Dangers of Scientificism

>>9071585
>there are things that are just out of the grasp of objective answers.

That sounds to me like you gave up. Everything has an objective answer, you are just too lazy to find it. I think you should go back to the coal mines, where you belong.

my bad experience with the humanities

>be me
>age 12
>father has had mental break down because despite having almost achieved a doctorate in theology he is working at a butcher's shop cleaning out grills and taking out trash.
>comes home one night
>second worst smell I have ever experienced
>says something about having to clean up pig guts
>says college was a waste of time


>be me
>age 19
>burning shit filled bags with jp8 in afghanistan
>trying to earn GI bill
>worst smell I have ever known


>be me now
>in college
>trying to become engineer
>hope future kids dont ever smell burning shit or rotten meat

>>9071657
we believe in you

>>9071652
Not OP, but note that stimuli are processed by the brain before you are aware of them. As a result, any observation is necessarily subjective. You don't have access to objective reality, the very fact that you can categorize stimuli by placing them into different sets is an operation of the mind, not something endemic to the stimuli themselves.

>>9071652
why are the laws of nature the way that they are?

>>9071585
>Dangers of Scientificism

religious people invented "scientism" in order to make their own beliefs about things seem just as rational as actual facts.

>>9071660
How do you know that we don't have access to objective reality?

When we see an object we get an objective measurement of what wavelengths that object reflects. Perfectly objective.

>>9071664
I do not know but not knowing the answer does not mean the answer does not exist.

Back to the coal mines.

>>9071652
What about moral and ethical issues ? I just refuse to believe you're so much of a philistine

>>9071688
prove that the answer exists

back to church for you

>>9071691
According to judges, the punishment for a crime should be severe enough for the community to be satisfied, and to deter future perpetrators of the same crime.

If we measure how scared a person gets from seeing the punishment of a crime we can get really close to objective punishment.

>>9071693
We prove that answers exist, by construction. Just give it time.

>>9071702
That's a rather simplistic point of view. Not everything is this white-black "he's done this bad stuff with purpose so lets punish" thing. There are situations where you need to have notions of law concepts (that are, to some extent couched on philosophy) in order to maintain justice. For example, how can you define what is the limit between manslaughter and self defense in the case of a home invasion.
I heard about a news story somewhere that I'm Washington D.C a bodega owner got jailer for shooting a thief in the back in the middle of a gun fight where his wife was already wounded and bleeding. Was it right to jail the man ? According to the judge, it was because he only followed the law blindly. That is the danger of trying to objectify everything, you got it ?

>>9071715
In Washington D.C*
Jailed*

>>9071715
>maintain justice.
yes, this is nice spook

>>9071721
Kek, so ,as long as it doesn't affect you or your social group, fuck everyone else, right ?
Spotted the troglodite with a calculator

>>9071684
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

if we cannot imagine mind-independent objects, nothing is objective. Even our perceptions of science and math are contextualised in how the brain allows us to understand things. Scientific theories can make good predictions but they are behavioural frameworks that aren't necessarily unique solutions to any given problem. We can contextualise observations and problems in many different ways and there are no unique "correct" answers. To perceive the world, the brain has to solve an inverse problem which is ill-posed. And on top of that, the brain's perception is going to be constrained by the dynamics and nature of its sensory inputs. Can probably go on.

>>9071702

is that really objective? that depends on whether you think punishment is best chosen by how much it scares someone. is that the case for you? what about people that don't get scared,

>>9071715
i think there's an epistemological issue here. its impossible for the judge to unbiasedly know what really happened at the scene of the crime. only the thief, man and possibly the wife truly know and their testimony could be biased or compromised by trauma/human frailty. the shooting in the back thing is probably more of a heuristic than a moral judgement as such. we have to make approximations if we cannot precisely determine every legal situation. and that also demands fairness; giving every defendant the same treatment when faced with a lack of reasonable doubt/ambiguity.

>>9071754
Yeap, there you see that philosophical thought is still very needed in some cases

>>9071732
tysm

>>9071754
the prosecutor can choose not to bring charges against anyone they don't want to. Judges can dismiss cases, and juries can choose not to convict. There are lots of opportunities in the American justice system for common sense to supersede the letter of the law.

You are not alone OP, but sadly scientificism is to be expected on a science board

>>9071666
Satanic trips tell truth. No person labels themselves as a follower of "scientism". It's just something religious fundamentalists label people who disagree with them.

>>9071657
sounds like you have a very sensitive nose/brain to smells. Dunno about jp8 but ive smelled animal innars/disembowelment and it doesnt really bother me like that, i mean yea it's awful but i desensitize to it eventually. Or maybe i just have a shit sense of smell. Worst smell ive ever experienced was a contaminated micro incubator

>>9071666
this. science isnt a belief, it just tries to describe the way things interact with each other based on experimentation and observation. The people who think we worship science clearly have no idea how skeptical we all are, constantly, to assert anything

>>9071585
It's just American stupidity. Popper's falsifiability principle is probably the best rule of thumb. Discussing non-scientific subjects scientifically is dumb.