"If dogs don't need science - then science doesn't

File: lead_960.jpg (135KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 960x640px

Name one thing that can be objectively determined to be true. Other than you being a faggot. Because this is /pol not r/atheism.

We can't even figure out if math is an inherent feature of the universe or a human invention. And math is the language used to describe science.

Science itself doesn't claim to be the truth, just a rigorous process for potentially discovering it.

So once you understand this basic shit, you will understand why nothing can be said to be true because of science, other than your faggotry.

File: maxresdefault copy.jpg (100KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x720px

>>129553441

Science doesn't seek Truth, it seeks to be MORE true.... which it excels at.

The real faggotry is religious tards like you thinking they've found Truth by skipping to the assumption they're right.

The fact you'd even argue that makes you an out and out idiot not worth my time. Enjoy talking to yourself and your imaginary friend in the sky.

>>129552678
People fixate on "scientific truth" in order to ignore the subjective experience of life. Science essentially acts as the excuse allowing them them to cling to the delusion that they are omnipotent "by proxy."
And of course the special thing about being omnipotent - you never have to challenge your perceptions or beliefs.

>>129554833

What is the name of your autism? So you have that and the downs. Is it something like assburg-downy syndrome? Sad.

>>129554833
>Science doesn't seek Truth, it seeks to be MORE true

Exactly what Peterson is saying. Science cannot claim to be a universal truth so it's very incorrect and harmful for a society to act like science has the monopoly on truth

File: iq-bell-curve.gif (10KB, 400x263px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 400x263px

>>129556599

That's true, but emotional reality will always keep biting, so the problem solves its self.

>>129557331

Are you trying to tell us you are below average? We already know from your making this thread and cum breath.

>>129556955
>Exactly what Peterson is saying. Science cannot claim to be a universal truth so it's very incorrect and harmful for a society to act like science has the monopoly on truth


It has more of a monopoly than most things. MORE, not ABSOLUTE...

...but yes, if a test is repeatable everywhere, then it may as well be universal. It can be questioned later; but that doesn't mean it's not practically a fact. Practically True - and that's almost all that matters.

>>129557762
>It has more of a monopoly than most things. MORE, not ABSOLUTE...

That's not what a monopoly.

Either way, cool assertion, but I'd disagree. As Peterson points out, science is unnecessary to the vast majority of things for the virtually entirety of history. Therefore it's claim to universal truth is significantly less than what you assert it as

>>129557762
>if a test is repeatable everywhere, then it may as well be universal

Suddenly the Earth is everywhere in the universe and the last few hundred years is all time.

Fucking below average tweens.

File: sorry bucko.jpg (43KB, 636x619px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 636x619px

>>129552678
>>129552678
>>129552678

He is a Evolutionary Pragmatist.
I share this view.
An Evolutionary Pragmatist says that the truest truth is That Which Enables Continued Existence.

I think he may be saying that the scientific articulations of modernity are yet to be proven true by time, ie by surviving long enough to be more than just whimsical wordplay.
If we nuke all life on the planet away, then the scientific truths of nuclear mechanics weren't pragmatically true enough for life.

A dog doesn't need science in the same way that hunter-gatherer and early civilisation didn't need it: Life can continue without using language to describe itself and surroundings, it can simply play it out using the embodied knowledge that it's DNA gained over the billions of years of trail and error.

>>129552678
That's because he is an idiotic abstract thinker, but he doesn't do anything useful with his abstract mind. stop worshiping this faggot.

>>129558502
that's pretty fucking stupid bro, why not just call everything a spook while you're at it faggot

>>129558310
>Therefore it's claim to universal truth is significantly less than what you assert it as


Not I think the opposite; sciences truth is INSIGNIFICANTLY less than universal... it's only very slightly less than universal. Which is pretty good going for humons.

File: 1496004006965.png (482KB, 824x490px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 824x490px

>>129552678
heuristic method beats rational bullshit, it's true, he knows it, I know it, do you?

Dogs learn through trial-and-error, many animals do. That's enough science for me to call BS here

>>129559681
they don't need to understand what trial and error is, they do it because it's genetically coded into them, understanding is a literal after thought

>>129559681
Ants don't learn shit and are incredibly evolutionarily successful.

File: 1497206270419.png (59KB, 400x188px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x188px

wow the shills are out tonight.
>>129559804
>>129552678
>>129550009
>>129550382

>>129554833
When you get older you will realize there is a creator.

>>129559681
>AN ARTICULATED AND DEVELOPED MANNER
kys

File: a Sorted Room sorts you.jpg (118KB, 511x768px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 511x768px

>>129552678

Also, to make sense of these statements, you must have a complete understanding of the Philosophy of Science.
One of Science's foundational premises is that "what is objective is true, subjectivity is a bias in the way of objective truths" or something like that.
From the beginning Science removes half of Reality as illusion, before sitting down to study Reality as object.
And this is why it can never find Ultimate Truth, it can only get closer and closer, asymptotically, but never finally arriving.
Studying the objective world is very powerful, but it cannot be the only way you study if you seek complete understanding.

>>129553441
We have a moon.

>>129552678
He uses the term "universal truth" to mean "something that works well in the world"
It's a pragmatic way of looking at it.
Animals and people up until recently do not know scientific facts, but they live well enough, so you could say that scientific truths are in a sense not universal, as they arent needed at all in a pragmatic living way.

>>129552678
t. sam harris

>>129560274
Amen.

>>129560591
That meme is not true.She is underwater so in the underworld.She is in the process or sorting.

The truth aboute life (see: how to live), not an objective description of reality.

For example, believing thunder is the anger of the gods may be more useful than the scientific explanation if it keeps more peoppe indoors.

This is what he means by darwinian truth. I dont know why so many fail to grasp this simple distinction - even sam harris failed at this.

>>129565337
if it's more useful how come it didn't survive to this day
the second one clearly wins from Darwinian perspective

File: inigo-montoya_that-word.jpg (78KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 400x400px

>>129552678
>What did he mean by this

He means that he sees science in the shallowest and most restrictive sense, as something done with expensive machines and white lab coats and all the sort of stuff that only a shallow mental bimbo would think is actually science.

In fact, however, the qualifications for something being "science" are actually met by the simplest criteria of simply examining something with care and hesitation and then taking the results seriously enough that you commit the knowledge to memory.

With that in mind, tell me how so many dumb animals don't already do that. Tell me how many of them don't go into strange situations (or even all situations) cautiously and hesitantly, such as when a kitten encounters a bug or snake for their first time.

This guy is way more narrow-minded than he realizes is what.

>>129565487
that was simply an analogy, not something I believe.

But to address your point in general, darwinism is process. We are not at the end nor will we ever be, some traits fail others succeed. As social creatures, some can fail in terms of reproduction but spread wide due to globalization. So its not hard to see how a failed truth could become prevalent. However they are typically always wiped out in the long run, as they need to be useful for reproduction.

Anyways thats what he means by truth. He means usefulness, not objective reality, and one can see why he prefers it. Though of course theres arguments against it, as there is always nuance.

>>129552678

>dude semantics lmao

>>129558502
That's fedora tier
m' Peterson

makes sense kind of coming from a psychologist. Truth is a concept that exists solely in individuals' brains and varies and people probably were just as happy and probably happier thinking the truth was that sky spirits provided their food and the rain and pussy. Objective abstract truth Truth is different than what he's talking about and requires abstract thought that other sentient things aren't capable of and therefore truth Truth can't be truly universal even if we reach total unified theory nigger theory and everything makes sense via superintelligence supplements, dogs still can't talk while we're in the room