/lit/ - Literature

antifragile

>>17078247
Anything by Tickle Me Peven Stinker

>>17078247
I kinda got the feeling that you watch the same youtube channel as me...

>>17078247
https://opensyllabus.org/results-list/titles?size=50

>>17078284
which one is that?

>>17078247
Susan Haack

Don't even know what scientism is; don't care. People who talk about it are the religious equivalent of nu-atheist cringe

>>17078747
It has nothing to do with religion, if anything scientism closely resembles a kind of secular replacement for religious thought.

>>17078247
What problems do you have with "scientism?" Genuinely curious. If you mean people who read a pop science book and think they're experts on a subject whose opinion can't be questioned, that's one thing. If you mean people who can't understand that philosophy is inescapable and that they inherently hold certain values, whether epistemic or moral, that can't be reduced to being "rational" and "scientific" but that are based on something outside of those things, that's another. But I find these types far less troublesome than people who stubbornly refuse to believe science without giving considerable weight to the views of relevant experts on the matter but rather think themselves so wise as to be able to debunk substantiated claims of scientific consensus by referencing a couple of blog articles.

>>17078247
Gustavo Bueno - La fe del ateo (The faith of the atheist) is a criticism of scientism

>>17078247
Against Method by Feyerabend

Taleb writes about it a bit.

>>17078849
I'd say a major problem is people arguing that there is a "scientific consensus" on something.

>>17078867
You mean where there isn't, I assume? Because that can be fair. But sometimes there is widespread consensus.

>>17078916
I mean that the argument is used as if it has any validity. If science was about consensus we would still be in the middle ages.

>>17078928
science is influenced a lot by institutional power though like the expression said something like "science progresses one funeral at a time" etc.

>>17078849
Yes but the vast majority of the time when people are exposed to "relevant experts" it is to give some kind of impression of certainty where there is none. Actually, I would go far enough to say the very idea of expertise is fundamentally evaluative and in no way scientific, so recourse to experts is always grounded in some kind of presupposed authority that itself is in no way scientific. Not to say that authority has no merit, it does in maintaining a cohesive religion and social order, but let's not taint the idea of science and the divinity of questioning with this

>>17078747
>>17078849
critique of "scientism" is not SCIENCE BAD, retards.

>>17078928
Read Kuhn's paradigm shift, science is ultimately social consensus of scientists (I'm a med student and I agree and it dissapoints me, but it's true and a problem for disciplines like medicine but not so much so for things like physics).

>>17078967
It can't be a problem in physics because there is nothing to subvert, it's mostly in fields where """science""" can be manipulated and not be falsifiable.

>>17078928
Are we under the impression that everyone is capable of being an expert at every topic and that thus that all people are equally likely to be correct on a given issue? I'm not saying that an amateur who understands the arguments given by experts for a given position shouldn't be able to question their conclusions. But it is important that the amateur does indeed at least understand the reasoning behind the conclusions made by experts before he's taken seriously by society at large. If someone can't even solve a differential equation, I don't see why we should take his opinion on anything related to physics seriously, for example. He has no basis for understanding why certain conclusions are believed and so his criticisms will always be off base. His understanding of the subject is not likely to be much better than someone who just read a pop science book on the topic.
>>17078948
We definitely agree that taking what you've heard from proposed experts as certain is not advisable. Questioning the motives of the expert, the people who are presenting them as an expert, what the person's actual credentials are and if they're relevant, whether he's a fringe in his field, etc. makes sense, and even if they pass all those smell tests, you should only view it as gaining the opinion of someone who's more likely to be right on the topic than you. If failing to do that is what we mean by "scientism," then yes, I believe scientism is bad. Was curious to see where people meant, again. But I would just say we shouldn't reject the idea that there are times when it's advisable to listen to others in areas where we're ignorant.

>>17079043
>But I would just say we shouldn't reject the idea that there are times when it's advisable to listen to others in areas where we're ignorant.
Exactly, this is how we ground a functioning society and sense of the real. But the normativity attached to science isn't groundable in science itself. Also, there is no way to confirm the science we choose to believe is free from motives other than taking it in faith, which is in no way scientific. The only way we can know science is true is by testing it against our own experience, where if the science fails to hold up it is to be discarded. OR, we do a risk analysis, say "fluoride is neurotoxic" in a minority, the "consensus" is that it is not, so you test non-fluorinated toothpastes. They work just as well, it's unknowable who to believe but you choose to believe the former because of the risk involved. Same with cancer, health risks in general, etc

>>17079270
>>17079270
So if the science isn't groundable in personal empirical testing and there isn't any sort of significant health risk involved in the choice you make (in comparing alternatives via risk analysis), it doesn't matter and could just as well be discarded.

99.99% of the time when someone is upset about "Scientism", it's because they don't like that their 80IQ Fundie opinions get shit on.

Don't like it? Don't be a Liberal. You lost. Get over it.

>>17078747
>>17078820
It is a heresy and it is just as you’ve described.

>>17078247
phenomenology of spirit unironically

>>17078956
Define scientism and then define what you are in relation to it

>>17078849
>>17079043

>>17078948
>>17079270

I want to thank you anons both, for what seems like an earnest effort at presenting arguments for your (differering) opinions. I really mean it, there is too much shit flinging that happens not only on this board but life in general, and intelligent discussion even only a few posts long is refreshing. Cheers.

"Evolution as a religion" and "Science as Salvation" by Mary Midgley

>>17080590
Define define.

>>17079270>>17080731

>The only way we can know science is true is by testing it against our own experience, where if the science fails to hold up it is to be discarded.
that's scientism and by the way the ''verificability'' is a meme and doesn't work and also is not related to truth at all.

And there is no truth in science anyway. Science is just stats glorified by atheists.

>>17080871
Define "define define"

>>17080871
> Define define.
Why are people still doing this? Wittgenstein already showed that this was Pseud cope.

>>17078247
Not a book but google searching "p-hacking" will give you a pretty good base for how scientism can come from manipulating data into a result

Do any books that directly refute the "scientific method" as a means of understanding the world exist?
seems like a fun concept

>>17080883
>Science is just stats glorified by atheists.
Most scientists are religious.

>>17078247
>Noo you're supposed to believe in unverifiable mystic mumbo jumbo! Science and rational thinking is bad! You can't just deny the existence of absurd supernatural causes and miracles! It's scientism, terrible!

>>17081671
>Noo you're supposed to believe in unverifiable statistic mumbo jumbo! Generationally inherited morals and instincts are bad! You can't just deny these unfalsifiable outrageous claims and experts! It's cultism, terrible!

>>17081047
Because anytime a faggot asks for a definition it's in bad faith and it's purpose is to pin some lame le epic plebbit gotcha on a dude.

>>17078247
The Reign of Quantity by Rene Guenon

https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/octopus.html
http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Weber/Science_as_a_Vocation.html

I liked these two reads about the increasing industrialization of academia. They have been fairly prescient.

>>17078247
On the off chance you'll think about it a little.

>>17078820
I unironically love the scientific method and I am appalled by the scientism type people and how they appeal to non-repeatable studies made with sloppy statistics and many other problems.

I too see it as a replacement for religious thought and if anything I've come to the conclusion that most people really do need to be told what to think and if that is the case religion is far, far superior to the degenerate, self-destructive path "I love science" is taking us down.

Further I want suggest all social scientists be burned at the stake, overseen by a coalition of pure mathematicians and Christian priests.

By the way can someone with English as their first language explain to me why 'unironically' isn't a word?

ummm HELLO? yeah, it's me. i FUCKING LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE SCIENCE. you mean a S O Y J A C K? woooooOAOWOWOWOAOAOAOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO i fucking LOVE DISCOVERY CHANNEL. what's that? YEAH, I RESPECT SEX WORKER? so what? there's no SCIENTIFIC BASIS for morality, CHUD! i was READING my SUBSCRIPTION to SCIENTIFIC AMERICA, and I saw that THERE'S LITERALLY NO REASON TO EAT MEAT. i must TELL MY mom to NOT buy me ANYMORE of those OVEN-READY CHICKEN CUTLETS. OH MAN, oh MAN, i simply CANNOT WAIT for the STEAM HOLIDAY SALE! FOR SCIENCE! FOR REDDIT! isn't it so COOL that i LOVE SCIENCE? I mean, WOW, most other guys are just INTO partying and GETTING LAID! NOT ME, i FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE! he's so YOUNG AND so INTO SCIENCE! WOWOWOWOWO! i mean, COME ON! THAT'S SO CRAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY(frog)YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! haha!

>>17078747
Scientism is science minus the understanding of its own epistemological limits. Most scientists today have a flimsy understanding of the philosophy of science. That's why you get people like black science man who might be a talented educator in the field of astrophysics but does not get its own foundational limits.

>>17078247
We just need to add the notion of final cause or telos back into science and we will have a valid understanding of all of reality. Time to return to Aristotle (pbuh).

>>17082008
>By the way can someone with English as their first language explain to me why 'unironically' isn't a word?

There's no need for it since words with that meaning already exist, even jesus was already on that with stuff like

>24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

there's also sincerely, truly, honestly, seriously etc

>>17078247
Anything esoteric

>>17078747
Example

>>17082205
Just kill me.

>>17082205
I want to inflict violence upon whoever made this.

>>17078849
tl;dr, sciencenigger

>>17082205
ancient meme, pretty sure this was from the bush years

>>17082224
Ah, the glory days of internet atheism, when the world used to be black and white. I miss those. Now it's just confusion, conflicting truth claims at the societal level and moral uncertainty..

>>17082224
Hardly. Probably around 2015. Right around the time everyone went batshit.
https://twitter.com/oatmeal/status/678639032213962752

The original is just an old analogy that isn't even that bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat_analogy

>>17082245
No I remember seeing this way back in the day, dawkins era

>>17082245
>The original is just an old analogy that isn't even that bad.
it may be old but it is still trash because it cloaks a biased conviction in abrasive humour.

>>17082245
based

>>17082240
I recently watched Rick Roderick's (really good) lecture series. One point he was making centred around this line of thought.

>It was only after a rather unpleasant experience in a war. Greek war, someone may know about it. [...] Ah, but after a tragic experience with the war, and a military dictatorship, the words that had become standard in their culture, and had been used unproblematically with meanings attaching to definite positions, began to be sources of irritation.

>And so, the ground and the possibility for Socrates’ inquiry was not really his individual genius, although that itself is a nice thing, and I am not against it. But it was not possible except against a background of a society that had deeply begun to question what these words really meant.

> But the point is that philosophy – philosophical inquiry, of the dangerous kind, as opposed to of the analytic, boring, academic kind – philosophic inquiry of the dangerous kind catches a society at a moment when it’s insecure about what the main terms that hold it together mean. Like man, woman, patriot, and in particular: “human being”. So that is the human edge of philosophy. It’s that you catch society at a moment of danger when a term or a set of terms that are very important to the identity of a lot of people are in question. Or possible. That the questioning of it is at least possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUBChlG_1vU&t=30m33s

>>17082261
At least that particular interpretation is from the Oatmeal, which is not that old.

>>17082205
WOW science can really solve ANYTHING!
book fags be mad haha ; ZIMBABWE

>>17082245
I expected Oatmeal to look like overweight basedboy (something like Ernst Cline) but turns out he actually looks kinda Chad