Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
/sci/ would you say intellectuals are detached from science? 2016-11-22 14:43:13 Post No. 8489990
[Report] Image search: [Google]
/sci/ would you say intellectuals are detached from science? 2016-11-22 14:43:13 Post No. 8489990
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: orangutan_wallpprs.com_.jpg.jpg (1MB, 4096x2160px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 4096x2160px
/sci/ would you say intellectuals are detached from science?
Anonymous
2016-11-22 14:43:13
Post No. 8489990
[Report]
The title is suggestive, didn't know how to put it differently. We are talking of course about intellectuals in general.
From experience with /lit/, the media and political boards on the internet is that - in general - they are immersed in their own world and own theories. Which is fine, but I find it a problem when those ideas and theories do not fit what I read about science. Especially when these ideas and theories are practised.
Of course the opposite may happen as well, that science is misused instead or distorted. Not all science is settled either so using unsettled science as a foundation for discourse might be a problem too.
What does /sci/ think? I think there should at least be some scientific foundation behind ideas, and more important no conflicts between ideas and what science shows.
I am not in favour of scientism. Values and meaning lie beyond the scope of science, though I do think some scientific foundation behind such things wouldn't hurt. I would like to mention as well there is also a limit to what we can know.
How does /sci/ look at this? Or are you fine with the current situation? Do you think that the misuse or distortion of science is too great and thus it is better if 'intellectuals' are stuck within their own world? Do you agree they are stuck in their own world?
>>
>>
>>8489990
>Do you think that the misuse or distortion of science is too great
This should be:
>Do you think the potential for misuse or distortion
>>
File: chrislangan.jpg (9KB, 320x180px) Image search:
[Google]
9KB, 320x180px
>>8489990
If we define an "intellectual" as someone with a high IQ, then we can directly observe your statement in people like pic related. People with high IQ's are good at logically rationalizing ideas, shitty ideas included.
In my opinion, there's a line somewhere between "genius contributor to science" and "out of touch asshole" (again, pic related). What most of the scientific greats throughout history have in common is that they pushed the limits of current understanding and dedicated their lives, with superhuman focus, to materializing ideas into rigorous theory/fact -- they walk along that line and are able to stay grounded enough not to cross it, using widely understood science as the foundations for their new ideas. Out of touch assholes, although maybe considered "smart" by metric standards, detach themselves from science and attempt to float ludicrous concepts on air.
>>
>>8490009
>If we define an "intellectual" as someone with a high IQ, then we can directly observe your statement in people like pic related.
With intellectual in this case I meant more in the sense of a public intellectual.
To talk of a scientific fact that I think is ignored too much by public intellectuals: cognitive biases (implying it is settled science).
Your example could be about cognitive fallacies which do not suddenly disappear with higher IQ. But I think to be aware would be a step forward, which most public intellectuals seem to be not.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2