and not on wikipedia. Jesus, if you want to determine whether or not the author is right the least you could do is read what he fucking wrote.