/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13245036]

Why do people still believe science is more than an opinion when the idea of a scientific method got btfo in 1975?

[Anonymous No.13245181]

>>13245036
because feyerabend was a dick and that book is shite

[Anonymous No.13245294]

>>13245036
did you read the book?

[Anonymous No.13246994]

>>13245294
I don't read books that are meant to be used as doorstops.

[Anonymous No.13247201]

>>13245036
>"idea of a scientific method got btfo in 1975?"
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.13247214]

the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.13247227]

>>13245036
My name is Herr Doctor Professor Carl Popper and I would like to have a word with you anon

[Anonymous No.13247610]

>>13247214
"I only believe in things that are falsifiable"

[Anonymous No.13247617]

Because that book can't keep my electricity on in my house sweetie. Science can. I'm sorry but science is right.

[Anonymous No.13247618]

>>13245036
Because it produces technology.

[Anonymous No.13247646]

>>13245036
Oh Wow didn't you read wittgenstein before? the term "scientific method" was cannot be defined by one universal property in the first place. not only "scientific method", every word is the same definition "problem" in the first place. What we only have is family resemblance, we only seek similarity between them.
So what we have is that scientific method ordinary people called "scientific method" is the method, but magic and alchemy are still not a scientific method. Definition problem of "scientific method" is not even a problem at the first place.

[Anonymous No.13247812]

>>13245036
read the book
it is more than an opinion because >it just werks

[Anonymous No.13247872]

>>13245036
scientific method works
scientists don't

[Anonymous No.13247881]

>>13247617
You havent read that book.
>>13245036
Neither have you.

That book is an open invitation to every weirdo that has felt uncomfortable by science to develop a robust scientific theory. Not a denunciation of science ad such.

[Anonymous No.13247885]

>>13247227
Popper was Feyerabend's Ph.D. advisor.

[Anonymous No.13248376]

>>13245036
Read Hume idiot

[Numen !!GgBWHLRiayD No.13249015]

>>13245036
The observation and recording of physical phenomena, and the synthesis of knowledge obtained therefrom, never became obsolete. Have you ever even thought for yourself about what science actually is?

[Anonymous No.13249041]

>>13247618
It's valid because it can be turned into money. Nice try. The argumentation in support of the scientific method isn't because it's simply "right" or the truth but because it's the best thing we can do.

[Anonymous No.13249057]

>>13249041
You're not really arguing for anything by saying 'it's the best we can do' either. Think about what 'best we can do' means, and what 'technology' means, and you'll see the two of you are saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.13249094]

>>13245036
Science is a closed-model interpretation. Its not just an opinion.

[Anonymous No.13249112]

>>13249041
"Best we can do" is a loaded term. Scientific method is the best we can do to obtain the type of results we expect to get from science. All "best we can do" claims operate on circular reasoning, what defines "betterness" already defines the method, there is no "neutral state" of betterness that yields after the fact the best method.

[Anonymous No.13249119]

>>13247618
Technology existed before science, sweaty.

[Anonymous No.13249124]

Science is cancer.

[Anonymous No.13249132]

>>13245036
>the idea of a scientific method got btfo in 1975
Sauce? Pic related? Any further reading on this?

[Anonymous No.13249148]

>>13249132
Yes it is a fun (and obviously controversial) book. I also recommend Kuhn's Essential Tension for the same 'problematic' - both are classics and somewhat outdated. Make your way to the Stanford Encyclopedia and read the page on Feyerabend.

[Anonymous No.13249153]

>>13245036
>Paul Feyerabend
More like Paul Fedora-bend, amirite?

[Anonymous No.13249167]

let me know when hydrogen atoms stop being hydrogen atoms, then i'll take you anti-science people seriously.

[Anonymous No.13249170]

>>13249153
No he was actually a very rich chad who had lots of girlfriends and kept travelling around with them

[Anonymous No.13249177]

>Introduced by Ian Hacking
>Hack King
lol no thanks

[Anonymous No.13249182]

>>13249167
I think it's more about avoiding the mythification of science.

[Anonymous No.13249187]

>>13249182
scientism is a critique of popular culture, not the science itself.

[Anonymous No.13249197]

>>13249187
>of popular culture
Scientists are the problem themselves, quite in a literal sense.

[Anonymous No.13249203]

>>13249167
Just wondering who was anti-science ITT

[Anonymous No.13249215]

>>13245036
just because there is no method to science it doesn't mean there is no science. people devote time and effort in hopes of making a breakthrough and use maths to pin down the nature of that discovery and make it coherent with previous ones. repeat ad infinitum

[Anonymous No.13249216]

>>13249203
the op? science is not just an opinion lmao. it's literally true.

[Anonymous No.13249321]

>>13249167
There are no atoms. Its a name we give to a particular phenomena we observe.

[Anonymous No.13249325]

>>13249321
*eyeroll*
yes, how will we ever label anything? we are posting on very odd phenomena that we just label as 4channel dot org!

[Anonymous No.13249347]

>>13249197
how so? what did scientists do wrong except for reporting the phenomenas that they discovered?

[Anonymous No.13249362]

>>13249057
>>13249112
My comment was deconstructed. You're right. Am I however supposed to say that the scientific method is a theoretical framework based on assumptions and nothing more? I will anger STEMlets.
>>13249203
There aren't any anti-science people here. He just feels threatened. I heard the exact same phrase coming from overly religious people when people started talking about the Bible.

[Anonymous No.13249425]

>>13249216
The argument: What I see, hear or perceive by any means must be true in the sense that it corresponds to reality is an "opinion" (assumption).
So the foundation of science is based on at least one opinion.
Now you will claim my argument is stupid because it's so "obvious" that it must be the case. I don't really care. You will fail at proving the assumption and probably evade the whole problem by insulting me.

[Anonymous No.13249460]

>>13249325
The problem is that definition changes constantly. Atoms used to be the smallest particle and youd be an idiot for saying otherwise at a certain point in history. The thing im getting at is the idea of a smallest particle doesnt exist in nature, we use that idea to make the math work.

[Anonymous No.13249468]

>>13249347
I mean, scientists are not careful enough with what they report to the masses. Sometimes scientist come to the wrong conclusions based on "correct" experiments (correct in a methodological sense), journalism and the illiterate folks do the rest.

[Anonymous No.13249517]

>>13249460
The particular phenomenon was called atom and it's still the same thing. We just had an updated knowledge that it's no longer the smallest particle.

There is no issue with labeling phenomena. There is only issue with people not being pragmatic enough.

[Anonymous No.13249523]

>>13249170
He was also a singer and theater student and fought in WWII

[Anonymous No.13249529]

>>13249425
I would argue that science would still be applicable in non-realism situations. It's just that we haven't had chance to practice it.

[Anonymous No.13249603]

>>13249167
Yikes.
Go back and KYS.

[Anonymous No.13249608]

>>13249216
Name one (1) truth science has revealed (and held to).

[Anonymous No.13251075]

>>13249460
Fucking RETARD

[Anonymous No.13252743]

>>13245036
What scientific method? No one treats it as anything more than a basic set of principles, a starting point. Or even more, just some tools deriving an approach and later picking things apart. There's a scientific method for each little branch of a subdiscipline. Doesn't mean they don't have some common basic qualities.

[Anonymous No.13253866]

>>13251075
YIKES

[Anonymous No.13253966]

>>13253866
>Thinking a foetus has thoughts or feelings
>Resorting to appeal to emotion propaganda memes

And this is why science matters. Fuck cars and the internet, it's the only way to exterminate ignorance

[Anonymous No.13254003]

>>13253966
And a fetus isn't a person with its own inalienable rights? Talk about appeals to ignorance and feelings.

[Anonymous No.13254034]

Kuhn > Feyerabend

[Anonymous No.13254046]

>>13253966
>Thinking a human has thoughts or feelings
>Resorting to appeal to emotional propaganda memes
And this is why science matters. Fuck cars and the internet, it's the only way to exterminate ethics.

[Anonymous No.13254096]

>>13254003

> Argue that science can't accurately portray nature in itself
> Use language to define a process of nature as is life

We found the retard. Either you accept interpretation as the only possible (imperfect) truth since the subject is in itself imperfect and there would be no interpretation whatsoever in the first place if he were not to exist or you accept the impossibility of real complete knowledge and thus take Uncle Witty's advice and shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.13254102]

>>13254096
philosophy 101 and then done wrong.
Brainlet-tier.

[Anonymous No.13254160]

>>13245036
Against Method is not a critique of the means by which science has proceeded historically (Feyerabend's observation was that this means was essentially "anarchistic"), or any of its fruits; rather it is a critique of the belief that science has proceeded according to one formalised method, the claim that this (imaginary) method holds a monopoly on scientific revealtion, and the active prescription of this method on the above basis by certain scientific ilk. Feyerabend's remedy for this trend was his tentatively-put and somewhat tongue-in-cheek "epistemological anarchism".
>t. actually read the book

[Anonymous No.13254555]

>>13245036

[Anonymous No.13254957]

Science, and as a result technology and industrialization, are objectively more valuable than literature.

[Anonymous No.13254980]

>>13254957
ok but why are people generally unhappy in the first world or China and why hasn't science helped that

[Anonymous No.13255106]

>>13254957
>statistical information
>if i redefine 'value' as 'technology' then technology is the most valuable
YIKES

[Anonymous No.13256211]

>>13254160
It depresses me that you're the only other guy ITT who has actually read the book and understood it.

Everyone else deserves to be shot

[Anonymous No.13256223]

OP didn't even read the book he's posting about.

[Anonymous No.13256285]

>>13245036
Because I understand the Scientific Method and how it works. I thus, as a result, understand that it was never btfo and is indeed the greatest tool we have for expanding collective human knowledge.

Why are you still such a faggot, OP? What does your mother have to say about it?

[Anonymous No.13256326]

>>13245036
The people who believe in science don't even when it doesn't suit their purposes, like the science of race and IQ.

[Anonymous No.13256534]

>>13254957
>thinks industrialization is the consequence of scientists and their work and not the consequence of economical competition, popular consumption culture and capitalism.
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.13256569]

>>13256326
IQ is within psychology field which is not science.

[Anonymous No.13256572]

>>13256569
It's based on data

[Anonymous No.13257324]

>>13252743
This is half of the argument of Against Method, which admittedly OP botched.
Basically any prescriptive theory of how science "works" will inevitably fail to include some great scientific accomplishment in its conception of "science". In particular, Feyerabend identifies 4 heuristics which at the time were viewed by other philosophers as scientific paradigms and explains that had Galileo adhered to any of these methodologies he would not have made his discoveries. Instead, Feyerabend argues for an "anything goes" approach to scientific practice, and that practicing scientists (unconsciously) practice his "method".

[Anonymous No.13257348]

>>13254160
>>13256211
>>13257324
now there's 3 of us

[Anonymous No.13257363]

>>13256572
So..? IQ testing only describes the phenomena of how people score on IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.13257368]

>>13257324
I like this poster's take. Do you think that science is just an opinion?

[Anonymous No.13257376]

>>13257363
It is a coincidence that physics profs and lawyers have very high average IQ?

[Anonymous No.13257398]

>>13257376
Yes and no. It's not a coincidence in the sense that because they scored highly on a test that would enable them to bypass the gatekeepers, that they would become practitioners of these professions. The relationship between the unknown ontology of intelligence and IQ tests *is* purely coincidence.

[Anonymous No.13257641]

>>13257368
no

[Anonymous No.13257755]

>>13245036
Annoying science fags is amusing. I go around asserting my free will and they lose their shit XD.

[Anonymous No.13257762]

>>13247617
Excuse me engineering and the labour or power-plant workers keeps your lights on.

[Anonymous No.13257766]

>>13257398
They take the IQ tests after they're already physicists, one has nothing to do with the other. The more logical conclusion is that the same faculty is being used to take the test and to succeed as a physicist, ie. intelligence.

[Anonymous No.13257879]

>>13257766
so, you can't prove that there is a link? even if you do, it's still strictly within psychological realm which is not science.

[Anonymous No.13257909]

>>13257879
Are you just being wilfully obtuse?

[Anonymous No.13257924]

>>13257909
You haven't made any actual claim. Are you being obtuse?

[Anonymous No.13257930]

>>13257766
That's not true though. People score higher on I.Q. tests after they get trained in math and verbal communication.
Say before math training you score 103 after math training 118 where did those extra 15 points come from?

[Anonymous No.13257935]

>>13257924
The claim is that IQ tests measure intelligence(imperfectly) because people with high scores tend to succeed at things which require intelligence, and those with low scores are incapable of doing much of anything at all complex. You act like this is ridiculous when it makes perfect sense

[Anonymous No.13257960]

>>13257935
just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean that it actually accurately describes the phenomena of intelligence. newtonian mechanics "make sense" but it's nowhere close to being the physical truth.

[Anonymous No.13257980]

>>13257960
newtonian physics is extremely close to the 'truth' of how matter behaves in a very large number of scenarios.

You can argue that IQ is flawed and we don't properly understand intelligence, which I would agree with, but the complete rejection of all the evidence gathered in the field strikes me as biased.

[Anonymous No.13257988]

>>13257980
i don't reject the fact that black people score lower on iq tests than white people do on average. it's just unscientific and meaningless.

[Anonymous No.13258010]

>>13257988
Forget about black people if you want, just look within one race. It is not unscientific and meaningless if it predicts for outcomes. That's all science even does. It's like you just don't want to see the logic

[Anonymous No.13258024]

>>13245036
option for what?

[Anonymous No.13258040]

>>13258010
the bar for science is just not "predicts for outcomes". it has to actually describe the phenomena.

you're the one who is refusing to accept the logic of science.

[Anonymous No.13258058]

>>13258040
It does not have to actually describe the phenomena at all, some people think that that's not even possible. The laws of thermodynamics don't actually describe the phenomena, anything to do with gravity is complete memeing

The logic of science is about empirically testing to see what happens. You predict something, and then you see if it occurs, you establish causal links.

[Anonymous No.13258596]

>>13249119
what? really?
you mean stuff like horse carriages? bow and arrows?