/lit/ - Literature

>>16978146
any phenomenologist or idealist

What’s with this sudden meme of calling empiricism and the scientific method soi? The other day I saw a soijak holding up a phone showing a diagram of the scientific method (wearing an Adam ruins everything t shirt). Is it just the connotation with I f*cking love science and reddit types? I thought the scientific method was what built muh West and critical theory was ruining it?

>>16978165
Because /pol/tards demonize anything that doesn't agree with whatever is their hot button issue of the month is and have zero understanding of history or science outside of the most surface level knowledge

Recently, that hot button issue is covid so they're all deadset on denigrating science because they don't want medical professionals findings and recommendations on covid to be true. This is especially ironic considering their autism over gender issues.

>>16978165
They are probably questioning both how the inductions are formed and the deductions derived, especially when a 'scientific' study has political connotations. Besides, no one on twitter or FB has the time or will to examine a paper into depth to figure out whether the experimental research was rigorous enough and how the study came into conclusion. They just make sure it was published by an esteemed science magazine and peer-reviewed by trusted scientists.
That or everyone's just being a contrarian??

>>16978165
Because science has been politicized, institutions have been proven to lie and deceive the public and because science can’t answer every question.
Fuck science and fuck scientists.

>>16978331
Funny how the 'science' didn't agree with anything being pushed about coronavirus until 2020. Have you even read medical literature prior to 2020?

>>16978146
If you have to argue against this line of thinking, or read a book to cope with having your actions objected to by it, you've already fallen for said line of thinking. Recall:
>it HAS to appeal to some kind of academic or scientific authority and be in line with the what we know so far about the world

>>16978360
>funny how this brand new strain of virus from the family of coronaviruses which includes SARS and MERS is different because it's a new strain
Groundbreaking. A comment so retarded you've only managed to reveal the utter depths of your ignorance in the topic

>>16978331
This. /pol/ (and their negative doppelganger, woke twitter) are intellectual normies and will appropriate whatever epistemology is currently expedient. If they think the institution of science supports coronavirus quarantine measures, they'll attack the institution. If they find a person or paper that does the opposite, they will present it on the basis of its scientific authority. These contradictions don't actually produce cognitive dissonance because they don't believe what they're saying--they're just trying to win arguments. It's a social game.

>>16978364
Books about X is just a ritual /lit/ shitposters do so they can claim to be on topic, acting as if OP actually wants to know what books are relevant is missing the point entirely and you're part of the problem

>>16978422
gottem

"Personal experience" is a meme because every single person has their interpretation of reality surrounding them mediated and distorted by cultural biases and narratives promoted by the media

>>16978422
>Books about X is just a ritual /lit/ shitposters do so they can claim to be on topic
I would have concluded that if it weren't for the fact they also put 'texts/manifestos'

>you're part of the problem
Which problem?

>>16978165
The scientific method and 'science' as it is currently practiced in academia are only vaguely related to each other. It survives mostly unharmed only in hard sciences that have no immediate political implications, but it is never actually practiced perfectly because people are petty and ego-driven.

The scientific method is about repeatedly and independently verifying whether outcomes follow initial conditions, where all variables can be measured and accounted for. This is an ideal that is maybe never quite reached but it is the basis of the discipline and the further you stray from that the less appropriate it is to call what you're doing science. The theoretical aspect of science is very important of course, but it is not science at all if you don't have this core examination of actual conditions and outcomes, prediction and verification. Often this takes the form of mere association, because eg. the causal element that relates the two things in question is hidden in a past that can't be examined, but it still is indirectly condition and outcome; this is plainly less rigorous and in loads of fields actual experimentation is obviously impossible because they deal with the past, or with systems that are unique or enormous.

'Science' is just whatever the Ivy League and prestigious scientific journals say, or even worse whatever the NYT decides to report on. These institutions do not limit what they call science to the results of the actual scientific method, and they frequently ignore actual results. They conflate the rigor and justified authority of the hardest sciences with the ridiculous bullshit they churn out in other fields, 'trust science'.

>>16978537
Adding texts / manifestos is jut a variation of "Books about X" you're part of the problem in the sense that low effort shitposts only persist because midwits feel the need to correct what's obviously farce. It's quixotic in the sense that you think you're actually interacting with someone sincere when you're obviously not, you won't get an intellectual discussion here and being right about the issue doesn't matter because OP doesn't care

>>16978473
>cultural biases and narratives promoted by the media
They are not the king of me, they are my servants.

>>16978563
>>16978354
>>16978331
Here's the soijak in question

>>16978581
>what's obviously farce
I don't know. I'm willing to admit this could just be bait and that I've fallen hook line and sinker, but experience has me slant in the direction of unassuming sincerity. I've talked to a fair amount of people with /pol/sphere adjacent worldviews, and they all make a fairly persuasive case for why you should believe their POV, invoking OPs implicit argument that 'authority is fallible' in the process. I'm not so much caught up in being right as I am testing the waters to see if my rhetoric is getting any better. I was hoping OP was of the meandering sort that only browses /lit/ on occasion.

>>16978684
/lit/ has had this exact thread more times than I can count, it's a template thread and a canned form of bait

>>16978146
It is funny how people think that they have appeals to Authority and methods. All they are saying is that my ways are good and yours are bad. Hopefully they at least recognize that they are holding a perception and opinion about things just like I am. They are convinced by their beliefs and I'm convinced by mine. We tend to pick what we think is good. Some of us think it is good to pick the truth even when it hurts us (prickly type of person). Others think the truth could not possibly hurt them (gooey person's opinion).

>>16978146
My friend, have you ever heard of phenomenology?

>>16978665
Meanwhile, in modern """"science""""

>>16978700
>/lit/ has had this exact thread more times than I can count
I'm not finding anything substantial in the archives, even searching for keywords. It wouldn't strike me as surprising if OP is a verbose /pol/ or twitter refugee. I say it's presumptuous albeit extremely understandable to think people couldn't possibly be this unaware and not least repetitive

>>16978761
This is just source posting but rephrased

>>16978811
And?

>>16978146
>Scientific points of view are always both naïve and at the same time dishonest, because they take for granted without explicitly mentioning it, that other point of view, namely that of the consciousness, through which from the outset a world forms itself around me and begins to exist for me.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty: The Phenomenology of Perception

>>16978823
It's the same thread yet somehow you see it as novel and sincere

>>16978947
Does Maurice not think the world exists lol, or does he think we can reach it some way other than through consciousness? What is the point of this sentence

>>16978706
Can you name a book that is accessible if I've only read Plato, Odyssey and Augustine?

>>16978974
I'm not fully with you here, pls elaborate

>>16978996
absolute brainlet. he's saying that every single persons consciousness is a unique lense and to see your interpretation as hard unbendable fact ignores this truth

>>16979149
Then he doesn't know what science is, since the entire point is that the results are independently verified by other people carrying out the same experiment.

>>16978146
The bogdanoffs

>>16979157
The problem you're ignoring with this is that if the results are checked by two people with identical modes of perception then the alternative explanations can never be evaluated. If I look at statistical data that says black people are convicted for proportionally more crimes and everyone evaluating it takes it as axiomatic that black people aren't more violent, then you will never conclude anything but "The legal system is biased against black people".

He knows exactly what science is. He also knows that it's inaccurate to evaluate the outcome of systems based on what they are intended to do. Only on what they actually do. If you create a system of investigation with opens with the axiom that only material exists and there is no spirit, the system will never come to the conclusion that spirit exists. It will invent increasingly convoluted explanations as to why spirit does not exist. Each one of them will be justified through variations of the fundamental axiom.

>>16979335
That is literally just pointing out that there are uncontrolled variables, which invites bias. Science is well aware of that.

>>16978165
Nice bait you outed a few redditors.

>>16979157
>man who contributes heavily to cognitive science doesn’t know what science is
Jesus Christ the absolute state of you anon

>>16979349
This ethos-based handwaving is exactly why you're made fun of here for being a soi-chugging loser imbecile.
You constructed a system of evaluation which, in practice, leads to the hedging out of alternative evaluations unless they accumulate ethos from above
Your defense to this is "Well the system is too good for it to not correct for this problem".
It is literally the most NPC possible response.

>>16979375
I did nothing of the sort. Either spirit can be measured empirically, in which case we can make theories about it and test for them, ie. it's just another variable we failed to account for, or spirit cannot be measured, and so it is simply not a scientific question, and science can't answer whether it exists or not. None of this is a problem for the scientific worldview, it does what it is supposed to do.

>>16979397
>can either be measured empirically or can’t be measured so it’s not a scientific questions
Wow you don’t have any idea how broad science is do you?

>>16979157
this still relies on perspective anon. can't really escape that

>>16979407
Science is very narrow, many things which are not science are called science, because they want to be associated with its prestige.

>>16979423
> Science is very narrow, many things which are not science are called science, because they want to be associated with its prestige.

>>16979410
Of course, science takes for granted that our perspectives are both similar and somewhat related to reality external to us. It could be wrong but that's what's required for it to work. Also required for really any sort of communication.

>>16979423
>he doesn’t know phenomenology is a science
Kek

>>16979450
I see I'm talking to someone of /tv/ calibre

>>16978146
Anything you say based on your personal experience can be dismissed based on mine.

>>16979397
Yes, which is why no one is opposed to the hard sciences which are still highly dependent on empirical observation. The reality is though that now "science" has been broadened to include disciplines like sociology, psychology, and economics, many of whose conclusions have almost nothing to do with empirical testing, and it's this that people are opposed to and which has revealed the clearly enormous problems in the system.
Rational and empirical reasoning is fine when you're trying to figure out why people get sick and discover that it's bacteria. It breaks down when you try to determine why people become criminals and conclude it's due to poverty because you saw some hobo stick up a store counter 500 times out of 1000 observations.

Ethos harvesting makes total sense as a system of evaluation when no one has skin in the game. The problem is that it's increasingly rare for people NOT to have skin in the game. But it's worse because since the system has been expanded out to increasingly large abstracts, everyone now thinks it means that anything it can't establish doesn't exist. If the scientific system was never applied to social interactions, it wouldn't be controversial to conclude the soul existed. If someone suggested the soul doesn't exist because science hasn't proven it, you could simply say that science hasn't proven social interactions either. But the bounds of scientific literature expanded to include abstracts and philosophical concepts more than a century ago now, so we're stuck here.

>>16979423
>not true science

>>16979461
Did you come all the way to /lit/ to engage with anons in subjects you’re clearly completely unfamiliar with?

>>16979453
>science takes for granted that our perspectives are both similar
then there you go anon. Read the Ponty quote again.
Not sure what you're arguing against here anymore. You're coming across as the same sort of dogmatic science fiend that this board makes fun of.

>>16979457
Semantics, the scientific method is a thing, if you want to call other things sciences that's fine, people have always done that, just have to distinguish between the concepts.

>>16979479
Yeah he really has no clue.
>>16979485
Oh cool just use the word semantics to wave away things you can’t grasp.

Postmodernist/communist/marxist bullshit based on academic citations is just as evil and worthless as the same bullshit based on anecdotes. Pilpul and woozling and shotgun arguments aren't evidence, but they will be at your trial for sedition.

>>16979485
You're the person who's equivocating in treating attacks on "science" as equivalent to attacks on the concept of the scientific method used specifically and only for hard sciences.

>>16979498
>merleau-ponty
>being any of the shit you mentioned
Gross

>>16979462
What if our assertions are agreeable and they both counter what science has to say on the matter?
Would you trust me (You), or the latest science mag publication?

>>16979479
Then you're not reading me very clearly, I am well aware of the limits of science. I don't think that is a knock on its methodology when applied properly. What you're calling different perspectives is mostly what I addressed with the variable issue. If people really have different perspectives on the fundamental aspects of concrete reality we usually them delusional.

>>16979521
>fundamental aspects of concrete reality
What are those again?

>>16979504
>Scientific points of view are always naive
I addressed this, because it is clearly wrong.
>>16979497
It is semantics, it's the difference between a word that is used to describe many different things, and a specific precise method. We need to differentiate between them.

>>16979529
eg. if you step off the building, you will fall. People who don't agree with these sorts of things we consider delusional.

>>16979498
>buzzwords
>pilpul buzzword (new buzzword)
>no substance

blahblahblah go sniff some more ideology faggot, you are the enemy you despise

>>16979531
Well, they are naive. It's okay to use the scientific method for specific tasks but you should never adopt a "scientific point of view" and should also be skeptical of results you get by any method. The attitude that data obtained by the scientific method is somehow more trustworthy or reliable is why the hard sciences are having a replicability crisis.

>>16979531
>It is semantics
No it’s not, if you had the ability to engage with the topics you’re attempting to criticize you’d know it’s not.
>>16979537
So physical laws are the fundamental aspects of reality?

>>16979469
I'm in agreement with then, I just don't think we should call all scientific perspective naive, as that quote did, it is a very useful tool when used properly.

>>16979556
Nah science is gay just like you

>>16979521
but I don't understand what you're arguing against. You ultimately said you agree with Ponty, that science takes for granted perspective. Even if you don't like his characterization of this as naive and dishonest, you agree with the reasons for this characterization are. But you're still arguing, because somebody dared to criticize science or something.

>>16979552
>It's okay to use the scientific method for specific tasks but you should never adopt a "scientific point of view
Seems a bit pedantic as a distinction.
>>16979552
>The attitude that data obtained by the scientific method is somehow more trustworthy or reliable is why the hard sciences are having a replicability crisis.
It is though, that is why it works so well and the hard sciences have been so phenomenally successful. Of course they are not perfect, and of course scientists fuck up all the time, that doesn't change how useful the method has been.
>>16979553
>No it’s not, if you had the ability to engage with the topics you’re attempting to criticize you’d know it’s not.
Well you are not really saying anything yourself. I don't care what you want to call it, I explained that the point is that we distinguish between all things called 'sciences' at any point of time, and the scientific method. That is obviously necessary.

>>16979572
I don't think it is naive to take for granted the perspective that we all seem to share. The alternative is solipsism or Pyrrhonian skepticism or any other dead-end of that nature. You can admit that you may be wrong, but there is nothing wrong with working based on the assumption it is true so that you can use the scientific method, which has produced a lot more of use than Maurice ever did.

>>16979498
>Postmodernist/communist/marxist
honestly thank you for putting these as an immediate signifier of your ignorance

>>16979575
>Well you are not really saying anything yourself
I’m saying you’re dumb, if you weren’t dumb you’d have picked that up by now.

>>16979594
I'm well aware you've implied that, my own implication which I guess you missed is that you are not saying anything of value, not contributing anything, I suspect you are not capable of doing so.

>>16979586
>the perspective that we all seem to share
because we don't all share it, anon, and assuming otherwise is absolutely naive.
Sure you can argue that people who don't believe in the laws of gravity may be crazy and you can discount them, science goes and has gone so far beyond that. At a certain point if you're continuing to take this perspective as something universal you're being dishonest and naive, as Ponty said.

>>16979575
>of course scientists fuck up all the time
The ultra-materialist orthodoxy of the last 40 years is fucking poison. Up until the cold war most scientists were more like scientist-philosophers and did not believe there was a particular magic to their craft but that their tools were very limited. The replicability crisis is fucking brand new. You can't tell me that the method works or there are just a few minor problems when FUCKING 50 PERCENT OF BIOLOGY PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE LAST FEW DECADES ARE UNREPLICABLE.

>>16979609
We share it about fundamental things, like the example of walking off the roof. We share it about 'did you see that car go by' and so on. You can do large amounts of science based on assumptions that everyone except schizophrenics agree upon.

The questions we do not share it about are where you have to then think critically, then it would be naive to just believe your own perspective.

>>16979617
Well a lot of that is also that they stopped replicating studies, and peer review started being more important as a measure of validity. Of course scientists should try to think as philosophers about theory, that isn't opposed to the method in any way.

>>16979643
>I don't see the problem anon
>Obviously there's an issue with saying the "scientific mindset is bad"
>The fact that the quality of studies went down when we stopped being immediately skeptical of scientific evaluation is irrelevant
Do you not see how "This study is invalid until it's replicated" is not an endorsement of the scientific method? You're supposed to replicate as part of your own work. External replication is not part of the scientific method, only internal replication. In requiring external replication there is an inherent skepticism to the scientific method because EXTERNAL confirmation is being required to confirm that it is being practiced correctly. Peer review is more "scientifically minded" because it is an endorsement of an internal validity of the system as applied, without the need for external confirmation.

>>16979680
>External replication is not part of the scientific method, only internal replication.
Untrue anon, nullius in verba. Independent replication has always been key. peer review is a postwar aberration, well no, it has a purpose, but it has metastasized at the same time replication has faltered.

Okay let's accept your premise that only your own ideas matter and you don't have to pay lipservice to existing discourse. Now everybody has this attitude. Why should anybody care about what you write?

>>16979706
>Untrue anon
It's completely true, you're just making shit up now. Independent replication has always de facto been part of scientific practice, not de verba. My entire point is that having independent replication de facto part of scientific evaluation is a clear indication that there WAS a recognition that there is shortcoming in the scientific method. You're just trying to weasel your way out by saying that "well, skepticism of science has always been part of science", which obviously makes no sense.

>>16979733
The scientific method literally IS independent replication, that's what the fucking motto of the Royal Society means. Some guy comes and says he has a new result from his experiment, other people do the experiment and see if they get the same result. That is literally the entire principle of the method.

>>16979609
>Sure you can argue that people who don't believe in the laws of gravity may be crazy and you can discount them

not necessarily. See feyerabend for example

>>16979745
That's the entire principle of the method when the Royal Society was founded. That's not the principle of the method as it's practiced now. Phenomenologie was published in 1945, it would've been around the point when this transition was beginning to happen.

>>16978406

Based & Reasonpilled. Same with any other hot issues like climate change and immigration. Both sides share "studies" and "reports" with the sole aim of gaining power.

>>16978563
>'Science' is just whatever the Ivy League and prestigious scientific journals say, or even worse whatever the NYT decides to report on. These institutions do not limit what they call science to the results of the actual scientific method, and they frequently ignore actual results. They conflate the rigor and justified authority of the hardest sciences with the ridiculous bullshit they churn out in other fields, 'trust science'.
Based. The other part of the problem is that such people believe that science can tell us how to live our lives. It doesn't and it can't.

>>16979626
>We share it about 'did you see that car go by' and so on
this is literally perspective anon. I'm willing to give you the leeway on your "fundamental reality" because after that then the conversation is on two different wavelengths entirely, but once you go beyond "water is wet" you're inherently entering into a more narrow perspective. And while this is true for any thought, the issue is that science necessitates that narrowing of perspective to be ignored, and to remain on the "given" of the individuals perspective being universal, which isn't a given at all.
This is a limitation of science, and why Ponty calls it naive and dishonest. It is also why scientism becomes dogmatism; the "i fucking love science" crowd is unable to recognize the individual and unique nature of perspective, and assumes that "science=truth" and all things under the name of science are true.

bump

>>16978331
>>16978406
>/pol/
>/pol/ /pol/ /pol//p/pol/ol//pol////pol/pol/p/pol//pol//pol//p/pol//pol//pol///pol//pol//pol/pol//pol/ol//pol//po/pol//pol/l/ol/
taking covid seriously is the biggest filter in history. there has never been a better indicator of alienation.

>>16981406
>alienation
don't use words you don't know as proxies for meaning

>>16978563
>The scientific method is about repeatedly and independently verifying whether outcomes follow initial conditions, where all variables can be measured and accounted for.
As someone doing a PhD in electrical engineering, I have never seen a single replication paper ever. It's never done.

>>16978146
It's better for worthless ideas to announce themselves as such, so go ahead OP

The WSJ had a great article the other day secretly pointing out all the problems with rushed commercialized politicized vaccines. They had to frame it if of course like "haha, these stupid skeptics in Japan won't take the covid vaccine because the cervical cancer vaccine in Japan the 2000s made everyone sick" and then "even hard hit countries like France are highly skeptical after a rushed swine flu vaccine in 2009 was largely seen as a corrupt cash grab" but it's always framed like "boy all these major vaccine fuckups sure are making it hard to convince people this one will be legit, which it, like, total is!".

>>16979968
>of the individuals perspective being universal,
But science tries to do the exact opposite, by comparing one perspective to others, seeing how they all react to the same phenomena. What other method is less solipsistic than this, what system does Ponty have that is less biased to one perspective? Yes it gives rise to arrogance but so does every belief system.

And I'm using fundamental in a loose sense here, not an absolute philosophical fundamental, I did already say we just assume it works because otherwise we can't even communicate to one another.

>>16981500
Then how do you detect if people are committing fraud with their data?

>>16981406
>I don't want to get sick and die
>Oh, I guess you're alienated from your labor because of Capitalism
Literally what?

>>16978146

>>16981477
Are you actually too dumb to understand what he meant by alienation

>>16981406
Are you saying that COVID is somehow linked to the alien presence

>>16981500
That’s not completely true, at least in my general field of algorithm design. People don’t publish papers simply replicating a result (not novel) but they do come up with new algorithms that compare against old algorithms plenty, and that’s a way in which you replicate the results of a previous paper.

because science is bullshit and politicised, scienctists say you can't hit your kid or that people with low iq vote for trump (while simultanously saying iq is meaningless), ignoring that it's actually education that affects support for trump, and people with lower iq have less education

Your opinion is free to be influenced by anecdotal experience. Fact however is not.
"I fucking hate niggers" is an opinion that you are free to have and is not objective, nor is it meant to be.
"Black people, specifically those of African decent commit more crimes" is an objective statement that needs to be backed up with impartial evidence. You can't use the example of living in a neighborhood and seeing a black guy break into a car as a basis for this argument.
If you separate the subjective and objective, understand both their place and their requirements for argument, then they both have their place in debate.

>>16981700

>hurrr am on /lit/ but cant connect the term 'alienation' to anything outside of DAS KAP'

>>16978331
>zero understanding of history or science outside of the most surface level knowledge

So about three-times as much understanding as your average voter.

>>16981818
>not completely true
>general field of algorithm design

Excellent, a very specific outlier. Moving on

>>16981987
What do you mean by alienation? I usually think of Das Kapital and the similar sociological definition when I hear it; what did you mean by it?
Also:
>contrasting /lit/ with exclusively caring about what Marx said
A lot of the people on this board are Marxists. I think it was only reasonable for me to assume you were yet another one of them.

>>16981934

The further problem of proving or disproving a fact occurs because of the fact that connotations exist within language. Sure its 'easy' to prove
>number bigger or number smaller
But happens when theres a more abstracted statement such as "Zionists control public opinion in the West." Anyone trying to prove or disprove this statement falls into all sorts of weeds about what the word 'control' even means in a pragmatic sense.

>>16982032
That's why you qualify what you're saying so that it's specific. That's why theory is written to begin with

>>16978331
Are "/pol/tards" in the room with you right now, anon?

>>16981406
(you)

>>16982018
>What do you mean by alienation? I usually think of Das Kapital and the similar sociological definition when I hear it; what did you mean by it?
idk maybe the primary meaning of the fucking word. marxists I swear to god

>>16978164
small brain

>>16978146
>pic related

>>16981686
>>But science tries to do the exact opposite, by comparing one perspective to others,
no. scientists inherit whatever they learnt in school, then keep in whatever direction they like within this teaching and they just do the same as the previous generation.
THis is why they inveted the word 'paradigm shift'' to salvage their crap. It is so hard for scientists to think outside the box that there are no shifts anymore. Plus scientists have a hard time saying they were wrong (whereas they are not even being discredited if they say so lol, since according to atheists, knowledge is just temporary and so on)
ALl scientists do is burn tax payer money on some experiment and then derive some statistics from it, like ''in 30 % of the repeated experimenter A happens, in 60% B happens and 10% C happens''. And this helps nobody in taking decisions and even less about truth, morality, which is why the atheist fantasy of the enlightened scientific despot making every atheist happy is moronic.

>>16979733>>16979745

>Independent replication has always de facto been part of scientific practice,
Lol, replicate the experiment from the CERN. The only people who can replicate an experiment is actually the people who run the experiment in the first place and when the money runs out, they scatter to another team doing something else.
Or just even replicate the proof in maths from whatever fields medalist.

>>16983794
And that's a problem for those fields, it invites bias and the possibility of fraud. I'm not shitting on their results or their achievements, just pointing out that it would obviously be better if an independent institution verified their results. They could technically just say whatever they wanted, and you have to take their word on it and hope they're honest and competent.

another thing which is retarded and hyped by goberment because they have nothing else

vehicles fueled by hydrogen emit water

-water is a greenhouse gas
-all the fucking roads will be full of water, and drivers suck at driving in the wet (and dry)
-all the terrains supporting the roads will be drenched
-all the roads will be fucked
-humidity will rise
-heat waves will suck even more
-mosquitoes will increase
-illnesses thru mosquitoes will increase

HYDROGEN IS THE APOCALYPSE

>>16981500
>Electrical Engineering

Not science or math

>>16981477 >>16981700 >>16981811 >>16983487
americans are beyond redemption.

>>16978165
the scientific method only makes sense within the context of a system that actually has reason to really believe in the fundamental principles that make it possible. empiricism is based on the assertion that we can know things based on sense data, but it cannot prove that assertion based on sense data, so its refutes itself. So many of the 'I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE' types think like this where they think they can just sneak in whatever they want to believe while ignoring their completely incoherent foundational reasoning and then condescend to others about how anything that doesn't come from the mouth of 'scientific authority' is untrustworthy.

>>16983958
don't call me an american you fucking cunt

>>16983982
>empiricism is based on the assertion that we can know things based on sense data, but it cannot prove that assertion based on sense data,
You yourself are obviously an empiricist in this sense, you trust your senses don't you? You don't close your eyes and try to figure out some other way to navigate the world walking around. Memeing about absolute knowledge doesn't change that that is how you actually function.

>>16983763
Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

>>16981818
Exactly. At least in engineering, research is often baby steps over previous work, so somewhere down the line false claims would be subject to verification and validation.

In grad school I had to take a novel optimization algorithm (from literature) and implement it in Python. The paper touted the algorithm as something that was useful, but when I tested it, it was pretty shit.

Have you niggers never heard of Popper

>>16978146
Ancient Greeks literally came up with the gravity law and evolution theory 2000 years before all this science bullshit. Science and empiricism are useless to arrive at the truth.

>>16978165
It's making fun of the idiots who think Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson are authorities on science. The sort of people who say I BELIEVE SCIENCE and WHY ARE YOU DENYING SCIENCE which only makes it obvious they are completely scientifically illiterate

>>16983595
>the primary meaning of the word
Then that doesn't make any sense. You have to be alienated from something. (Unless you're saying that people are alienated from literally everything, which seems like an extreme claim). What do you think people are alienated from?

>>16986053
>>16978165
And this soi meme is an extension of mocking Redditoids who like to believe themselves witty intellectuals when the reality is that they are mediocre manchildren who parrot whatever they hear in the hopes others believe them to be so. The width and depth of their scientific knowledge comes from Rick and Morty and other pop culture horseshit. Any criticism of the scientific institutions (which we acknowledge may be politicized and corrupted as seen by even a passing glance at the history of said institutions) or the scientific method (which they don't understand in the slightest) are completely irrelevant.

>>16983788
What's your solution to this situation? And I'm not asking in a challenging way.
Not so much in how we'll carve a steadier path to truth, but how do you propose we find meaning, knowledge and enlightenment in this world. Is it mostly spiritual to you?

>>16978165
p-hacking, the reproducibility problem, etc

>>16978146
Unironically feminist standpoint theory and critical race theory.

>>16986070
The usual implication is alienated from society. Isolated, estranged, alone, hostile, rejected, misunderstood, misunderstanding of others, etc.