/lit/ - Literature

>>22120379
I debate wether it’s nu-atheism or coomertheism.

Becuase the nu-atheist movement at its core was rebellion against Christ in order to achieve guilt free cooms. The science shit was flimsy and just a red herring for the real basis of the movement.

>>22120386
>Becuase the nu-atheist movement at its core was rebellion against Christ in order to achieve guilt free cooms. The science shit was flimsy and just a red herring for the real basis of the movement.
The problem with this theory being that it is you and only you spamming this everywhere.

>>22120413
t. Coomer

Just stfu. It’s over man. Nu-atheism is Reddit and cringe and dead.

>>22120379
i don't work with this guy obviously but he looks like the sort of cubicle roach i work with. therefore i can say that he's retarded.

>>22120421
Is the belief system of submitting to a superior entity inherently homosexual? No it must be those atheists!!

>>22120379
Lmao you pathetic racists never fail to make me laugh with your ”/lit/ humor” threads. Face it. most poc will be infinitely more successful than any of you sad virgins ever will be. You are on the wrong side of history. get over it losers

>go to Barns and Noble
>find the Qurans
>douse them in lighter fluid and set them on fire
>some rainbow hair shemale comes running up with a fire extinguisher yelling "What are you doing?!"
>as s/he puts out the fire I tell xim that s/he's being antisemitic
>get banned from Barns and Noble for life
so much for free speech

Are we winning bros? Sure looks like it when we have these threads everytime!

>>22120379

>>22121506
No, it is all good. Mr Bessey said your son in law is a cock smoker and I can post his picture. Mr Bessey says get your brown ass in the oven before we set you on fire

>>22121506
HE gave me permission to make that image. Cant you read, you shit sucker?

>>22121484
shit bait
kill yourself

>>22120379
Based, fuck christcucks.

>>22120379
Other thread up is so funny we needed a second one, I guess

>>22120386
It's mostly people who had religious trauma, trust me

>>22121670
I scrolled through that thread and it was depressingly bad, didn't even read the responses

>>22120379

>>22121639


>>22120386
>>22120421

Reddit can't read.

Proverbs 5:15-23 Is the secret to a free can of nuts, every time you visit Target.

>>22121831

What a shitty Thread

>>22121831
>>22121838
I would read the New Soijak Version of the Bible

>>22121684
They're a vocal subgroup but it's mostly an intelligence LARP for midwits who want to feel intellectually superior and think bragging you don't believe in Santa as an adult is a way to get there.

>>22121684
What is religious trauma?

>>22121831
I NEED to read the entire Bible in this style

>>22121831
Jonah's my favorite book of the old testament. I love how every non-Jew immediately submits to God or tries to get right with him by throwing his shitty prophet off a boat.

>>22122648
Traumatic events related to religion.

>>22120379
>Text stolen from a 2000s image macro when being atheist was still a little bit edgy
>Self portrait of some ugly fat fuck
>Facebook
>"Humor"

>>22120379
I got kicked out of Barnes & Noble for moving LOTR into manchildren section
>insert facebook smiley face

>>22122690
>tips fedora

>>22120379

>>22122680
how can there be traumatic events related to religion?

>>22121503
I went to a bookstore i hated once and asked them if they had anything by Socrates but pronounced it like loot crates

>>22122668
except for the times they invented copes like Canaan being occupied by the nephilim so they decided to come back 40 years later

>>22122668
I might actually read this tonight, sounds interesting.

>>22123019
Ikr?

>>22120379

>>22123341
WHERE’S YOUR PRECIOUS HIPPO-CRATES NOW?

>>22121831
>>22121838
i feel like my brain is rotten through but i find these onions edits to always be hilarious

>>22123387
unironically i find each book in the bible somewhat interesting even if i`m not that religious.if there are some books that can be a drag (like leviticus) but the majority of my tike i had been pleased, i`m on jeremias at this moment

>>22123019
>mama made me go to church on sunday so i hate religion
pretty much 9 out of 10 cases

>>22122680
Like what?

Convince me that humour is good

>>22123790
laughing releases endorphins which make my brain feel good for free

>>22122945
You do it ironically but i am pretty sure that your likes did it sincerely back in the day. But then you're hardly 20 years old so it doesn't matter.

>>22123792
For free? Hah typical communist

>>22123802
What do you mean? Your post is just barely incomprehensible.

>>22123827
>he pays for his endorphins
embarassing

>>22121449
This guy hears "The Father" and starts thinking about gay sex. Telling stuff!

>>22123845
and you don't? Haha you fool. There's nothing in this life that you don't pay for.

>>22123802
>20 years olds were posting on r/atheism in 2010
Very strange thought process, anon. Can you explain it?

>>22123859
there's actually nothing in this life that costs anything, because it's all in my head. even now i am simply imagining myself having a conversation with another person on a kalaalisut cairn-tipping forum

>>22123863
Suddenly I feel calm. I guess I'm not the insane one

>tfw you punch the demiurge in the nuts

>>22120386
I love how myopic people can be. There exists a world beyond your little cult.

>>22124206
>...Anonymous
>06/08/23(Thu)00:42:27 No.22124206
>Infidel.jpg
>68 KB JPG
>>>22120386 #
>I love how myopic people can be. There exists a world beyond your little cult.
Who wrote the forward to that? Kek.

>>22124206
>I love how myopic people can be. There exists a world beyond your little cult.
Who wrote the forward to that? Kek.

>>22124215
So? Do you think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is rebelling against Christianity? Don't worry, I don't expect you to comprehend how idiotic your original comment is.

>>22123908
What a magnificent spirit. I bet anon was in the wrong, but he still wrote a good post.

>>22123439
schopenhauer's sister didnt like their mother either

>>22121831
>lego bible
>skeptic annotated bible
>no basedjak bible
We've failed as a society

>>22124229
>So?
You honestly don't see the irony? You call others myopic and accuse them of being closed into their cult--then you post something from the New Atheistism super-friends. Atheism is an intelligence LARP and you just proved you're a retard with no selfawareness.

>>22124206
P.S. The origin comment wasn't me but it's cool you took a shitpost seriously.

>>22122648
>>22123778
Their mommy made them go to church on the weekends instead of letting them masturbate and watch cartoons all day long.

>>22122648
They want to be evil but their guilt and social mores prevented them.

>>22120379
I think I went to high school with that guy. He did that when we were young too.

>>22126011
No, I very specifically challenged the claim that "atheism is a rebellion against Christianity", a position you are now desperately avoiding.

>>22127135
>I missed the irony
I know you did.
>avoiding
Wasn't my argument but I largely agree with it. For example, the guy who wrote the forward to the book you posted had a soft spot for Kurds and tended to focus on Saudis and Jihadists (as it was in fashion during in time before he drank/smoked himself to death). When it comes to the over-focusing on Christianity it's arguably organic through--the New Atheism movement was intellectually lazy, explicitly going after lowhanging fruit, so you'd expect them to stick close to home. Even when ones like Sam Harris criticise Islam it's always about their rejection of liberal beliefs (e.g. their stance on homosexuality) with very little to say beyond the assumption they're backward.

>>22121449
What does this even mean?

>>22124206
Lmao Christopher hitchens meme book lmao. Fuck off

>>22126028
Kek

>>22127135
I wrote that comment and I am correct. New atheism was lazy and empty and did main advocates had no understanding of philosophy and therefore didn’t really know how to argue. It was a convenient political polemic by Jewish groups against Christianity, which they have always viewed as dangerous to Judaism and marxism.

I just don’t see how you can’t see this. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher. All getting interviews and media deals by you know who. It’s so obvious. And it was so stupid.
I could go on for days but all I can say is start with the Greeks. I’m not going to teach you and I don’t care if you want to Jack off all day and wind up roasting in hell. Calvin was right

>>22121632
Newfag.

>>22121484
Missing canadianflag.jgp

>>22127173
If you know even the first thing about Christopher Hitchens, you would know his first and foremost concern was about fighting totalitarianism, in so far as that amounts to opposing a "rejection of liberal beliefs" you are right, but to equate it in a throw-away manner to the question of homosexuality betrays your casuistry.

>>22127252
It seems your only course of action in regard to New Atheism is to wildly misrepresent them and their arguments. As I have commented, Hitchens in particular voiced his strongest opposition to totalitarianism, rightly pointing out that the Abrahamic religions amount to death cults full of people who are convinced things will get a lot better once death and the destruction of this world is complete and the delusional kingdom of heaven can be entered upon by the all too aptly named flock. The ultimate irony is that you, fattened live stock that you are, eagerly await this oncoming slaughterhouse with no chance of being awakened to your delusion. It's really a sad state of affairs to see one so utterly taken in by a con job which is what organized religions always amount to.

>>22127233
Here, try this one

>>22127205
It means he's a deranged Satan worshipping faggot intent on subversion and demoralization.

>>22127875
>"NOOO, I have to love a father figure I fear! I.. I just have to, okay?!"
Freud was right

>>22121484
your insecurity speaks through your words.

>>22127821
>I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT NEW ATHEISM
>[spergs about Hitchens]
Get the irony yet? Hitchens was retarded enough to be a Marxist and back Bush over the Iraq War--you're a retard if you think he has a clean record when it comes to opposing totalitarianism. His stance had more to do with the fashionable low-hanging fruit of Jihadists (which I mentioned) and an affinity for the Kurds (which was common ground between liberals and conservatives alike throughout the 90s and early 00s).

Also, I was referring to the fact New Atheists were only able to embody a cheap Orientalism (i.e. judging Muslim countries through the cultural lens of Western neoliberalism) when it comes to Islam and the specific person I mentioned was Sam Harris because I know you're an idiot and think the Ben Affleck exchange was cutting edge journalism.

Again, you're an idiot. He might be a broken clock but at least the anti-Semitic chud gets the read right.

>>22127910
My first post was in response to the claim that "New Atheism is a rebellion against Christianity". Now, I understand you want desperately to forget this, but it just makes you look foolish. I was explicitly talking about New Atheism from the start. You seem to be having an argument with a figment of your imagination, please point to a quote where I said anything resembling "I wasn't talking about New Atheism", or anywhere I claimed Hitchens "has a clean record". Almost everything you reference is made up in your own fantasy world. It remains true that Hitchens dedicated his work first and foremost to the opposition of totalitarianism. It remains true that the proponents of "New Atheism" opposed dogmatic religions including Christianity but definitely not limited to it. At least you now acknowledge his oppositions to "Jihadists" which is progress of a kind. You seem to be quite a typical representative of the low quality /lit/ has to offer these days, and the worst part is you don't even have the self awareness to recognize it.

>>22127942
>"New Atheism is a rebellion against Christianity". Now, I understand you want desperately to forget this, but it just makes you look foolish.
I never made that arguement but I told you I largely agreed with it and gave multiple reasons why.
>You seem to be having an argument with a figment of your imagination
The irony is that you told someone that they were myopic/locked into a cultish worldview and referenced a book that was part of the New Atheism super-friends, retard. Instead of being a retort to him criticising your breadth you demonstrated how shallow your knowledge is.
>Hitchens "has a clean record"
You brought up the fact he takes a (vague) stand against totalitarianism instead of addressing my criticism of him so I reiterated and expanded upon the shallowness of New Atheism's critique of Islam (i.e. cheap Orientalism) while still being nice enough to address your argument. That's the difference between us--I can construct an cohesive argument while responding to your points whereas youre a disingenuous moron.
>the proponents of "New Atheism" opposed dogmatic religions including Christianity but definitely not limited to it.
Shifting the goalposts? Again, my argument is that the primary focus of New Atheism was Christianity but, unlike chud anon, I say such is an organic product of intellectual laziness and the culture in which it was incubated. I also said, for the third or fourth time now, that their criticism of other religions is shallow and restricted to comparisons with Western liberalism. They get away with being lazy when it comes to Christianity because they're steeped in it but when it comes to Islam their poverty of knowledge is even more glaring obvious. They focus on low-hanging fruit and encourage retards like yourself to do so as well--atheism is an intelligence LARP for midwits who think not believing in Santa as an adult is an accomplishment.
>Almost everything you reference is made up in your own fantasy world
Or you're a filtered idiot who gets BTFO'd in every thread she wanders into.
>no you (selfawareness)
Pic-related, retard. No you.

>>22127942
P.S. I know Russell was an atheist. Still a good quote.

>>22123439
Ahahahah, so predictable.

>>22127829
>only course of action in regard to New Atheism is to wildly misrepresent them and their arguments.
nta, but they're so stupid and committed to the Christianity they allegedly despise that they're not worth reading (on the basis of Darwinian evolution, why is racism bad? Why ought women to have rights? Etc. They have nothing). Serious, thoughtful atheists like Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Nietzsche, and Heidegger are well worth the effort, and Heidegger makes a serious case against divine revelation. But Sam Harris? Dawkins? Fuck off, these faggots can't think their way out of a paper bag. It's all "Le I Love Science" and bastardized Christian morals. Fuck these posers.

>>22128348
>and Heidegger makes a serious case against divine revelation
how

>>22123387
It's about 5 pages, pretty quick read. One of my favorites.

>>22123908
posts like this are why I'm here forever.

>>22127910
>Ben Affleck exchange was cutting edge journalism
are you talking about when he was on the Bill Maher show? GOD that was embarrassing, I wish they'd gotten the Islamanon who did the Graduate Studies series to be on that show, would have been hilarious to watch him go through taqqiya.

>>22126028
You could say that christards only believe in the bible because their mommy took them to church. They heard things they couldn't understand, they heard absurd stories no different to literal fairy tales, they got bombarded by carefully crafted propaganda, but because mommy said it was good and because mommy cried and repented for her sins or maybe because mommy got on her knees to suck off the man on the podium spewing odd shit christards created an emotional and irrational bond to religion.

>>22123533
They genuinely are. I laugh everytime.

>>22123533
>but
The word you are looking for is "and".

>>22122648
being taken to church when you don't want to go.

>>22123341
Josh?

lol, i would cut his head off with my 10cm blade located in my right back pocket, if he would announce this publicly, in minecraft of course.

>>22128799
>*Teleports behind u*
>Heh... Christ is king

>>22121831
Holy based

>>22128348
>thoughtful atheists like Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides

>>22121831
lol
>>22121838
idgi

>>22121831
Never realized Jonah was a chud

>>22121684
>Religious trauma
Re: your mom made you go to church for an hour a week on Sunday

>>22128705
Many words. Little sense connecting them. Unironically, what did he mean by this?

>>22128898
Your parents are retarded christcucks.

>>22128850
? do you disagree, anon?

>>22128348
>thoughtful atheists like Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Nietzsche, and Heidegger
The fedora tippers are truly sending their best.

>>22128898
>Unironically, what did he mean by this?
Atheism is an intelligence LARP. Literally adults who think it's impressive they don't believe in Santa.

great thread everyone

>>22120379

>>22128934
youre a troon rapebaby.

>>22123369
>pic
how do snowniggers even come up with this shit lmao

>>22128976
Nietzsche would wipe the floor with a faggot like Richard Dawkins, and Aristotle wouldn't insult barbarians by calling Hitchens one.
I believe in God but the thinkers I mentioned didn't. Unlike the New Atheists they're extremely intelligent and worth learning from, however. Dawkins wouldn't understand the relationship between falsifiability and knowledge if you fucked him in the ass with it.

>>22129010
maybe the thread can still be salvaged

>>22128348
>and Heidegger makes a serious case against divine revelation.
makes no such thing

>>22129073
read Being and Time

>>22129038
I was making fun of you, anon.

>>22129146
I don't mind, I got to think of a new insult for Dawkins because of it.

>>22129158
You seem really dumb.

>>22129183
I disagree and think you're a homosexual

>>22127961
Once again, you demonstrate that you cannot even follow the thread of the argument. Perhaps you do not recall the Charlie Hebdo attacks, where Hitchens himself was one of the only voices willing to go on national television and condemn them wholesale without some simpering justification of how they shouldn't have drawn Mohammad so they basically deserved it. How many news networks in the Christian world cowered before Islam and refused to show eminently newsworthy cartoons? It was the New Atheists who were most outspoken about the creeping totalitarianism of Islam in threatening terrorism against people in free nations who have the right to criticize or outright mock any religion or person they want to. Again, you demonstrate the irony of your own quote that you have to filter these facts through your own bias against New Atheism and Hitchens and dare to call this "a vague stand against totalitarianism". Need I also bring up Hitchens' support of Salman Rushdie when Islamic leaders were calling for his death over the writing of a book? No, of course your closed mind has to sweep all this under the rug because he also criticized your sacred cow, to borrow a phrase. I will reiterate AGAIN, you are the kind of myopic cult member I was referring to and you just proved it again.

I think a lot of nu-Christians (especially tradcath
spics) and other converts are LARPers but I need to be convinced that atheism isn't just happy-clappy we're all equalism again.

>>22128705
The Freudian connection of projecting a literal father figure in the sky who threatens punishments and demands worship is just too rich to be ignored. The phrase "sky daddy" can be thrown around a lot, but you have to admit the extremely lurid psychological implications of believing in a "heavenly father" like the one in Christianity.

>>22129272
Have you looked into Deism? I recommend The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

>>22129277
>by Peter Gay
>think anon is shooping
>mfw it's real

>>22128961
Maimonides was literally a religious Jew, Aristotle had his theory of the unmoved mover which all subsequent monotheistic thinkers identified as the Abrahamic God. Plato was more ambiguous but he posits the existence of the demiurge. I wouldn't say they're good examples of atheistic philosophers

>>22128348
>(on the basis of Darwinian evolution, why is racism bad? Why ought women to have rights? Etc. They have nothing)
I have yet to hear an actual refutation of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, and I'm being serious. If you, as an individual, recognize that certain experiences are undesirable, you obviously seek to avoid them, likewise with desirable experiences, you seek them out. Extrapolate that to other agents, other centers of consciousness, and you begin to have social dynamics and groups where moral codes and rules take on a utilitarian, game-theory characteristic whereby the best way for any one member to experience the desirable things they wish is to participate in those systems which require working collectively towards the betterment of the whole group. This is essentially just a description of what humans tend to do, the only difference is that usually the "us and them" mechanics manifest where anyone outside the group is deemed an enemy. But if you take the actual reason why the group works, the function of synergy itself, it relies on a commitment to fairness, when the group isn't corrupted then the more selflessly you give the better you are in the end. Two things becomes clear then, corruption, or more plainly, the siphoning of resources away from the common good, needs to be rooted out and destroyed in order to maintain the cohesion and function of the group, and second that the group can be expanded quite a long way, and that in terms of geography, it makes sense to include all people living in proximity into the synergy of the group, since people in close proximity both share common interests and can also partake of the benefits of synergy more readily. What do you think of this formulation?

>>22129292
You WILL read the Gay.

>R: 129 / I: 23

>>22129326

>>22129337

>>22129313
You've never read Guide of the Perplexed, have you? Yes, Maimonides was a religiously observant Jew. Descartes was a religiously observant Catholic. Both were atheistic as fuck.

Both Aristotle and Plato seem to have held some unmoved mover as a first principle of all things, but that's a far, far cry from religious observance. The unmoved mover doesn't give a shit about you, or care what you do. Aristotle ridiculed religion so much (openly too, read Metaphysics Book II) he was compelled to flee Athens. Both he and Plato held that human reason was sufficient for living well, which implicitly rejects claims of religion. No, they weren't the stupid scientific materialist idiots of r/atheism, but they were atheists nonetheless, they did not believe in the gods.

>>22129344

>>22129317
>What do you think of this formulation?
It's not bad on the face of it, but it presupposes too many neo liberal principles, like
>people in close proximity share common interests
Absolutely not, different ethnic groups make this abundantly clear, and the crime resulting therefrom. If anything, recognizing the harmony of a group working well together rapidly turns into the monocultural, mono-ethnic nationalist state I think every New Atheist would anathematize
>single religion
>broad moral consensus
>racial homogeneity
It's unquestionable such a set up results in a more stable, peaceful society. But it is Le Bad from a popular consensus.

If Harris wants to make these questions utilitarian, fine, I can play ball. But then he has to explain why his formulation perfectly coincides with neoliberal ideology and excludes alternative solutions deemed unpalatable.

>>22129252
You should have sperged that he was part of an ACLU lawsuit against government surveillance too. You're incapable of actual criticism and just assert the same shallow point over and over while regurgitating fanboy nonsense. You're an idiot who is too stupid to even understand they're disingenuous in failing to address criticism.

Again, New Atheism was overwhelmingly focused on Christianity. This is indicative of intellectual laziness for the reasons I've listed above and you've failed to address. Also, New Atheism's critique of Islam was fashionable according to the times and shallow in that it was limited to a pathetically restricted Orientalism that simply assumed the validity of liberal ideals devoid of any cultural contextualization; in so doing it falls into the ideological trappings of neoliberal hegemony we see today. Overall, New Atheism was intellectually lazy and serves as a LARP by which midwits can play act unearned intellectual superiority. It was laughably reductive from the start and by focusing solely on low-hanging fruit it left it's adherents ill equipped to expand their knowledge base in any direction; this applies not only to religious though but also the Scientism they parrot while having no actual understanding of how the scientific enterprise operates (kek, most of them don't even know basic calculus).

So the point is that you've bought into a LARP and internalized a worldview that promotes intellectual laziness. Luckily for you the level of ignorance you maintain will protect you from ever realizing just how stupid and ill informed you are.

>>22129393
>no actual understanding of how the scientific enterprise operates
This, I've read too many things from these idiots that say stupid shit like the "laws of nature" are immutable and therefore miracles are impossible, as if you can actually observe necessity in nature. Give me a fucking break, this has been obvious since before Plato did the Divided Line.

>>22129326
What's a nyr-fag?
>t. phonefagging newfag

>>22128348
>on the basis of Darwinian evolution, why is racism bad?
On the basis of pure Darwinian evolution, intra-group competition is always harsher and more vital that competition between groups, so you should hate your actual literal biological brother much more than your neighbour and your neighbour more than some nigger out there, because nigger presents the least competition for resources. In fact, you should love spics and niggers and chinks and welcome their influx into your society, not because it is beneficial, but specifically so that between-group conflict causes maximum damage to other specimens closest to you and allows you to benefit from their decline, while you mate with opposite sex members of your own group, the spics, the nigers, the chinks and whoever - as long as it diversifies your progeny's genetic variety. Optimal Darwinian strategy is pure "ChAoS iS a LaDdEr". Animals just don't have social structures big and complex enough for one member to massively fuck over for his own sake - in no small part because those structures can't emerge as immediately fucking one over as soon as it emerges is so beneficial for every member.

Darwinism-wise, group identity is a cope for specimens that can't reproduce, which out intelligence high-jacked for different purposes. But "caring about your own" that are not your direct blood relation is literally the least Darwinian thing possible. Genetically, they are your worst enemies.

>>22129408
Check out theory-ladenness, under-determination, and Kuhn loss. Also, their "hard program" goes way too far into social constructivism but check out Barnes/Bloor (and Bruno Latour) as well. Paul Feyerabend too.

If you want to look at science/religion stuff research the historiography of the "conflict thesis" and how it was supplanted by the complexity thesis. Ian Barbour and Owen Gingerich both wrote some good stuff as well.

>>22129408
>say stupid shit like the "laws of nature" are immutable
P.S. for that specific point check out Nancy Cartwright. You can just look at the the Standford encyclopaedia of philosophy/wikipedia but if you want to a deep dive that's pretty technical, check out How the Laws of Physics Lie.

>>22129056
>he thinks this thread can be salvaged

>>22129392
I do not agree with everything any of the New Atheists say, as you may have gathered I'm happy to recognize that places like the Scandinavian countries seemed to have benefited by being, shall we say, "tight knit" (to be explicit, ethnically and culturally homogeneous), that is to say, the benefits of group synergy are more pronounced the fewer the differences are among the population. This needs more elucidation, however, since authoritarian /enforcement/ of uniformity, or rather, the cracking down on individual differentiation can itself undermine the utilitarian benefits of a synergistic society. Here, then, we have arrived at both the core of the benefit of the unifying traits of a homogeneous culture, while also acknowledging the basis for why the liberal idea, in reference to literal liberty of the members of the group, is also sound. Do you object?

>>22129393
>The New Atheists were more focused on Christianity than anything else
This amounts to a nothing criticism. Christianity is the dominant religion of the West, New Atheism existed in the West, ergo most of the interactions between New Atheism and religion were with Christianity. You have yet to make a real case that they did not also condemn Islam, as I have mentioned, you cannot simply dismiss their attitude towards Islam as "fashionable" when I have already given an example of how the fashion of the time was to placate the Islamic world by not showing the drawings of Mohammad, something the New Atheists very vocally condemned and which was NOT the fashionable position at the time. Again, this point is awfully inconvenient to your position so you refuse to address it at all. Sad.

>>22129603
Desperate cope and an attempt to rehabilitate the "god of the gaps" argument. You're as bad as the presuppositionalists. No, actually, you're worse, the presuppositionalists are at least honest that they just want to presuppose their preferred worldview. You seem caught in a middle ground, where you think that you ought to have a reasonable argument about these things, but also condemn any worldview based on reason and evidence as impossible to justify because of "theory-ladeness".

>>22120379
I love going into a B&N and seeing all the witchcraft shit piled right next to the bible's in the "religion section" I like to think that it must trigger Christfags on a regular basis.

>>22129880
>Christianity is the dominant religion of the West, New Atheism existed in the West, ergo most of the interactions between New Atheism and religion were with Christianity.
I said as much in the first post and elaborated on that point further in subsequent posts, retard. So you agree with that part of what I said? Now go further and actually address how it reflects into their criticism of both Christianity and Islam you absolute idiot.
>have already given an example of how the fashion of the time was to placate the Islamic world
You're a retard who doesn't even respond to my points but if you want me to BTFO on that as well, I will. Everyone came out against the Hebdo massacre you absolute retard and the reason they weren't showing the cartoons wasn't due to sympathy but the fact they didn't want their offices attacked. Even fucking Dawkins toes that line now, idiot. Also, the reason Islam was in the public consciousness at all was due to 9/11 and the New Atheist movement focused on the fashionable low-hanging fruit of Jihadism.
>Again, this point is awfully inconvenient to your position
You don't even know what my position is eventhough I've explained it to you multiple times. That's why I posted the Bertrand Russell quote. Holy shit you're retarded.

Here, I'll give you the arguments you keep failing to address in point form:
>New Atheism only offered shallow criticisms of religious understanding
>it was primarily focused on Christianity because such was the culture in which it was incubated
>however, this is also indicative of intellectual laziness in that it has little to say about religious understanding as a phenomena outside of an (underinformed and historiographically naive) Scientism and in comparison to the (entirely assumed) superiority of liberalism
>when it comes to Islam the above may be reflected as a cheap form of Orientalism (i.e. it unintentionally allies itself with neoliberal ideology and in so doing undermines it's assumed position of an anti-ideology--combine this with Scientism and you'll get why New Atheism is a joke)
>on top of this I pointed out the low-hanging fruit New Atheism focused on multiple times (and mentioned it again above)
>this is also reflective of the intellectual laziness of the movement
>retards like you parrot their arguments and are too stupid to realize you're indoctrinated yourself into a myopic worldview
>New Atheism failed because it was a cheap fad that gave midwits, again like yourself, a cheap way to LARP as thoughtful and intellectual
>but the thing is you don't realize how much it retards your actual knowledge and maintain a comfortable ignorance because it's a LARP that makes adults feel like titans of reason and champions of intellect by not believing in Santa (kek)

You're an idiot.

>>22129875
I remember reading that a long time ago Somalia a homogeneous nation was being predicted to be a next big thing.

>>22129886
>condemn any worldview based on reason and evidenc
Where did I do that you filtered reject? The point is you LARP as a parrot for Scientism and confuse philosophical concepts, that detail as well as benefit the scientific enterprise, as being lodged against your ideology. That's how you know you're an ideologue--you redefine criticism in order to strawman it within the terms provided by what you've internalized. Thusly, concepts under-determination and theory-ladenness don't widen you're understanding but have to be dismissed off hand as an attack on rationality instead of something that should be taken into account by it. You're ideologically possessed and your assumed position as a defender of rationality accidentally betrays the fact you aren't rational.

>>22129966
Your vocabulary and ability to follow a line of conversation is abysmal. As I have stated before, you are having a fantasy argument with yourself and your delusions. But you do finally admit that the common response to Charlie Hebdo was to capitulate to the terrorists and acquiesce to their demands? You even say it was out of fear, so in your own post you outline that to advocate for the publication of those cartoons would be a brave thing. Yet you are so attached to your preconceived bias against "New Atheism" that this bravery needs to be denied and downplayed, even while you inadvertently acknowledge it! Therefore, a full throated defiance of "Jihadism" was, by your own admission NOT "fashionable" or "going after low hanging fruit". You are so far inside your own delusions you don't even know up from down. You are a very sad person and no longer worth my time.

>>22129976
Homogeneity acts as a force multiplier. If a society has a lack of this force to begin with, multiplying it has a somewhat unimpressive effect.

>>22129992
Okay then anon, explain your criticisms of "scientism" and what you propose as a better alternative.

>>22129077
I did. There's no hard refutation of divine revelation. Heidegger just thinks it has no place in philosophy.

>>22123439
So he was an incel?

>>22129992
Is there a method for obtaining reliable knowledge which does not fall under the title of a scientific technique?

>>22129999
>As I have stated before, you are having a fantasy argument with yourself and your delusions.
That means you're filtered, idiot. You're admitting you don't actually understand the arguments that were offered and you repeatedly confused me with the chud who thinks New Atheism was a Jewish conspiracy even after I pointed out I was a different anon multiple times and he straight told you who he was in his response. You're an idiot.
>Charlie Hebdo
I specifically addressed where I disagree with you on that point and you fail to acknowledge my counter argument regarding it. Remember when I said the difference between us is that I specifically reference the points you make while you can be nothing other than a filtered disingenuous retard? Case in point.
>Yet you are so attached to your preconceived bias against "New Atheism"
I gave specific arguments against New Atheism multiple times and even gave you a point form summary of them in the last post. Again, you fail to directly address any of the points that were made because you're an idiot.
>Therefore, a full throated defiance of "Jihadism" was, by your own admission NOT "fashionable" or "going after low hanging fruit".
Do you know what a strawman is? You're really just going to ignore the specific context I presented as to why it was "fashionable" and the argument as to why it constitutes low-hanging fruit? Well, you werent able to address the counter argument I gave regarding Hebdo because you're a filtered moron so I can't say I'm surprised.
>You are so far inside your own delusions you don't even know up from down.
Projection. I directly addressed your points and you've continued to ignore mine. It isn't necessarily that you're delusional--youre just an ideologically possessed idiot LARPing as thoughtful by parroting nonsense.
>You are a very sad person and no longer worth my time.
Kek. Condescension means nothing when it's unearned--you have yet to directly address any of my arguments and can only assert your position, without elaboration (kek), while pretending the counterargument that were made don't exist. Too bad the New Atheists didn't think to add that disclaimer before building up a loyal army of fedora tippers that keep embaressing themselves due to a complete lack of selfawareness.

>>22121484
Yo'uer gay and tarded
Le wrong side of deez

>>22130020
>Scientism
You don't know what it is and you've demonstrated you're closed off to learning in previous posts. Do your own research.
>better alternative
For what? In your head you think you're asking for a better alternative to build scientific knowledge than scientific enterprise (because you're a retard who is out of their depth). You're not on a level where you're capable of having this conversation. You're ignorant and will be continuously filtered. Odds are you LARP as a champion of science and but never even learned basic calculus.

What the actual critique of Scientism involves is the fact it asserts a naive understanding of how the scientific enterprise operates while claiming a monopoly on rationality fully divorced from an awareness of the pitfalls of its ideologically based assumptions.

>>22130068
>Charlie Hedbo
You literally said outlets didn't want to publish the cartoons out of fear of Islamic backlash. The New Atheists were literally the most outspoken voices in how we, in the West should NOT capitulate to this fear, and we should protect and exercise our rights and freedoms despite the threats against it. Again, this is as specific as it gets, yet you refuse to engage on this point. You provide zero substance in your posts. I will repeat again, for your edification, you are a sad person.

>>22130098
>Scientism
The definition is literally "an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques". Yet the posts against it seem to appeal to scientific techniques to prove you shouldn't have such an excess of belief in the power of the techniques presented! It's worse than circular, and I think you realize this and that's why you fail to properly outline your own position.

The supreme irony is you try to avoid having this discussion because you accuse me of being out of my depth, when your only argument against the scientific enterprise is to appeal to the scientific enterprise.

>>22130102
>brings up Hebdo as a retort that it wasn't fashionable to criticise Jihadists and New Atheism doesn't focus on shallow low-hanging fruit
>[note: ignored the actual context of what made it fashionable (e.g. everything about how it relates to neoliberalism); also ignored explaination of why Jihadism is low-hanging fruit (e.g. assumption of neoliberal hegemony over wider context of Islam)]
Everyone spoke out against the attacks and even Dawkins toes that line now.
>DO YOU NOT SEE HOW BRAVE THEY WERE! THAT MEANS I'M RIGHT!
You're shifting the goalposts and still not addressing my actual argument or even the counterpoint I just made.
>YOU ADMITTED I'M RIGHT! THEY WERE HECKIN HEROES!

You're an idiot.

>>22130118
>dictionary
Kek. That's the level of depth you went into? At least read a Wikipedia article.
>your only argument against the scientific enterprise is to appeal to the scientific enterprise
Fucking kek! How does it feel to be a completely predictable ideologue? Kek, you fucking idiot. I accept you're concession. i.e.:
>In your head you think you're asking for a better alternative to build scientific knowledge than scientific enterprise (>>22130098)
It's not an argument against science you fucking retard. Wow, even when it's laid out to you, you still walk right into it. Are you at least ESL? Can you make that excuse for being so filtered?

>>22130020
nta, but the problem with so-called 'scientism' is that it ascribes knowledge to scientific theory, which is ridiculous. Scientific theories as such must always admit of falsifiability, meaning they can never be verified as such, simply. Many have been abandoned entirely, e.g. geocentric model of the solar system.

"Science says" is the clarion call for these idiots, they are the new high priests. But this isn't knowledge, really. It's the next best guess (assuming best intentions) as to the explanation of phenomena. That's all.

For supporting evidence, cf. Hume, Treatise on Human Nature, and the most popular book by Karl Popper.

>>22130020
For an alternative, I'd suggest Plato

>>22130167
>Scientific theories as such must always admit of falsifiability
That assumption is a characterization of Scientism and came from Popper almost 100 years ago. Falsificationism is a very naive read of the scientific process (e.g. given concepts already mentioned ITT, theory-ladenness and under-determination) and doesn't come out in practice (gathering data isn't always done to disprove a theory but just as frequently to make a theory seem more robust). Imre Lakotos updated Popper in the 60s and 70s by describing a theoretical core that isn't challenged with satilite theories, related to the core, that are falsified instead. It's fall less naive than the falsificationism presented by Scientist but even it didn't stand up to critiques for very long.

>>22123618
This is not where the story ends.
A long time ago, I was looking at a /v/ chart about schizo games, and in a completely normal fashion I checked all of them, no matter how popular. Well, one of the games was called "Mongol" by Darkcrusader. The game is completely incomprehensible and, of course, made in RPGMaker.
After being defeated by the obtuse game system, I thought that was all, but in the game files, there were multiple pdf files, one of which is 3708 pages long and it's... something, for example, this is excerpt from the third pdf file. Just enjoy the text.

This is the link to the game: https://gamejolt.com/games/Mongol/479309
Search inside the files for the pdfs.

Have fun and good luck, whoever wants to look into it, I know I already did and I don't know what I saw.

>>22130210
That's cool but don't be too autistic about things anon, especially these kinds, just read nice books it's good enough

>>22127875
Yes, yes, of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl6Wt2ctxbE

>>22127829
>It seems your only course of action in regard to New Atheism is to wildly misrepresent them and their arguments

>>22127829
>wildly misrepresent them and their arguments

>>22130159
Lol, imagine getting BTFO by the literal definition of a word you've been using wrong

>>22130202
I'm trying to imagine a theory that has predictive power but at the same time can't be proven wrong.

>>22130724
>imagine getting BTFO by the literal definition of a word you've been using wrong
It wasn't being used wrong.

>>22130742
>Science is unquestionably the most powerful approach humanity has developed so far to the understanding of the natural world.
Careful, someone might consider that an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques

>>22130740
How do you expect to come up with an answer when you're filtered by the question? (Pic-related)
>>22130767
>doesn't explain how it was being used incorrectly
Careful, someone might post more information that will frustrate and filter you.

>>22130796
If they post information I certainly hope they use the correct words and don't have to be embarrassed when the real definition is brought up.

>>22130806
You still haven't explained how the term you originally claimed was made up was being used incorrectly. Pic-related is the legacy of New Atheism, kek.

>>22130813
And now the real legacy of New Atheism

>>22130839
>correlation equals causation
Nice cope, retard. New Atheism was a fad similar to JNCO jeans--the key difference being JNCOs just made you look like a retard while you wore them whereas New Atheism turns you into a retard.

Going to explain how that term used incorrectly or finally respond to one of the arguments that was made?

>>22121831
After you engage in soijak battles enough times with people you develop an understanding of the higher principles that guide those people. An understanding of this higher soijak spirit is refined from the specifics and the advanced soijak comic creator starts wrestling with that spirit instead of humans, he becomes Israel who wrestles with God and guides the world to a greater future.

>>22130858
Try rereading >>22130118
If you choose to use the word "scientism" in the future, you should probably be aware of it's actual definition.

>>22130118
Examples of excessive beliefs in "scientific knowledge" can be best pointed out to someone professing to understand science by arguing based on the scientific methods when that's applicable.
Examples of excessive beliefs in the methods are more difficult because generally they can't be pointed out using methods you accept as valid. You want criticisms based on what is being criticised, like a Christian demanding Biblical evidence to support the idea that maybe we should not exclusively rely on Biblical evidence.

>>22130880
>I can't explain how it was used incorrectly because it wasn't
I accept your concession.

>>22130891
That anon confused a criticism of Scientism as being an attempt to invalidate the scientific enterprise as a whole. He is upset by the fact it's clear that New Atheism reflects Scientism and completely and utterly filtered when it comes to relating this to the naive falsificationism he parrots. He has never studied science, he is clueless when it comes to philosophy/history of science, and he nevertheless uses such as a substitute for knowledge when it comes to criticising religion. In short, he's aggressively ignorant. He has been completely and totally BTFO'd but it's likely he will remain blissfully ignorant because he's a complete idiot who can't question his beliefs.

Go figure, a champion of rationalism who forms strong opinions about things of which he knows little; a freethinker who is incapable of meeting someone else's arguments to build context in a debate. He's literally the poster (man)child of New Atheism: an adult who expects his peers to be impressed he doesn't believe in Santa Claus.
>>22130880
I want to call you an idiot one last time before I call it a night. Idiot.

>>22130891
Part of the method of science is to proportion one's belief to the strength of the evidence. Therefore, to have "excessive" belief in scientific knowledge (to have an excess of belief in a tenuous finding for example) is literally to stray away from a core principal of science.
>>22130945
>"New Atheism reflects Scientism"
You have this narrative in your head but it's completely delusional. Your increasing anger only shows your own insecurity. I believe on some level you know you're peddling bullshit, but you have an idea of yourself as smart because you use buzzwords (even though, as we learned earlier, you literally don't know the definitions of them). In other words, you have been BTFO on the grounds of the argument, and also on simple emotional grounds, in short, you appear quite upset, resorting to insults to make yourself feel better, while I am quite tranquil. Nighty night, I hope you can calm down enough to fall asleep my misguided friend.

>>22130993
>Therefore, to have "excessive" belief in scientific knowledge (to have an excess of belief in a tenuous finding for example) is literally to stray away from a core principal of science.
And that's why it's possible to appeal to the scientific method to point it out.
Here you're implying the accusation is that the "i hecking love science" reddit retards are doing science too well. Scentismists practice sciencism not science.

>>22129966
>Everyone came out against the Hebdo massacre and the reason they weren't showing the cartoons wasn't due to sympathy but the fact they didn't want their offices attacked
Bruh, while the mainstream outlets in majority Christian countries were cowering in fear, the New Atheists were having public events with the likes of Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You may not like the New Atheists, but you have to respect their stance against Islamic extremism. To do otherwise shows your bias against them goes beyond a reasonable disagreement into the realm of just blinding you and making you unreasonable.

>>22131000
>>22131000
Funny, the definition doesn't say "excessive belief in the power of scientism", it says "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques." Again, you should become better acquainted with the definitions of the words you use.

>>22130993
I'm still up.
>You have this narrative in your head but it's completely delusional
So New Atheism doesn't promote the idea of Scientism and the philosophical concepts I pointed out don't reflect the scientific enterprise is far more complex and less pristine than the naive picture you regurgitate? Would be cool if you actually provided a decent argument or directly addressed something I wrote for a change.
>buzzwords
I explained my arguments clearly multiple times anon. You haven't addressed a single one of them yet.
>even though, as we learned earlier, you literally don't know the definitions of them
You still haven't explained how I misused the term "Scientism." I've invited you to do so at least 4 times now; I know you won't because you can't.
>you have been BTFO on the grounds of the argument, and also on simple emotional grounds
As far as the argument goes--I addressed your points directly even after I pointed out you were disingenuous and incapable of doing the same. You failed to acknowledge counter arguments and just hoped they'd fall away as the conversation progressed (similar to asserting I used a term you just learned about today incorrectly while failing to demonstrate such). As far as emotions go, your stupidity has failed to frustrate me and it's likely that's the only way you ever actually "win" an argument. It's kind of pathetic you're imaging you have power over a stranger's emotions.
>resorting to insults to make yourself feel better
I genuinely believe you're an idiot and can appeal to textual evidence ITT to back it up.

You're a very stupid person but luckily for you, as I've said before, your ignorance protects you from ever realizing it. Get why I posted the Bertrand Russell quote now?

>>22131011
That would be a recursive definition. Excessive belief in the power of "scientific knowledge" includes lack of critical thought regarding the peer review process, as in assuming they have it all figured out.
I would also include or at least say the kind of autism you're displaying is related. You don't really know how to find things out like by applying any of the methods of science. The posts show that. You think you have some kind of scientific authority behind you just by stating that you do but you don't understand anything about science.

Stop you two.

>>22131020
>So New Atheism doesn't promote the idea of Scientism
The New Atheists promote the idea of science itself, that you should proportion your belief to the evidence and not beyond the evidence. That does not fit the definition of "Scientism".

I'm glad to hear your epithet ridden posts aren't indicative of any irritation, this is unexpected news! I hope you're not still up because you can't fall asleep, that would be unfortunate, especially since it would probably be because you've had a poor showing in this thread, but don't worry, you can always admit your mistakes and try to be better next time!

>>22131006
And yet now Dawkins, the king of the New Atheists, refuses to criticise Islam on tv. Also, the point I made was that it wasn't that the media didn't cover the attacks so much as it was that they believed it was unnecessarily dangerous and inflammatory to specifically run the cartoons. Criticizing Islam was all the rage in the 00s up until the rise of wokeism--thats why I called it fashionable. Also, as you can see the fedora tippers are still 'mad hyped, bruh' over something that really didn't add much to the conversation in the long-run (i.e. I've already mentioned Dawkins in current year).

>>22131011
That's yet another anon pointing out you're a retard. Maybe you should stick to losing one debate at a time, retard.

>>22131026
>recursive definition
If you have a criticism of science that isn't, itself, a principal of science, you may have a point. But any case you bring in favor of "scientism" being a phenomenon uses scientific methods, which would mean you, yourself, have what might be considered an "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques" since you can't reference anything other than those techniques in your argumentation.

>>22131037
Dawkins was canceled by the feminists and wokeists because he was so hard on Islam, same with Hitchens and Harris. Again you betray your lack of knowledge of the history of New Atheism. The fact remains, in comparison to even the "fashion" of the day, the New Atheists were more brave and outspoken than anyone in their criticisms of Islam. Dawkins even labeled Islam as the single greatest threat on the planet and that Christianity was a preferable alternative, but hey, that might go against your narrative so you'll probably just ignore that.

>>22131040
>since you can't reference anything other than those techniques in your argumentation
I already explained in detail why I argue based on the methods you claim to understand. What is it about the way you "think" that makes you forget what's posted so quickly? Why should I try to say anything to someone that does this? It's just deliberate noise to avoid any thinking ever happening.

>>22131039
The post stands, if a person uses the word in a way that does not fit its definition, I will, again, point out that such a person ought to become better acquainted with the definitions of the words they use. I'm glad you saw it though, since it should remind you of your continued misuse of that word.

>>22131044
You are literally incapable of engaging with my points and I can see now it's causing you to become upset. It's okay, you're probably just tired anon, after all, you should be in bed by now! You should just take the L for tonight and come back strong in the morning, champ.

>>22131035
>The New Atheists promote the idea of science itself, that you should proportion your belief to the evidence and not beyond the evidence. That does not fit the definition of "Scientism".
See pic (>>22130742) for examples of New Atheists and Scientism.
>I hope you're not still up because you can't fall asleep
Since you brought it up, my gf fell asleep on the couch and woke up when I came down to turn off the lights. She's making me chamomile tea (loose leaf) and I'm going to read for a bit. Are you alone, anon?

Say, how about you demonstrate I've been misusing the word "Scientism." You know, the term you're still obviously filtered by and refuse to read up on.

>>22131026
>You don't really know how to find things out like by applying any of the methods of science
yeah, that anon should learn some heckin methods of science in order to "find things out", scientism for the win!

>>22131006
>You may not like the New Atheists, but you have to respect their stance against Islamic extremism
I really don't. It's not their role to regulate foreign cultures. There's nothing positive about some faggots setting themselves up as global culture regulators, the same retards are outraged at the idea of Sharia, which are local culture regulators.
>it's just criticism
It's propaganda. Constructive criticism never looks anything like these anti-religion media campaigns.

>>22131043
>Dawkins was canceled by the feminists and wokeists because he was so hard on Islam, same with Hitchens and Harris.
No, the feminists attacked him over the elevator incident and New Atheism imploded as a result (i.e. it was a mix of fedora tipping chuds and proto-wokers).
>The fact remains, in comparison to even the "fashion" of the day, the New Atheists were more brave and outspoken than anyone in their criticisms of Islam
Except maybe Fox News. Cool bedfellows. Also, what I said about neoliberalism/cheap Orientalism/laziness still stands and hasn't been addressed.
>that might go against your narrative so you'll probably just ignore that
Kind of like you're if ignoring what he said last month when he refused to criticize Islam on tv? You're putting words in my mouth, anon. I never said Dawkins wasn't aggressive in his critiques of Islam nor did I say he never criticized it. What I did say is that New Atheism was overwhelmingly focused on Christianity (while detailing how/why this was intellectually lazy). I'm not going to write it a 4th time because it's been established retards like yourself have no answer for it.
>>22131047
I'll again point out you haven't given any explaination of how I misused the term, kek.

>>22131049
That's a different anon again. Notice how you keep saying others are failing to engage with your points as a retreat? Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with your limited understanding of the subject at hand and the fact you're so retarded you don't even realize you're being disingenuous.

>>22131049
Do you think you're "engaging"?
Excessive belief in the power of "scientific knowledge" includes lack of critical thought regarding the peer review process, as in assuming they have it all figured out because science. The vax is safe because science.
I'm appealing to the scientific method because you claim to understand it. That means you should be able to understand this point.
I can argue based on my understanding of the Bible if you want but why would I? Is it reasonable to assume you would understand even a word? You don't even understand the principles you claim to work from.

>>22131068
>You don't even understand the principles you claim to work from.
Like I said, that anon is aggressively ignorant. Also, I don't think she knows what "Scientism" actually means yet. Good luck.

>>22120421
>uga buga TMS makes you dumb
this pic is such a glorious self-own

>>22131054
How is anything in that blog post an example of "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques"? Again, is it or it it not true that science is the only real avenue to learning about the world? If it isn't, then provide the alternative, if it is, then the only hope of answering the questions of morality would be within science (or they are impossible to answer). The only way you could demonstrate it is possible to have an excess belief in the power of science is to show that either science is incapable of answering a question or there is some other method which is better. So far you have failed to do either.
>Are you alone, anon?
My gf went to sleep hours ago, but my cat Lucifer is still up and about
>>22131064
You do love your buzzwords. "Neoliberal! Cheap Orientalism!" you just parrot words without any substance behind them. The New Atheists championed liberty and freedom in the tradition of thinkers from Socrates to John Stuart Mill, hardly the stuff of "Neoliberalism"

>>22131068
kek, the vaccine development process was a perversion of science, your criticisms revolve around departures from science, not an over abundance of belief in it. Again, consult the definition of the word "scientism".

>>22131067
There is a rampant misunderstanding of the word "scientism", which has caused it to devolve into a buzzword for religiously minded people to use as a label for those whose arguments they can't actually contend with. Many such cases!

>>22131067
There is rampant misunderstanding of the word "scientism", which has caused it to devolve into a buzzword for religiously minded people to use as a label for those whose arguments they can't actually contend with. Many such cases!

>>22131086
>your criticisms revolve around departures from science
Yes. The ones you understand.
>not an over abundance of belief in it
Yes. Extreme belief in the process is an example of a departure from science.
>consult the definition
No u. You don't even notice how basically every single post I directly reference your definition in an attempt to spoonfeed you like a child?

>>22131106
>Extreme belief in the process is an example of a departure from science
The problem is the examples (like the vaccine) are not the process of science, they more aptly fall under the operation of capital and in so doing destroy the process of science. Again, believing a process to be scientific, when it is not, is not the same as "having an extreme belief in the process of science", it's falling under a misapprehension of what is science and what is not. Once again, the definition of scientism is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques", that is, actual belief in the real scientific method itself, not being fooled into thinking one thing is science when it is just masquerading as science. So, YET AGAIN, you fail to understand what the definition of the word "scientism" is.

>>22131085
>blog post
It's written by a fairly prominent professor and that's the APA's blog.
>example of "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques"?
Ok, so we've established you don't actually know what Scientism is yet. Instead of doing the work for you and explaining it, I'll point out you're basing all knowledge on a 20 word definition which was the first thing you saw when you Googled "Scientism." I know retards retreat to semantics when they're BTFO but seriously anon? You don't see how lazy that is and how it instantly outs you as our of your depth?
>is it or it it not true that science is the only real avenue to learning about the world
You're asking that on a literature board? Kek. Maybe you should read that excerpt again and pay attention to the fact Dawkins ironically employs philosophical arguments. Also, it's cool that you're admitting you are a Scientism ideologue now. Say, which discipline did you study? How much math do you know? If I post a kinematics problem will you be able to solve it? If not, will you be able to tell me who developed the math or anything about the scientific paradigm in which it was developed?

You're out of your depth, anon. I know a lot more about this stuff than you do. Maybe you shouldn't have wasted so much time watching Hitchens debating low-hanging fruit on YouTube and perhaps checked out edX or Coursera or MITOpeb Courseware or fuck, even Khan academy Pre-Algebra (because, let's be honest, that's the level you're on).
>my cat Lucifer
Shit, I was seriously talking with my gf about getting a cat this evening and suggested the name "Lucifer" while discussing what we could name it. Crazy.
>Neoliberal
It is reflective of neoliberalism though. Imposing an ideological hegemony based on the presupposed value of liberal ideals alongside a superficial caricature of the culture that's being affected.
>Orientalism
Do you know what that word means or are we in the same boat as Scientism? Have you read Said?
>The New Atheists championed liberty and freedom
That's the LARP
>in the tradition of thinkers from Socrates to John Stuart Mill
Kek. If they were like Socrates they wouldn't assume their own cultural context and build a deeper knowledge of that which they're attempting to criticize. If they were classic liberals they wouldn't rely solely on low-hanging fruit and challenge their beliefs accordingly.

>>22131106
Let me ask you this, when Fauci said "Fauci is the science", do you agree that he emboded science himself? You would have to if you think a person who had extreme belief in Fauci qualifies as a person involved in "scientism". I think I've discovered your real mistake, you conflate the principals of science with the modern incarnation of science, which must always be fallible human beings. The thing is, science itself is set up to account for the bias and failures of human beings, it's at the core of what science is. Therefore, to point out that scientists can become mistaken and can have biases is appealing to a principal of science itself, it's the reason for peer review in the first place, but even if you go the step further and criticize the peer review process, you are still appealing to a principal that science itself is built on and those who can be said to be doing science are striving for.

>>22131103
>There is rampant misunderstanding of the word "scientism", which has caused it to devolve into a buzzword for religiously minded people
You didn't even know what that word ment 12 hours ago. Also, the challenge is that you prove Ive misused the word and not theorize that others may do so at some point.

>>22131130
>Again, believing a process to be scientific, when it is not, is not the same as "having an extreme belief in the process of science"
Yes it is. The label is referencing a phenomena in the world. You act as if you never noticed it when people try to point it out to you but suddenly when it's convenient you always knew all about it. Do you understand what's being referenced or not? Do you go around undermining communication just because you like destroying things?

>>22131106
NTA (I'm the other guy arguing with him). Notice how these ideologue retards always argue the same way?
>not real communism
>capitalism has never been tried
>not real science
Whever you speak to one of these idiots pay attention and try to pick out stuff like this to make it more worth your time.

>>22131146
>you are still appealing to a principal that science itself is built on
Which I said I was from the first post. Because it's the only thing you might possibly understand. I was wrong however, you don't even understand when I use these terms. This is not because you're not capable of understanding, you work incredibly hard to make sure nothing is ever understood. When you say something it's always some kind of meme, like some kind of blurbs from wiki everyone knows or that definition you twisted to make meaningless.

>>22131144
>retreat to semantics
Ah, so you are willing to admit you have been using the word in a way not in keeping with it's definition. Semantics are of utmost importance, anon, you need to accurately convey meaning by using the right words, so I think you may finally be tip-toeing up to the point of admitting your error, which is excellent news.
>is it or it it not true that science is the only real avenue to learning about the world
>You're asking that on a literature board?
So you will not answer the question? This is the most clumsy dodge I think I've seen so far, you're usually at least slightly more nimble.
>I know a lot more about this stuff than you do
kek, you definitely have an inflated ego for someone who literally uses words without knowing their definitions
>Lucifer
It's a great name for a cat. We affectionately refer to him as "Luci Goosey"
>Imposing an ideological hegemony based on the presupposed value of liberal ideals
>Liberty and freedom
>Their own cultural context
This is really where you've been at your weakest, anon, because the New Atheists were extremely consistent in their criticism of their own cultural context, and they did champion freedom from tyranny above all things, in fact, for Hitchens that came before his anti-religion phase. You should unironically read Orwell, the tyranny of the totalitarian party is only out shined by the proposition of a celestial totalitarian who claims dominion over your life and even after your death. Oh, but I forgot, when you're not criticizing this as being "low hanging fruit", you criticizing it for being a form of neoliberalism trying to impose the superiority of values like.... freedom from tyranny onto other cultures.

>>22131149
I've shown multiple times it's been misused when it's definition is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques" but it's use has been "excessive belief in something that is science in name only, not the actual techniques of science".

>>22131153
Again, you have to squirm your way away from the definition of the word to force it to be the buzz word you want to use it as. We've been over this, the word references the actual belief in the method of science itself, not an instance of misplacing trust in a thing which isn't actually science.

>>22131164
Boy, just bringing your own biases right into the thread, huh? Where has communism or capitalism ever even been referenced other than the accurate depiction of the vax development as being under the domain of capital rather than the principals of science?

>>22131167
I am referencing the definition of the word. You are the one who takes issue with this because you want to use it in a different way. YOU are the one corrupting communication because you are fighting against the literal definition of the word you are using.

>>22131173
What would excessive belief in scientific knowledge look like according to you? It's just an extremely competent scientist?
>>22131177
>the word references the actual belief in the method of science itself
What's an example of scientism in the world?
>the word references the actual belief in the method of science itself
Who's squirming? No self awareness at all? Why did the definition change?
>>22131183
>I am referencing the definition of the word.
No you are not. You're definitely and demonstrably illiterate. Definitions are derived from usage. You could have referred to the old definition but you didn't, because it includes excess or extreme you referred to the definition of scientism as a pejorative which is the one in common usage today because a less insulting name is needed to refer to reddit retards.

>>22131189
>scientism as a pejorative which is the one in common usage today because a less insulting name is needed to refer to reddit retards.
This is what I've been saying all along, you are using it as a pejorative and not in keeping with it's definition of "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques", unless you think Redditors are actually just excessive in their belief in the power of actual scientific knowledge and techniques?

>>22131189
Here, I'll even use the wiki definition, but it leads me to wonder, since in this thread I've only seen posts appealing to the fact that science is the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality, do you believe that is the case or do you believe there is another way or a better way to render truth about the world and reality which isn't scientific?

>>22129326
In this vein of thought how well would a shirt with
"DYER ("do you even read" in small font)
BRUH?"
sell?

>>22120386
any man who jerks off all day everyday is a loser with no discipline, but he already admits that he has a shit life. Imagine if he used all that jerk off time to improve himself. Maybe he would make his life better and not need to anxiety fap to cope.

>>22131195
>excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques
This is a definition of the pejorative, as soon as you add excess or extreme it's a pejorative.
>methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists
Is what some guy wanted it to mean in some distant past and what you wanted to dishonestly argue was "ackshual meaning". It was never used that way and you're an absolutely mindless retard.
>>22131198
>Here, I'll even use the wiki definition
It's the completely different definition you thought you were talking about but you can't read.
>the best or only way
I already addressed this and why it's impossible to even try to suggest any other way to you.
Should I repeat myself again to a retard that can't read? You can't read the definition you posted over and over and you can't read anything written in this thread.

>>22131210
Man, you're getting desperate here, you're practically twisting into a pretzel to avoid the fact you used a word without knowing it's definition, and then you had to admit you just wanted to use it as a pejorative regardless of it's actual definition, but anyway, I hope you have an extremely nice evening (oops, I guess that qualifies as a pejorative since I added "extremely"!)

>>22131210
>it's impossible to even try to suggest any other way to you.
You're awfully cagey when you realize you've painted yourself in a corner, because if you were actually honest, you'd then fall into the wiki definition of scientism kek

>>22121449
you submit yourself to other humans who are not even superior entities, so by your own philosophy, what kind of turbo faggot does that make you?

>>22126070

>>22131224
>you used a word
That was someone else. What interests me is how anyone can be as fucked in the head as you.
>I guess that qualifies as a pejorative since I added "extremely"
Do you not have a sincere bone in your body?
>>22131232
Do you think science was used to develop science? Did you only use science to reach the conclusion that science is the only way to "render truth"?
That's also a very interesting choice of words, what comes to your mind isn't a term like approaching truth or discovering truth, terms you might have gotten from studying science. Your mind goes to "rendering" truth.

>>22131251
>Do you not have a sincere bone in your body?
If someone says something like "it becomes a pejorative because you add 'extreme'", I am 100% going to mock that, and if you have a single honest bone in your body you should know it deserves being mocked.
>Your mind goes to "rendering" truth.
Good lord, you literally didn't read the definition! That was from the wiki definition of "scientism" you muppet. And you have the audacity to accuse me of being insincere? Also, you still haven't answered the question, is there a way outside of science to get at truth? Again, if you've read Bertrand Russell, you'll know how science as a reasonable endeavor comes about.

>>22123439
At this point I've seen like dozens of different views on Schopenhauer and his mother. What is the truth? Well, I keep reading his mother was seething off the face of the earth because while she was incapable of achieving any degree of literary success, while her son didn't have any problem with that. Also, didn't his students constantly hunt for him in brothels? He was fucking all the time.

>>22131264
>it becomes a pejorative because you add 'extreme'"
In the definition you would not add that qualifier if you're talking about something like practical application of science. You don't understand that? Are you pretending to be retarded?
>muh wiki
Did you read it? Notice how it says nobody ever talks about "scientism" as "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists"? Notice how qualifiers like "extreme" or "excess" might be relevant? Does your mind notice anything at all?
>The term scientism was popularized by F.A. Hayek, who defined it as the "slavish imitation of the method and language of Science"
>Karl Popper defines scientism as "the aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science"
>is there a way outside of science to get at truth
Yes, obviously. Otherwise how could anyone have ever figured out science? What the fuck is wrong with your brain? How can we stop this from spreading?

>>22131284
Again, you cannot accuse someone of applying science in excess, when what you really mean is improperly using science. How can you not comprehend this?
>Otherwise how could anyone have ever figured out science?
If different methods and superstitions arise as people attempt to learn about reality and the world, it will become evident that the principals of science are the ones which provide results. What method do you suppose is outside of science but which can be used to learn the truth about the world? You have yet to actually present it, in fact the only reference so far has been to label it "impossible" (>>22131210)

>>22131057
>It's not their role to regulate foreign cultures
It's the role of every decent human being to fight totalitarianism where ever it can be found. But I suppose you don't have a single principal about you, you sociopath. This may come as a shock, but some cultures are objectively worse than others as measured by human well being.

>>22131305
>scientific method reveals the truth about the world
my fucking sides

What the hell happened to this thread?

>>22131377
hijacked by a retarded argument over 'scientism'
It is no longer a humor thread. Sad!

>>22129495
New Year resolution fag

>>22130839
wonder how much this correlates with rising social isolation and mental illness

>>22121831
I fucking hate söyshit but this is ok kek

>>22123778
>>22122648
>>22123019
>a reverse exorcism is when the devil tells the priest to exit the child’s body

>>22131795
>innocent until proven guilty
What is 2% of 4%?

>>22131377
/lit/ humour

>>22123439
>successful writer
Never heard of her.

A toast! To the two retards who wasted an entire day arguing over the definition of a word! Bravo!

>>22131898
0.08% or 88 priests

>>22132118
Truly they are the foremost /lit/posters among their fellows. My favorite part

>>22131348
What other way is there to reveal truth about the world? It's always a supreme irony that people like you use the fruits of science to post your ignorant opinions. Why aren't you using a platform provided by a different method of truth seeking to beam your opinions to other people? Maybe you should just sit and pray instead of posting again.

>>22120379
>/lit/ humour thread
>the humour is arguing about God on a Venezualan Basket Weaving forum

>>22131795
How does this compare to Jewish rabbis?

>>22132572
The scientific method is a useful way of tackling empirical phenomena. It can not, and never does, by its own constitution, reveal the truth of things. You cannot observe necessity from nature, and inductive reasoning precludes it. Why is this so hard to understand?

tl;dr science is useful, its theories are often changing, so calling it the truth of things is beyond retarded.

>>22132118
may they be blessed now and forevermore!!!

>>22132654
Again, what method other than science reliably produces results (and thus truth)? You can use science to build models which have predictive power, I.E. when certain conditions are such a way, a result can reliably be expected. If the model holds true, it contains some truth value. To say something is "necessary" would require you to have absolute knowledge it cannot be another way, which can only be true about axiomatic logical statements, such as a thing that exists necessarily cannot also not exist.

>>22132118
To be fair, that's basically par for the course on /lit/

>>22131284
>Hayek and Popper used the word "scientism" to defend the true principals of science because of their extreme belief in the importance of true scientific principals
>"Scientism" is used as a pejorative for people who have an extreme belief in the importance of true scientific principals
kek

>>22131170
>Ah, so you are willing to admit you have been using the word in a way not in keeping with it's definition
No, I've asked you multiple times to demonstrate that I've used it incorrectly. You still haven't done so. Retreat to semantics is something people do when they've lost an argument and don't want to admit it to themselves--youre asserting I misused a term, without demonstrating I've done so, and this has allowed you to slide away from the subject of the conversation and neglect the arguments that were made. Go ahead and clearly state how and where I've misused the term.
>you work incredibly hard to make sure nothing is ever understood
I clearly stated arguments multiple times and you failed to address them. Don't blame me because you're filtered and incapable of understanding (Russell quote). You can't even state how I misused the term "Scientism."
>So you will not answer the question?
Is literature scientific? The problem is you still think I'm denigrating science overall when I haven't done so. I've studied a scientific discipline at the university level, have you? The problem here is that you're still arguing with strawmen that only exist in your head and when I tell you: science is humanity's most powerful tool for learning about the natural world, you'll misread that as an admission that I endorse Scientism instead of science (you're unable to differentiate the terms).

I'm not reading the rest of your post and I'll only respond if you demonstrate where I misused the term.

>>22132983
I'm not discounting the remarkable advances that, say, quantum mechanics and physics have had in the past 100 years. But yes, calling knowledge anything except what is necessarily true is incorrect, and the "le science" meme of the past few decades tends to reduce itself to an argument from authority, the weakest of all arguments.

>if the model holds true, it contains some truth value
Sure, but so does a magic spell. Inductive reasoning and observation of nature, leading to the creation of theories regarding causes of phenomena, does not, can not, and will never produce knowledge, only current best guesses that are always subject to revision.

>>22120379
God obviously doesn't exist.

>>22132118
There's more than 2 of us; the truly retarded anon couldn't figure that out even when he was told directly, multiple times, more than one person disagrees with him.

>>22133041
See >>22133004
If you use it as a pejorative for people who aren't properly following the principals of science, you fit the definition of the word yourself. Also, there is already a word for what you think "scientism" means, which is actually "pseudoscience", as defined as "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Are you ready to admit you've been using the wrong word this whole time?

>>22133055
Again, a person should proportion their belief to the level of evidence. You can't have absolute knowledge about any phenomenon in the real world, because that would require you to be infallible in reference to your knowledge of that phenomenon. In other words, when using induction, there is a possibility you could be mistaken, but with the tools of science, you can make your odds of being correct better and better until you reach what could be called maximal certainty (but not absolute certainty). It's one of the great shortcomings of man to think that either you have absolute knowledge of truth, or you have no truth at all. You can have good reason to believe you know something to be true, while also being humble enough to recognize you don't have absolute certainty that it's true. Glad I could explain this to you!

>>22133073
More than one person can be wrong. Only a complete moron thinks that the more people who believe a false thing adds any credibility to it.

>>22133073
>There's more than 2 of us
kek, this anon literally stood up and said "hey, I'm a third retard arguing over a definition!" This did end up being a /lit/ humor thread

>>22120421
>turn off parts of peoples brains
>the people think and act differently
>science

>>22133078
>a pejorative for people who aren't properly following the principals of science
See pic-related >>22130742. The point is that science doesn't operate in the manner characterized by those who profess Scientism. It isn't simply science not being done properly, retard.
>"pseudoscience"
I've been addressing that the entire time.
Holy shit you're out of your depth. Falsificationism is Popper's answer to the demarcation problem you absolute retard (see pic-related >>22130796). Do you even know what that is? It's the (open) problem of how you may differentiate science from non-science. However, it turned out falsificationism fails because it doesn't accurately describe how the scientific enterprise operates and even Popper himself restricted the definition to be the way in which an idealized version science could operate. (But this was refuted by people like Feyerabend and retooled by Lakotos). Popper admitted that scientists act on knowledge that is unfalisifiable and even continue to use theories that have already been falsified. The actual process of science is a lot more complex than trying to prove yourself incorrect--which is the naive version to which those whom profess Scientism prescribe.
>Are you ready to admit you've been using the wrong word this whole time?
You still haven't demonstrated I have been, retard.

As said in (>>22130742): "Scientism is an exaggerated efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation." What I've done above, and in more detail in previous posts, is point out how the simplistic understanding of scientific activity (i.e. falsificationism) as presented by those who profess Scientism is a false narrative for how scientific investigation takes place.

Are you caught up now or do you want to keep asserting I misused a term you learned yesterday; a word where your depth of knowledge consists of a 1 Google search and a 20 word definition?

>>22133125
Post OC. Around 3 memes I created come up in these threads. How many for you?

>>22133205
Again, you simply prove my point. You are criticizing people for mistakenly regarding certain practices as being based on the scientific method. That's the definition of "pseduoscience", not of "scientism". You are literally using the wrong words, yet you are so committed to your own (false) notions of science that you refuse to acknowledge this and try to denigrate the use of the actual definitions of the words. Imagine accusing someone of being out of their depth when you can't come to terms with the definitions of words you continually use incorrectly.

>>22133212
Here you go :)

>>22133097
you didn't tell me anything new, Plato goes through this exact process in the Republic. Goddamn.

>>22133286
It's okay anon, you can just admit you went a little astray there and had to be brought back to the point. The value of science is that it's principals aim to develop better and better methods of approaching the truth and having counter measures to account for personal bias, etc. in order to have something approaching an objective understanding of the world. The main difference between "magic" and science is that science constantly questions assumptions and measures evidence in order to combat incorrect notions. Typically superstitions and religions label such inquires and skepticism of claims as blasphemous or taboo.

>>22130686
what's wrong with that tweet? he is simply stating that animals sometimes engage in oral sex

>>22133205
>You are criticizing people for mistakenly regarding certain practices as being based on the scientific method.
No, retard. I'm pointing out your view of the scientific method is naive. Scientism professes a naive narrative for how scientific activity takes place to be the penultimate window through which all understanding is qualified as knowledge. The rejection of Scientism involves building a larger context to describe the actual realities of scientific activity. By this, you can see points of correspondence to other means of building knowledge that aren't themselves scientific in nature. One may also argue against Scientism by pointing toward the limitations of scientific activity as being based in descriptive language; one of the pics I posted references this via the idea of "Popper's account of basic sentences" (in the context of my existing argument this works by showing the complexities of how a scientific community comes to agree on these; the poverty of description is a related argument I'll now touch on briefly but it hasn't been brought up yet). By this one points to unscientific activities like reading literature or even constructing philosophical concepts.
>That's the definition of "pseduoscience", not of "scientism"
As stated, I've been relating the demarcation problem to Scientism from the beginning of this conversation. Again, Popper's means of differentiating science from pseudoscience is falsificationism. However, this solution was found wanting when a closer examination into the history of science (by way of historian philosophers like Kuhn) and a more granular approach to understanding scientific activity (e.g. Barns/Bloor or Latour) took place and was applied to the philosophy of science. Not adhering to falsificationism isn't bad science; falsificationism is a poor description of how scientific activity actually takes place.
>You are literally using the wrong words
Pretty ballsy that you keep asserting that, without backing it up, when you don't even know what these terms mean and how they relate to one another. To go back to our original argument: New Atheism was an intelligence LARP that ironically encouraged midwits to condesecend regarding dogmatic people have strong opinions without the knowledge to back them up--its ironic because it's beliefs were incredibly lazy and fedora tippers are literally the same as the worst evangelical religitards.
>Imagine accusing someone of being out of their depth
It's quite obvious you are.

>>22133283
Meh. You'll get points for preaching to your choir but using a scene like Lot offering his daughters to be raped would work better. Coomer God.

>>22133329
>Penultimate window
The second to last window? Did you just use a word incorrectly again?
>Scientism professes a naive narrative for how scientific activity takes place
Again, consult the definition of "scientism". If you think a person is incorrectly apprehending something as a scientific method when it is not, that falls under the definition of "pseudoscience".
>By this one points to unscientific activities like reading literature or even constructing philosophical concepts.
These are unscientific and can only spark emotions and thought, not provide reliable truth. To put it another way, to obtain truth from literature, you would need some reliable method of separating the falsehood in the literature from the truth. What method are you referring to? Contemplation? This is not a reliable avenue to truth.
>Popper's means of differentiating science from pseudoscience is falsificationism. falsificationism is a poor description of how scientific activity actually takes place.
Your own misunderstanding of science seems to be the root of the issue here. Falsification is important in rooting out poor theories, and any theory that has not been subjected to falsification or it is not possible to be subjected to falsification will always suffer from this, and it will always be inferior to a theory which has passed through more vigorous falsification, especially by disparate parties with different interests. Remember, falsification is important in combating bias and self deception.
>-its ironic because it's beliefs were incredibly lazy and fedora tippers are literally the same as the worst evangelical religitards.
You've shown an astonishing dogmatic adherence to your own misconception of both "scientism" and the New Atheists. You shouldn't be throwing stones in your glass house. I have been emphasizing the importance of falsification, in other words, being open to having your preferred theory challenged and proven wrong, since this will dispel a false belief, the major benefit of legitimate science. You arrogantly state you're "building a larger context to describe the actual realities of scientific activity" when really you've just over shot the mark and landed in irrationality.
>Out of their depth
You are the special kind of person who thinks they are educated because you've learned a bunch of buzz words and names you can drop without having enough intellectual capacity to actually comprehend the concepts you reference, leading you to repeatedly misuse words, concepts, and fall back on your own comfortable delusions. It's a sad thing to behold.

>>22133333
chek'd. You should make that OC yourself and post it.

>>22133364
>The second to last window?
It was supposed to just be "ultimate." I'm phone-posting and originally had "epitomized."
>Again, consult the definition of "scientism"
How about you clearly state your problem with how I've been using the term "Scientism" in direct reference to one of my posts? I've asked you to do so about 10 times now and you haven't been able to do so. I even quoted the Merriam-Webster definition from the excerpt I posted in my second to last post.
>If you think a person is incorrectly apprehending something as a scientific method when it is not, that falls under the definition of "pseudoscience"
I've elaborated on the demarcation problem (which is about how science can be differentiated from pseudoscience) and how such relates to the naive version of the scientific method presented by those who forward Scientism. I pointed out Popper himself, the originator or at least popularizer of the term you're using, retreated to the idea that falsificationism describes only an idealized form of scientific activity and also never gets the full picture (i.e. scientists continue to use theories that have been falsified). I'll now explicitly point out (yet again) that the New Atheists promote Popper's model without any knowledge as to how it was overturned, elaborated upon, and still found wanting. Can you directly address this or is it going to be that Russell quote again (>>22127961)?
>These are unscientific and can only spark emotions and thought, not provide reliable truth
So there is no truth in literature? Maybe you should migrate to /sci/ (but you should probably first actually study a scientific discipline, or at least some moderately advanced math--by the way, do you see the irony of forming strong opinions on things of which you know very little yet?).
>Falsification is important in rooting out poor theories, and any theory that has not been subjected to falsification or it is not possible to be subjected to falsification will always suffer from this, and it will always be inferior to a theory which has passed through more vigorous falsification
Anon, I've explained to you multiple times how falsificationism doesn't match actual scientific practise. Can you comment on that or are you just going to assert it's how scientific activity actually takes place (after having it pointed out the guy who came up with the model admitted it doesn't actually describe the realities of scientific activity)? It's frustrating to keep elaborating on what I've presented without having you actually address anything but I'll add that financial factors drive which scientific theories are deemed worthy of interest and point out that education predisposes scientists to which particular theories are acceptable when it comes to research (again, have a look at theory-ladenness). Again, the point isn't that this science is being done incorrectly (Russell quote) but rather that it isn't something that's seperate and unimpinged by outside factors.

>>22133364
>You've shown an astonishing dogmatic adherence to your own misconception of both "scientism" and the New Atheists
You still haven't explained how I'm misusing the term "Scientism" and have slid us so far away from the criticism I've offered about New Atheism. Here's that argument in point form which you still haven't addressed >>22129966. Are you going to do so now?
>You are the special kind of person who thinks they are educated because you've learned a bunch of buzz word
According to you I didn't learn them. They're necessary terms you have to familiarize yourself with so as to not embaress yourself as you've been doing ITT. Isn't it funny that you (Mr. SCIENCE THO) is complaining about being educated? Kek.

>>22131795
How can anyone look at this information and think the problem is priests and not homosexuality? If you don’t think homosexuality is wrong, if you think age of consent laws are Victorian prudery, what in this could make you angry? Reminds of Norm McDonald jokes about Bill Cosby. The worst part is not the hypocrisy, it’s the gay raping.

>>22133369
Maybe some day but probably not. Feel free to run with it. Also, only use a screenshot of relevant scripture and don't over explain the joke--thats the difference between satirizing something and expressing ideological beliefs (it's why the left can't meme).

>>22133499
The truth is that the Catholic Chruch did a phenomenally poor job of handling the problem in house. The Church has institutional power that separates it from secular power and it failed miserably; this provided an opportunity for people outside of the Chruch to attack it under the notion that secularism is superior.

Pope Benedict wrote a good article that references how the problem arrose but this is ignored. Instead, the naive idea that the Church is outside social influence (which corrupted it) and less valid than secular power structures (which is implied) is the narrative.

>>22131237
You sound confused.

>>22120379
I got kicked out of a Barnes & Noble for moving all of the Holocaust stuff into the fiction section.

>>22133451
>How about you clearly state your problem with how I've been using the term "Scientism" in direct reference to one of my posts?
I already have in the very post you are referencing. Your criticisms of "scientism" are on the grounds that they are not applying scientific methods properly, that people are under a misunderstanding by labeling something science when it is not, again, this is the definition of "pseudoscience"
>the idea that falsificationism describes only an idealized form of scientific activity and also never gets the full picture
As I've already pointed out, you can never have absolute knowledge that you have "the full picture", you can only have degrees of confidence based on the evidence and the success or failure of attempts to falsify something. Again, having a greater degree of confidence based on evidence and predictive power, it shows you are approaching truth.
>New Atheists
You've already demonstrated a willful ignorance of their opposition to Islam with lame criticisms such as "it was fashionable at the time" and vague references to "Orientalism", even though I spelled out to you the bravery of hosting events with people who had literal death threats and attempts on their lives from Islamic extremists. The only intellectual laziness is on your part for clinging to your preconceived and false notions regarding their stances.
>Popper's model without any knowledge as to how it was overturned, elaborated upon, and still found wanting
Again, you misunderstand the concepts you reference. You seem to be laboring under the impression that building better models with more predictive power via falsification is inadequate because it doesn't provide absolute knowledge, which shows a profound misunderstanding of the process of science itself.
>falsificationism doesn't match actual scientific practise
Which scientific practice? All of it everywhere in the world? In this year of do you have a specific time range you are referencing? You see, you just rely on vague concepts that you've internalized without the slightest critical thought on your own part. Yes, it is the case that some "scientific" endeavors are corrupted by the influence of capital and financial interests, but in so far as that is the case, it is just that, a corruption of the scientific method, not a prime example of it. It's embarrassing that I have to spell this out to you.
>the point isn't that this science is being done incorrectly (Russell quote) but rather that it isn't something that's seperate and unimpinged by outside factors.
Again, the principals of science and falsification exist to combat and counteract outside factors and biases and to the degree that this is not done DOES mean that "science is being done incorrectly".

>>22133470
>According to you I didn't learn them
You learned of the existence of the words, not what they reference. See, you even failed to understand what I simply and directly was saying to you (don't worry, I'll be polite and give you the benefit of the doubt that you were pretending to be retarded)
>You still haven't explained how I'm misusing the term "Scientism"
I have about a dozen times but you fail to understand, it's okay champ, maybe one day it'll get through to you, keep applying yourself!

>>22120379
>Just let me jerk off to my pedophilic japanese cartoons in peace!

>>22133656
holy kek I'm using that

>>22120379
/lit/ humor threads are terrible and repetitive in general but thanks to the two autismo faggots, this one is even worse. Just kiss already

>>22133626
>Your criticisms of "scientism" are on the grounds that they are not applying scientific methods properly
Nope. My criticism of Scientism, as reflected by the New Atheism movement, is that it presents a naive version of the scientific process. You've been consistently mistaken that I'm somehow trying to discredit science as a whole, which I continuously pointed out I wasn't doing, because you're incapable of thinking beyond the simplistic model you've internalized and regurgitate due to indoctrinating yourself with New Atheism nonsense.
>misunderstanding by labeling something science when it is not, again, this is the definition of "pseudoscience"
I've told you that this is not the case and directed you to the person who introduced and popularized the idea of "pseudoscience" while relating his model to the conversation we've been having--falsificationism is directly related to the demarcation problem which specifies how to seperate science from non-science (or "pseudoscience"). Again, falsificationism failed as a model in its description of scientific activity, Popper himself admitted this and I was nice enough to underline it in the excerpt I posted. You have not responded directly to any of this because you're out of your depth and incapable of doing so.

Basically, Popper's model is what is offered by New Atheism as a means to describe what makes scientific activity superior to other forms of knowledge. However, this model was rejected almost a century ago (even Popper himself felt the need to restrict it in face of the criticism it received while accepting that it fails to describe aspects of scientific activity) and it doesn't stand to obvious criticism (e.g. the historical record (Kuhn) or field investigations (Latour) to name just two of the examples I've given ITT). Further, just because science may fail the falsifiability qualifier doesn't mean it's not science. Again, it's not that science fails the falsification test therefore making science irrealivant--falsificationism is a poor description of actual scientific activity. Until you understand this fact you will keep making a fool of yourself and exemplifying the Russell quote.

>>22134050
If you weren't a trad Christian at this moment you could already have been turned into an awful woke troon.

>>22120379
Just stop hijacking the thread already

>>22133870
>you can only have degrees of confidence based on the evidence and the success or failure of attempts to falsify something
This is actually the description of science Carnap retreated to when verificiationism began to fail. Popper replaced the verificiationism of logical positivism with his model of falsification. However, as I've pointed out numberous times alongside examples within the excerpts I've posted--this characterization of scientific activity doesn't reflect the historical record nor how scientific activity is itself conducted. You keep asserting this model without reference to the criticism that has been given--you are out of your depth.
>You've already demonstrated a willful ignorance of their opposition to Islam with lame criticisms such as "it was fashionable at the time" and vague references to "Orientalism"
You failed to directly address my arguments as well as my counter-argument relating to Hebdo (Dawkins toes the same line the journalist did back then and it wasn't that they avoided criticizing Islamism--they simply didn't post the cartoons as it would have served to aggravate and endanger but they did criticise the attacks). The main criticism was that the characterizations of religious understanding by New Atheism fail to address Islam within its own context and merely assume the primacy of liberal values. I related this to a really simplistic form of Orientalism.
>The only intellectual laziness is on your part for clinging to your preconceived and false notions regarding their stances.
No you. If you weren't clinging to your beliefs youd be able to incorporate my criticism and directly address it. I've directly responded to your arguments in time eventhough you've failed to do so throughout our entire conversation.
>You seem to be laboring under the impression that building better models with more predictive power via falsification is inadequate because it doesn't provide absolute knowledge
Nope. See the Russell quote.
>Which scientific practice? All of it everywhere in the world? In this year of do you have a specific time range you are referencing?
See the excerpt I posted which covers basic criticisms of falsificationism as well as previous posts. Respond to that because I'm tired of you're lack of intellectual ability.
>financial interests, but in so far as that is the case, it is just that, a corruption of the scientific method, not a prime example of it
It's not a corruption of it but rather an integral part of the scientific enterprise. Again, I'm not disqualifying science but describing a wider context the simplistic model you assert fails to take into account. All you can do is "NOT REAL SCIENCE" which is pretty naive, bro.
>Again, the principals of science and falsification exist to combat and counteract outside factors and biases and to the degree that this is not done DOES mean that "science is being done incorrectly".
So Newtonianism wasn't don't correctly? You're an idiot.

>>22133884
>You learned of the existence of the words, not what they reference.
Oh, you mean like basing your entire understanding of something off of a (mis)read (as that other anon pointed out to you) of a definition that was the first result of a Google search? You've gone in depth in your research anon--I'm super impressed.
>I have about a dozen times
You have yet to describe where and when I misused the term Scientism.

>>22121484
Lol, I can't believe this bait still fucking works. It old and crusty as hell, and yet 4 newfag retards still took the bait. The bait's like an old friend at this point, it just makes me smile.

>>22134130
>falls for old crusty bait himself

>>22121484
God bless, leaf

>>22120379

>>22134070
You directly contradict yourself. You accuse the New Atheist "movement" as having a naive version of the scientific process, yet you also deny that they are not correctly apprehending the techniques of science. Falsification is vitally important to the scientific process, you begin to show your own ignorance by pretending it's failed as a model. You are deluded if you think falsification has been dismissed as part of science. Once again, though, you seem to have arrived at this error through the conflation of the principals of science and the actual "scientific activity" of scientists, which can be biased and corrupted, which is the exact reason falsification is so important in the first place. I will reiterate it once again, you introduce concepts you clearly do not understand, as if name dropping will allow you to dismiss falsification as a vital part of science. Falsification has the power to separate bad theories from theories with merit, and the attempt to downplay it seems like the kind of thing you would do if you have a pet theory which is not subject to falsification but for which you want to pretend has some credibility. It's misguided to say the least.

>>22134084
>doesn't reflect the historical record nor how scientific activity is itself conducted
You continue to confuse the flawed application of science with the principals of science. One major reason for falsification to exist in the first place is to combat bias of people who become over enamored with a particular theory which actually doesn't pass muster. Again, you do not understand the concepts you are presenting.
>-they simply didn't post the cartoons as it would have served to aggravate and endanger
Yes, that is called cowardice, while the New Atheists boldly held public events with people who had fatwas against them from prominent Islamic figures.
>merely assume the primacy of liberal values
The value of free speech and expression is of utmost importance, are you disagreeing with this? It's ironic because you also accuse the New Atheists of cultural hegemony regarding Islamic countries, yet you seem to forget that these threats were originating in Islamic countries against people exercising their rights in Western countries. You don't actually hold principals though, so you only use what's convenient to you in the moment and thus contradict yourself.
>It's not a corruption of it
Yes, when capital forces certain outcomes of scientific trials it is most definitely a corruption of the scientific process. You out yourself as an overt ideologue (not to mention a moron) by denying this.
>Newtonianism
It was falsified when a more accurate model came along (quantum mechanics). It produces results close enough to the truth to be useful in certain contexts though. This is part of science, as I mentioned, you proportion your belief to the evidence and you keep an open mind that there could be a better, more accurate model yet to be.

>>22134230
So Newtonian physics was a bad theory? Or was it a "theory with merit" because it was falsified? Junk in, junk out.

>>22134090
Again, if a word is being used against the literal definition, that is a failure of the person using the word incorrectly. It is only compounded by an insistence that the literal definition doesn't matter.
>You have yet to describe where and when I misused the term Scientism.
Yes I did: The historical practice of scientists =/= the principals of science

>>22134265
It has merit in that it reliably produces results which have a specific degree of utility. It has less merit because it's been shown to have a degree of inaccuracy as shown through quantum mechanics. The process of falsification has helped us proportion our belief in the accuracy of the Newtonian model, is this really so hard for you to follow?

>>22134230
>You directly contradict yourself. You accuse the New Atheist "movement" as having a naive version of the scientific process, yet you also deny that they are not correctly apprehending the techniques of science
No, I'm saying that the falsificationism presented by the New Atheist movement is a naive description of the scientific process. Full stop. I've given the reasons why above and posted excerpts which describe the New Atheist movement as proponents of Scientism and contain a brief survey of the criticism of falsificationism. The latter also contained Popper's retort to criticism which involved restricting the concept to an idealized form of scientific activity and admitting that it fails to describe common scientific practice (e.g. the development of Newtonianism as not involving falsification and the fact scientists employ theories that have been falsified). The simplistic model of falsificationism is used by the New Atheists to promote Scientism--it assumes scientific activity always operates by a rational mechanism of truth testing (it doesn't) and ignores the problem of demarcation (science vs pseudoscience), which Popper admitted falsificationism was unable to solve. I'll add not that Kuhn's model, itself dated, incorporated the idea of full paradigm shifts (he's the popularizer of that term) based upon the build up of anomalies a given theory is unable to address. Lakotos took this into account when he reformed Popper's model (which I'm actually a pretty big fan of by the way--its not a full picture but by conceptualizing theory as a "core" with satilite hypotheses that can be falsified it's a much more nuanced description than falsificationism alone; you should check it out as a first step once you're willing to learn).
>you begin to show your own ignorance by pretending it's failed as a model
The guy who made the model admitted it failed (again, there's an excerpt above) and Lakotos built a new model incorporating it's best qualities (which also failed as research moved to the "hard program" of people like Barns and Bloor--you should avoid them for now because you're not ready to deal with their bullshit).
> I will reiterate it once again, you introduce concepts you clearly do not understand
You're clearly filtered and I'm skipping the rest of this post. I'll have a look at your next one though.

>>22134230
>You continue to confuse the flawed application of science with the principals of science
I specifically told you that it doesn't comstitute a flawed application of science. You're seriously falling back on trying to apply the "not real communism" argument? Fuck you're filtered.
>the New Atheists boldly held public events
You again fail to address the content of that counterpoint. First, Dawkins toes the same line as reporters did then. Second, it was fashionable to criticise Islamism from the period after 9/11 onward. A large public discourse developed around it. My claim isn't that New Atheists did not address Islamism--my point is that they went after the low hanging fruit of Jihadism (Radical Islam) and did so in a myopic fashion which I've described multiple times above and you do not address.
>You don't actually hold principals though, so you only use what's convenient to you in the moment and thus contradict yourself
You don't hd principles, anon. You bought into easy answers and became ideologically possessed. You exemplify the Jung quote that "people don't have ideas, ideas have people." My criticism of New Atheism in that context has nothing to do with qualifying the value of freedom of speech--the problem is when they assume such values and don't qualify them while going after low hanging fruit it becomes superficial. It resonates with midwits like yourself but they actually aren't saying much.
>Yes, when capital forces certain outcomes of scientific trials it is most definitely a corruption of the scientific process
You need to read Steven Weinbergs article about the development of the SSC. Yes, financial factors do corrupt scientific activity (look at pharmaceutical testing) but they also play a big role in how proper science is conducted. You're description is again: naive.
>It was falsified when a more accurate model came along
Newtonianism wasn't built through a method of falsification. Also, it was overturned by GRT; according to Kuhn this was because GRT was able to explain the perihelion of Mercury, I think? It's been a while since I studied this stuff so if I'm wrong on that detail I hope you'll still understand it wasn't falsified in the naive sense you're forwarding (and remember that the main point is the development of Newtonianism itself).

>>22134268
>Again, if a word is being used against the literal definition, that is a failure of the person using the word incorrectly.
It's not though and you can't point to a post where it was misused. You assert I'm misunderstanding the term, based on your own flawed understanding which came from misreading the first thing that popped up when you Googled it (kek).
>The historical practice of scientists =/= the principals of science
What? Whose saying that it does and who is defining those things? You? The guy who knows nothing about the history and philosophy of science and has never studied a scientific discipline? Fucking kek.

>>22134349
>by conceptualizing theory as a "core" with satilite hypotheses that can be falsified
You obviously do not understand falsification and it's role in science. Once again, you accuse the New Atheists of something which is, by definition, "pseudoscience", but you probably know how absurd that sounds, but since you disagree with their conclusions, you need to find some epithet that makes you feel better so you land on "scientism" (even though, as has already been established, you don't understand that word either).

>>22134372
>I specifically told you that it doesn't comstitute a flawed application of science
Just denying it doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what you've been doing.
>went after the low hanging fruit of Jihadism
It's not "low hanging fruit" to endanger one's life by standing up to an ideology willing to kill over drawings. It's funny, because you even acknowledge that new networks were terrified of being violently attacked, but when it's the New Atheists accepting that risk to hold public events with people named for death, you have to dismiss it because it's a group you're already biased against. This is transparent and embarrassing for you.
>deologically possessed. You exemplify the Jung quote that "people don't have ideas, ideas have people."
Again, you have become so possessed that you literally have to downplay the bravery of the New Atheists because of your ideological opposition to their conclusions. In other words, you're projecting here, anon.
>but they also play a big role in how proper science is conducted.
That is incorrect. They facilitate the enterprise of science, but their presence introduces bias and thus necessitates an even stricter adherence to scientific principals (especially falsification, which you seem to view as not even needed)
>Newtonianism wasn't built through a method of falsification.
And when it was put to the test of falsification, it was shown to be inaccurate to a certain degree. Thus, falsification proved to be very important in getting a more accurate model.

>>22134383
>the first thing that popped up when you Googled it
Otherwise known as the actual definition of the word, which you have to downplay because it's inconvenient to you (I'm seeing a trend in your dishonest tactics here!)
>Whose saying that it does and who is defining those things?
The practice of science is done by fallible human beings with biases, therefore it requires checks and balances which are part of the principals of science in order to produce the most objectively accurate models (as measured by predictive power). Also, another clumsy dodge by you because you literally conflated the history of science with the principals of science earlier, but again this is embarrassing for you so you have to quickly pass it by and try to obfuscate your own error.

>>22134276
That was a different anon pointing out that falsified theories are still used. You were filtered by his post. Again though, the main thing is that Newtonianism wasn't built through falsification and Kuhn said it was replaced because GRT was able to describe anomolies Classical Dynamics could not (it wasn't "falsified" it just had no ability and ignored specific phenomena). Speaking of Kuhn, you should look up "incommensurability of scientific theories." It's interesting stuff and will help you understand why falsificationism isn't a good macro model to describe science.

>>22134405
As I stated earlier, falsification is important in cutting away inaccuracies. It's possible to have some merit without the application of falsification, but one's confidence in the theory should be vastly conservative in proportion to the intensity of the falsification applied. And as has been covered, the Newtonian was falsified and found to have inaccuracy, thus, in the end, it was proven how important falsification is in producing a more accurate theory

>>22134388
>You obviously do not understand falsification and it's role in science
No, anon. The problem is that you don't understand it's limited role in scientific activity and keep confusing what I'm actually saying with the idea it doesn't exist at all.
>something which is, by definition, "pseudoscience
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience according to Popper rests on the former's full reliance on falsification. However, mainstream science doesn't operate on falsification, as Popper admitted, so you're saying most scientific activity isn't scientific. Also, falsification doesn't describe the historical record regarding specific key scientific theories (as Popper again admitted). Also, it doesn't describe day-to-day practise itself (i.e. most scientific activity doesn't involve testing theories but rather using them to describe known phenomena). Are you starting to get this now?
>downplay the bravery of the New Atheists
It sounds to me like you're childishly forwarding the idea of heroism instead of soberly critiquing what they had to say. If you aren't an underage poster this is truly embarrassing, anon.
>They facilitate the enterprise of science, but their presence introduces bias and thus necessitates an even stricter adherence to scientific principals
Science doesn't take place in a vacuum, anon. Also, you can use falsificationism as a retort when you disprove what I've said about it (fuck, even if you simply address the fact the man who made the theory admitted it was idealized and incomplete).
>And when it was put to the test of falsification
You're misusing words, anon. Also, Newtonianism wasn't developed via falsification and it's inability to describe certain phenomena (e.g. Mercury's perihelion) was what lead to it receeding and GRT taking over. There wasn't a test where Newtonianism failed--a theory that rewrote the language being used to describe phenomena (I mentioned incommensurability a moment ago) that was able to describe anomolies Newtonianism could not. I'll add now that it took a generation of physicists dying off for this to happen and Einstein won his nobel for the photoelectric effect instead because GRT remained highly controversial for quite a long period of time.

>>22133329
you sound like the most annoying university freshman who took a single class on the history of science and now thinks he knows what science means better than anyone on the planet. you are the one LARPing here

>>22134404
>Otherwise known as the actual definition of the word, which you have to downplay because it's inconvenient to you
The definition isn't inconvenient at all--i posted an excerpt containing the Merriam-Webster definition and quoted it in a post. What's inconvenient is that you still don't understand the concept and no matter how many times I ask you to point of where and how it's been misused you fail to do so (because you can't--as the other anon said you don't understand the term).

I'm guessing the rest of your post is nonsense so I'm not going to read it. Sorry.

>>22134430
You sound like you're insecure and don't want to learn new things. Also, Popper usually isn't covered because he's so out of date (and you get more out of Carnap and the logical positivist school). Kuhn is first year and I suggest you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as an intro to the subject of you're interest. I think it's either Chapter IX or X thats a summary of the entire book and you could safely skip reading it all in favor of those 20 or 30 pages.

>>22134428
>it's limited role
In what way is it limited? What theory is not subject to falsification?
>so you're saying
kek, if you'd actually read and understood my posts you would have seen I reference predictive power, and that falsification is a way to produce better theories with more predictive power, but again, you seem committed to never leaving the bounds of your own misunderstanding.
>heroism instead of soberly critiquing what they had to say
You referenced things like "fashion" of the day and "low hanging fruit" all while mischaracterizing the position of New Atheists as if Islam was only tangentially applicable and not a prime example of the type of tyranny they opposed.
>Science doesn't take place in a vacuum
Yes, that's why there is a differentiation between the ideal principals and the actual practice, and it's also why there are principals like falsification in order to check the biases of fallible people conducting science.
>Newtonianism wasn't developed via falsification and inability to describe certain phenomena (e.g. Mercury's perihelion) was what lead to it receeding and GRT taking over
The development of a more accurate theory which shows inaccuracies in a previous theory is a way of falsifying a theory. In other words, there was a more accurate theory which accounted for the inaccuracies in the former theory, leading the inaccurate one to be falsified in light of the more accurate theory.

>>22134430
I've been nice enough to have a look at my copy. Chapter IX (The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions) is the summary chapter (20 pages) and Chapter X (Revolutions as Changes of Worldview) is where he gets into incommensurability--here you'll see why falsificationism is a really poor model.

>>22134432
>no matter how many times I ask you to point of where and how it's been misused you fail to do so
I have done so multiple times, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it, again, because it's inconvenient to you.
>I'm not going to read it. Sorry.
kek, almost sounds like you're being intellectually lazy here, anon. But at least you admit it, that's the first step.

>>22134437
>>22134446
Are you purposely trying to fit the stereotype that anon accused you of being? Because you did perfectly kek

>>22134455
If you don't find the subject interesting and just want to project insecurities go ahead. If you want to learn about what is being discussed I have given you an introductory text and the specific chapters you should look at to help you along. Your choice.

>>22134469
You do enjoy projection, don't you? You perfectly, I mean perfectly, embodied the naive beginner who has learned a few names and a few buzz words and thinks he's a know-it-all. A secure person would be able to laugh it off that maybe they just got a little excited about an area they enjoy, but not you, nope, you have to accuse everyone who notices your naive ramblings and your hurrying off to grab your class assigned book so you can give a chapter reference. In short, be less tense, acquire a sense of humor, and remove the stick from your behind, friend.

>>22134469
You do enjoy projection, don't you? You perfectly, I mean perfectly, embodied the naive beginner who has learned a few names and a few buzz words and thinks he's a know-it-all. A secure person would be able to laugh it off that maybe they just got a little excited about an area they enjoy, but not you, nope, you have to accuse everyone who notices your naive ramblings and your hurrying off to grab your class assigned book so you can give a chapter reference as being being "insecure". In short, be less tense, acquire a sense of humor, and remove the stick from your behind, friend.

>>22134440
>In what way is it limited?
It doesn't accurately describe the development of scientific theories and doesn't describe typical scientific practice. It also failed to answer the demarcation problem for which it was developed.
>What theory is not subject to falsification?
String theory. Also, evolution functions as a heuristic and the (well-founded) science surrounding it is a example of not moving forward through falsificationism. Only an idiot would spend time trying to refute evolution instead of using it as a heuristic (aside, Kuhn calls this phase "evidence gathering" and it's the "accumulation of anomolies" that eventually lead to the emergence of a new theory; this isn't the same thing as falsificationism). But again, the problem is that it doesn't describe the historical record relating to how scientific theories emerge and doesn't describe the day-to-day practise of science.
>kek, if you'd actually read and understood my posts
Unfortunately I've read them and I understand you're an idiot, anon.
>falsification is a way to produce better theories with more predictive power
But again, it doesn't describe the historical record when it comes to the development and emergence of new theories and it doesn't reflect the day-to-day practise of scientific activity. Also, theories that have been falsified are still of use and don't magically become unscientific once they've been replaced (although Kuhn makes a really good argument for "incommensurability" you should check out).
>mischaracterizing the position of New Atheists as if Islam
I never mischaracterized it. The problem here is your childish hero worship which results in the inability to criticise them. Hence why you merely assert I've mischaracterized them while presenting reasons they should be respected instead of acknowledging my criticism and incorporating it into an adequate response.
>Yes, that's why there is a differentiation between the ideal principals and the actual practice
See the post where I made fun of you for never having studied a scientific disciple, being ignorant of scientific history, and having not even the most basic familiarity with philosophy of science. Very pretentious and silly, anon.
>The development of a more accurate theory which shows inaccuracies in a previous theory is a way of falsifying a theory. In other words, there was a more accurate theory which accounted for the inaccuracies in the former theory, leading the inaccurate one to be falsified in light of the more accurate theory.
What you're doing here is shoe-horning an ad hoc justification of using the term falsificationism. Newtonianism wasn't built through falsificationism, it wasn't tested and replaced because it failed, and it's still in use today. The inability to describe an anomoly isn't an example of being falsified, anon. I'd get into why this is so but I don't feel like it and know it will be a wasted effort anyway.

>>22134481
>I don't want to learn
We're strangers on the internet, anon. Also, you should have went with calling me an autistic sperglord instead. Crying about being introduced to new knowledge through a specific book on a board devoted to books is just silly. With sperglord you could have made fun of the fact this discussion is taking place in a humor thread.

>>22134515
>It doesn't accurately describe the development of scientific theories and doesn't describe typical scientific practice. It also failed to answer the demarcation problem for which it was developed.
The demarcation problem is solved by the predictive power of a theory. The predictive power of a theory is strengthened through the process of falsification, as I mentioned earlier, you proportion your belief based on the evidence (predictive power, ability to withstand falsification).
>Evolution
Popper's falsification is being on the lookout for flaws in a theory and proportioning one's belief in a theory accordingly. You see to be using Kuhn's vernacular without realizing it's a distinction without a difference. Also, string theory is subject to falsification.
>More projection
You are an insecure one, aren't you anon?
>historical record
Again, this is different from the principals of science. A falsified theory, if it has predictive power, can still be of utility, as Newtonian theory is, but the process of falsification has helped to clarify the theory and what is wrong with it.
>childish hero worship
Tell me again about your hero, Kuhn.
>inability to criticise them.
You continue to downplay their stance against Islam and totalitarianism generally. I have no problem criticizing them when they are in error (which they are on certain subjects, since I acknowledge no person is infallible). The problem is we've only talked about their strongest suit, which you have mischaracterized in the way I referenced.
>More projecting
Hey, at least you weren't lazy this time and actually read my whole post, progress of a kind anon, progress of a kind!
>Newtonianism wasn't built through falsificationism
The process of forming a theory is distinct from the process of falsifying a theory, anon. This is very basic to understand, you should be able to grasp this.

>>22134523
You are utterly un-selfaware anon. Your antics after being accused of being a naive beginner essentially qualify as /lit/ humor because you instantly proved the accusation correct and can't even recognize it because of your over inflated ego. Good show, anon, you ended up saving this humor thread lol

>>22134544
>The demarcation problem is solved by the predictive power of a theory.
It isn't though, anon. If you think you've come up with a way to solve the demarcation problem you should write a paper and submit it to a journal. You'll be famous. Well, as famous as a philosopher can be. Also, what you're describing is verificiationism and not falsificationism (for more about that look up Carnap).
>Popper's falsification is being on the lookout for flaws in a theory
Again, it doesn't describe the majority of scientific activity and it doesn't describe the emergence of new theories when we look at the historical record. Popper himself said that it's an idealized description of science and that it fails to encapsulate most scientific activity as well as theory replacement/emergence. It was upgraded by Lakotos in answer to these criticisms but, as I said in a previous post, the theory isnt tested but rather satilite hypotheses. Do you understand how this is not the idealized version presented by Popper and regurgitated by fedora tippers like yourself? I'll add again that even this model was found wanting due to criticism from Feyerabend and the emergence of things like Barnes/Bloor hard program (which would make you absolutely seethe so you should avoid it, kek).
>it's a distinction without a difference
You proved you have no idea what you're talking about, anon. You don't understand the distinction between Popper and Kuhn and are so dumb you don't even use your confusion to expand and learn. Kuhn criticized Popper and Popper answered his criticism (as per the excerpt I posted).
>"I never studied a scientific discipline, have never read an academic treatment of the history of science, and am ignorant when it comes to subjects within the philosophy of science"
It's obvious, anon.
>but the process of falsification has helped to clarify the theory and what is wrong with it
I told you that the consensus is that Newtonianism wasn't developed through falsificationism and wasn't overturned due to being falsified. This is referenced in the excerpt I posted above relating to criticism of falsificationism (alongside Popper's acceptance of the criticism and redeployment of that model). What you're describing is verificiationism (the model falsification replaced).
>tell me about your hero, Kuhn
What gives you the impression he's my hero? That criticism hit close to home, eh? Sure though, Kuhn is one of the key figures in the philosophy of science and he revolutionized the field by incorporating the study of history into it. He's very accessible when it comes to his writing and if you actually want to learn about this stuff you should check him out. (The problem is though, as I've pointed out, New Atheism is an intelligence LARP for midwits that want to regurgitate without having to learn. Odds are you won't read anything).

>>22134544
>You continue to downplay their stance against Islam and totalitarianism generally
"I never mischaracterized it. The problem here is your childish hero worship which results in the inability to criticise them. Hence why you merely assert I've mischaracterized them while presenting reasons they should be respected instead of acknowledging my criticism and incorporating it into an adequate response." I'm quoting myself because you prove my point. Instead of responding to criticism you ignore it and assert why they should be respected.
>Hey, at least you weren't lazy this time and actually read my whole post
Kek, were you offended?
>The process of forming a theory is distinct from the process of falsifying a theory, anon
Cool but you just admitted theory replacement doesn't occur through falsificationism, retard.

>>22134548
>tips fedora

>>22134612
>hard program
Strong program* (correcting my error)

>>22134612
>falsificationism
Again, you keep straying away from the two core principals, predictive power and falsification. These are the criteria for better and more accurate theories, and you have yet to address this in a meaningful way.
>Popper and Kuhn
I was referring to a very specific thing, anon, there's no need to be dishonest. Even you should realize that Popper and Kuhn agreed on a great number of things and the idea of "falsification" and "being on the lookout for anomalies" amount to the same thing. You are so insecure in your own tenuous grasp of the subject you instantly retort to insults. It's a bad look for you, anon.
>More insecurity
Not looking any better anon
>Newtonianism wasn't developed through falsificationism
Again, you completely fail to understand the difference between generating a theory and falsifying it and you completely ignore the difference as a result.
>If you haven't read my favorite author and agree with him, you're LARPing
You're a very small person, aren't you, anon?

>>22134621
>I never mischaracterized it
I'll answer again because you seem to need repetition to understand, but a group putting themselves in direct danger of bodily harm in order to confront Islamic extremism cannot, with any semblance of honesty, be reduced to "fashionable" or going after "low hanging fruit". Don't worry anon, you can correct yourself any time and I'll be very gracious in return.
>theory replacement doesn't occur through falsificationism
You literally cannot follow the thread of the discussion. If there are errors in a theory which are discovered to be inaccuracies, that is the process of falsification. A more accurate theory is then needed to account for these inaccuracies, which is in turn subjected to falsification.

>>22134625
>Gets BTFO
>Uses the most lazy meme in internet history
Major L on this one, anon

>>22134625
>you have yet to address this in a meaningful way.
You haven't acknowledged the fact Popper retooled his theory while admitting it doesn't stand to the scrutiny of the historical record or describe day-to-day scientific practice. You've also said nothing of Lakatos's upgrade (probably because you'd have to admit it was necessary) or the criticisms offered by other philosophers/historians (>>22130796). Also, nothing about my pointing out you're confusion between verificiationism with falsificationism. Going all the way back to the beginning, nothing addressing my points on New Atheism (except assertions I'm wrong alongside hero worship).
>"falsification" and "being on the lookout for anomalies" amount to the same thing
No it doesn't and you don't understand the terms youre using so don't pretend you've read Popper or Kuhn, kek. Falsifying is actively testing a theory in order to refute it whereas anomolies build up during the process Kuhn labels as "normal science" (I'll state this multiple times, normal science isn't a process of falsification but rather a gathering of data and rendering it into the terms of the theory). Anomolies are generally ignored by the existing theory (i.e. they don't falsify the theory in any way and normal science doesn't run it's course by actively seeking out anomolies--they simply accumulate outside the bounds of the existing theory). Kuhn argues that science progresses through "revolution" instead of falsification. A revolution occurs where a new theory able to describe those anomolies emerges. You're going to misunderstand this so I'll be explicit: the original theory isn't being tested by way of falsification; normal science is simply gathering data using the theory. Falsificaition involves the construction of specific experiments meant to disprove the theory; anomolies relate to the inability of a theory to describe examples of phenomena over time. According to Kuhn, the new theory is "incommensurable" and completely disconnected from the old--it doesn't share common language (this argument was controversial by the way). Incommensurability, just like the process of normal science, isn't the same thing as falsified and specifically relates to the language of how phenomena are described

Lakatos's upgrade to Popper tried to incorporate this by accepting the fact that while central theories aren't tested by way of falsificaition there are hypotheses derived from the theory (satilites) that are falsified. Paul Feyerabend critiqued this and the strong program basically flipped over the board by bringing a bunch of bullshit from sociology (but it was able to do this because Lakatos's update of Popper was insufficient).
>difference between generating a theory and falsifying it
Not at all but you've been over generalizing the term "falsificationism" because you don't know how to use it.
>favorite author/agree with everything
I prefer Lakatos. You resorted to hero worship with the New Atheists, kek.

>>22134656
>you have yet to address this in a meaningful way.
You haven't acknowledged the fact Popper retooled his theory while admitting it doesn't stand to the scrutiny of the historical record or describe day-to-day scientific practice. You've also said nothing of Lakatos's upgrade (probably because you'd have to admit it was necessary) or the criticisms offered by other philosophers/historians (>>22130796 #). Also, nothing about my pointing out you're confusion between verificiationism with falsificationism. Going all the way back to the beginning, nothing addressing my points on New Atheism (except assertions I'm wrong alongside hero worship).
>"falsification" and "being on the lookout for anomalies" amount to the same thing
No it doesn't and you don't understand the terms youre using so don't pretend you've read Popper or Kuhn, kek. Falsifying is actively testing a theory in order to refute it whereas anomolies build up during the process Kuhn labels as "normal science" (I'll state this multiple times, normal science isn't a process of falsification but rather a gathering of data and rendering it into the terms of the theory). Anomolies are generally ignored by the existing theory (i.e. they don't falsify the theory in any way and normal science doesn't run it's course by actively seeking out anomolies--they simply accumulate outside the bounds of the existing theory). Kuhn argues that science progresses through "revolution" instead of falsification. A revolution occurs where a new theory able to describe those anomolies emerges. You're going to misunderstand this so I'll be explicit: the original theory isn't being tested by way of falsification; normal science is simply gathering data using the theory. Falsificaition involves the construction of specific experiments meant to disprove the theory; anomolies relate to the inability of a theory to describe examples of phenomena over time. According to Kuhn, the new theory is "incommensurable" and completely disconnected from the old--it doesn't share common language (this argument was controversial by the way). Incommensurability, just like the process of normal science, isn't the same thing as falsified and specifically relates to the language of how phenomena are described

Lakatos's upgrade to Popper tried to incorporate this by accepting the fact that while central theories aren't tested by way of falsificaition there are hypotheses derived from the theory (satilites) that are falsified. Paul Feyerabend critiqued this and the strong program basically flipped over the board by bringing a bunch of bullshit from sociology (but it was able to do this because Lakatos's update of Popper was insufficient).
>difference between generating a theory and falsifying it
Not at all but you've been over generalizing the term "falsificationism" because you don't know how to use it.
>favorite author/agree with everything
I prefer Lakatos. You resorted to hero worship with the New Atheists, kek.

>>22134666
>a group putting themselves in direct danger of bodily harm in order to confront Islamic extremism cannot, with any semblance of honesty, be reduced to "fashionable"
I'll say it again: you're ignoring criticism of New Atheists by asserting them as heroic figures. I defined why it was fashionable to go after le "Radical Islam," brought up the fact that your king now toes the exact line as the reporters did then, and stated you haven't answered the specific criticism I have of them when it comes to their critique.
>If there are errors in a theory which are discovered to be inaccuracies, that is the process of falsification
"What you're doing here is shoe-horning an ad hoc justification of using the term falsificationism. Newtonianism wasn't built through falsificationism, it wasn't tested and replaced because it failed, and it's still in use today. The inability to describe an anomoly isn't an example of being falsified, anon. I'd get into why this is so but I don't feel like it and know it will be a wasted effort anyway."
+
Russell quote. You're literally reformulating the ideas you've encountered according to the limitations of your intellect, kek.

>>22134668
>tips fedora

>>22134737
Falsification occurs when data collected is compared with the predictions of the theory. This one sentence refutes your entire post. Once again, the only important factors of a theory are predictive power and falsification.
>Falsificaition involves the construction of specific experiments meant to disprove the theory
This is wrong, data already collected can be used to falsify a theory. What you have stated is one possible way to falsify a theory, but not the only way. Again, this relates to predictive power, and anomalies indicate a failure here which requires a more accurate theory which accounts for the anomalies. Once again, we arrive at the same point, both Popper and Kuhn are approaching the matter of the predictive power of a theory or it's failure in predictive power.
>hero worship
Another buzz phrase you've latched on to for no reason, presumably to make yourself feel more secure, because, as is amply evident, you are an extremely insecure person.

>>22134746
>you're ignoring criticism of New Atheists by asserting them as heroic figures
You validated my assertion of them as brave by literally admitting news networks were so terrified of having their offices attacked that they kowtowed to the terrorists while the New Atheists held public events with individuals under fatwa. Again, your own characterization of the moment means, by definition, the New Atheists were much braver than the "fashion" of the day.
>Limitation of your intellect
Your insecurity and projection again kek, just like when you beclowned yourself earlier and have to rely on *le fedora* meme because you've been so utterly BTFO.

>>22134751
>Falsification occurs when data collected is compared with the predictions of the theory. This one sentence refutes your entire post
That's you're excuse for not responding the the fact Popper admitted his model only describes an idealized form of science and fails to incorporate most scientific activity? This is why you don't have to understand the criticisms offered by Kuhn and Hacking and Lakatos and Feyerabend and...? No need to address Lakatos's upgrade of Popper or why it was necessary? Russell quote, anon.
>only important factors of a theory are predictive power and falsification
So you keep asserting but you can't address the fact falsificationism doesn't accurately describe the emergence of new theories or the common practice of day-to-day science. Kuhn does give weight to predictive power but I haven't been arguing against that so you're welcome to try and shift the goalposts as if I have. However, there's the trouble of how concepts are embodied in scientific language when it comes to that (but that's far too advanced for someone who can't even understand the difference between falsificationism and verificiationism).
>This is wrong, data already collected can be used to falsify a theory
You'retardation is predictable. This is the reason I kept differentiating between "normal science" and falsificiationism. Actively constructing experiments in order to specfically disprove a theory isnt the same as gathering data using a theory with anomolies accumulating outside of a theory. No process of falsification was taking place, anon. You're over-generalizing the idea of falsificiation because Russell quote.
>Again, this relates to predictive power, and anomalies indicate a failure here which requires a more accurate theory which accounts for the anomalies.
That's not falsificationism, anon (Russell quote). Theory replacement due to falsificationism entails testing the theory in order to disprove it. With the revolution model, anomolies are set aside and largely ignored because normal science doesn't operate according to falsifiability. You now insert the word "falsified" to describe the revolution which takes place that has nothing to do with how science was practiced. I'll add now that "Kuhn loss" is a concept describing the fact that a new theory may actually have less predictive power in certain areas than did the previous theory (the example commonly used is phlogistion and certain characteristics of metals)

>>22134761
>Falsification occurs when data collected is compared with the predictions of the theory. This one sentence refutes your entire post
That's you're excuse for not responding the the fact Popper admitted his model only describes an idealized form of science and fails to incorporate most scientific activity? This is why you don't have to understand the criticisms offered by Kuhn and Hacking and Lakatos and Feyerabend and...? No need to address Lakatos's upgrade of Popper or why it was necessary? Russell quote, anon.
>only important factors of a theory are predictive power and falsification
So you keep asserting but you can't address the fact falsificationism doesn't accurately describe the emergence of new theories or the common practice of day-to-day science. Kuhn does give weight to predictive power but I haven't been arguing against that so you're welcome to try and shift the goalposts as if I have. However, there's the trouble of how concepts are embodied in scientific language when it comes to that (but that's far too advanced for someone who can't even understand the difference between falsificationism and verificiationism).
>This is wrong, data already collected can be used to falsify a theory
You'retardation is predictable. This is the reason I kept differentiating between "normal science" and falsificiationism. Actively constructing experiments in order to specfically disprove a theory isnt the same as gathering data using a theory with anomolies accumulating outside of a theory. No process of falsification was taking place, anon. You're over-generalizing the idea of falsificiation because Russell quote.
>Again, this relates to predictive power, and anomalies indicate a failure here which requires a more accurate theory which accounts for the anomalies.
That's not falsificationism, anon (Russell quote). Theory replacement due to falsificationism entails testing the theory in order to disprove it. With the revolution model, anomolies are set aside and largely ignored because normal science doesn't operate according to falsifiability. You now insert the word "falsified" to describe the revolution which takes place that has nothing to do with how science was practiced. I'll add now that "Kuhn loss" is a concept describing the fact that a new theory may actually have less predictive power in certain areas than did the previous theory (the example commonly used is phlogistion and certain characteristics of metals)

>>22134761
>>22134768
>both Popper and Kuhn are approaching the matter of the predictive power of a theory or it's failure in predictive power
You haven't read either of them, anon. Popper is describing the demarcation between science and pseudoscience using a model based on the active ability to refute a given theory whereas Kuhn appeals to the historical record in order to pose that the general character of science doesn't revolve around falsificationism. Popper's model is at a loss when it comes to describing how theory emergence and replacement takes place (and has taken place in the past) as well as being unable to describe the vast majority of scientific activity.
>Another buzz phrase you've latched on to for no reason
Not a buzz word and your characterization of New Atheists as champions of freedom equates to hero worship. This is why you're unable to respond to criticism of them and have to deflect context by way of demanding they're respected for individual actions.
>You validated my assertion of them as brave by literally admitting news networks were so terrified of having their offices attacked
I told you that the point wasn't whether or not that particular incident was brave or not brave. The argument pertained to the fact criticism of Radical Islam was commonplace (fashionable), whether or not Jihadism constitutes low hanging fruit, and finally my characterization of their argument as reflective of a simplified Orientalism that merely assumes the validity of liberal values with no discussion of the specific historical context of Islam.
>rely on *le fedora* meme
Imagine pretending you're someone else because you think it will help you win an argument. You've been repeatedly BTFO, anon.

>>22134856
>idealized form
We've been over this, anon, the principals of science are distinct from the operation of scientists.
>predictive power
If a theory fails in its prediction, that is part of falsification, anon. You demonstrate your failure to understand the concept again.
>repeating the error
Keep trying, anon, you'll get there some day

>>22134867
>>22134867
>Popper and Kuhn
Again, you conflate issues left right and center. The difference between science and pseudoscience is predictive power and the ability to withstand falsification. Again, as I mentioned, these go hand in hand.
>champions of free speech
They were, but you probably consider that just a form of neoliberal cultural hegemony, right?
>uhh, well, the New Atheists might have been brave, but that was the fashion of the time even though I already admitted news networks capitulated based on fear and the New Atheists didn't
That's what I thought.
>win an argument
You beclowned yourself, anon, and the funny thing is your childlike enthusiasm for a first year topic would be endearing if you were a little more secure in yourself and not so defensive in service of your over inflated ego. I offer this as sincere advice, be more humble, be less defensive, and become more secure. Don't worry though, I'll expect your reply to embody the exact opposite because you tend to unintentially lean fully into irony

>>22134888
>the principals of science are distinct from the operation of scientists.
An idealized description of science doesn't describe scientific activity. Also, and I'll be more blunt this time, who the fuck are you to pontificate about le principles of science? "Not real science" isn't an argument especially when it comes from a completely uneducated idiot such as yourself.

You keep crying about buzzwords but that vague bullshit, le principles, fits the definition more than anything I've said. You're fucking stupid, bro.
>If a theory fails in its prediction, that is part of falsification, anon
That's the definition of falsification you absolute moron. The point is that day-to-day science doesn't revolve around falsification and that theory doesn't account for how theory replacement takes place.
>You demonstrate your failure to understand the concept again.
No you.

>>22127942
>if I call everything falsificationism and it means I'm right
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

>>22134896
>if I call everything falsificationism and it means I'm right
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

>>22134905
>principals of science
I see emotion is creeping into your posts, maybe a cup of tea is called for at this point anon? Again, the principals of science are in regard to obtaining theories with predictive power, as has been established at length earlier in this thread. The practice of science is subject to the flaws of the particular scientists in question. If you can't comprehend this, there's no need to start squawking about your own failure to understand the point in question
>fucking stupid
Yep, tea time anon, you seem positively flustered at this point. Again, after tea you can apply yourself to separating "day to day" science (with the flaws of fallible humans) and the principals of science.

>>22134918
Your reports are worse than a stupid man's then, since you seem unable to understand anything lol

>>22134896
>The difference between science and pseudoscience is predictive power and the ability to withstand falsification
No, predictive power doesn't have anything to do with the science and pseudoscience as per the demarcation problem. Fuck you're an uneducated retard. Popper developed falsificationism to specifically address the demarcation problem and popularized the term "pseudoscience" in the process. The examples of pseudoscience he used when he did this were psychoanalysis and Marxism. The way it works is that any phenomena can be described by the language of the theory. This is hilarious because it's how you're misusing the idea of verificiationism and falsifiability.
>THEY WERE CHAMPIONS OF FREE SPEECH
Kek, pathetic hero worship. Let's see if you can give any substantive criticism of them, anon. Go ahead. Prove you can criticise your heroes in a nonsuperficial way.
>That's what I thought.
Fuck you're really dumb. It has nothing to do with the actual criticism I offered. Criticising Radical Islam was fashionable in the 00s after 9/11--it was a very common topic. Jihadism represents an easy target for criticism (low-hanging fruit). Dawkins toes the same line as the media did after Hebdo--showing the cartoons is an unnecessary and dangerous provocation. Finally, the criticism offered by New Atheism is shallow because...assumed primacy of liberal values divorced from relating them to the historical/cultural context of Islam.

You can't fucking address this criticism because you're a complete and total idiot who hero worships a bunch of midwits. Showing cartoons over a decade ago doesn't address the criticism you fucking retard.

>>22134922
>I see emotion is creeping into your posts
I've decided to drive the point home that you're a complete idiot as this conversation comes to a close. You are honestly so fucking stupid it's almost unbelievable.
>the principals of science are in regard to obtaining theories with predictive power, as has been established at length earlier in this thread
No it hasn't you idiot. Go ahead and actually address the criticism of Popper. You can't because you're a fucking retard.
>The practice of science is subject to the flaws of the particular scientists in question.
Wow, what a deep and thoughtful statement, anon. You must be really smart to be able to regurgitate something as complex as that.
>you seem positively flustered at this point
You're a fucking idiot, anon. You need to be told this over and over and over.

>>22134927
>misreads even that quote to make a "no you that qualifies as nonsensical
You're shockingly stupid, anon.

>>22127821
Disagree on Hitchens. I'd say his first and foremost concern was pushing 'what's best for Jews'.

>>22127910
Despite his dishonest claims Hitchens backing of the Iraq war was not politically ideological in any way. It was good form Israel. That's why he supported it.

>>22129252
Learn about 'Pilpul' anon.

Everything almost every Jewish public figure says will make so much more sense to you.

>>22129313
Didn't Maimondes claim that even the best of gentiles should be killed?

And that helping a non Jew in any way was not a good thing?

Seems like a bit of a blinkered cunt to me. And what sort of people would revere such a mindlessly aggressive racial supremacist?

>>22130068
>>22130102

The 'New Atheists' is yet another Zionist mind control psyop. Having them take a political position related to a high profile public event is part of the psyop.

Stop taking Jewish Pilpul seriously. It is ALL rhetoric to fuel their plans for racial supremacy

>>22129313
>philosophers would never pretend to be religious in an intolerant society to escape persecution and being killed like Socrates

>>22131898
Still too much.

>>22122667

>>22123439