Anti-Trump Witches trying to figure out which of them cast the spell to give Trump Covid-19

[Dwarvenhobble]

I confess, my education in philosophy is a bit patchy. Could you break that down for me?

Well the easy definition of science would be

"The search for truth"

The problem then is under post modernist philosophy there is no truth only personal truth due to perception and the argument would be perception changes from person to person so only personal truth counts thus evidence is not evidence unless it is evidence from the personal experience of a person. The problem being this idea is then ironically backed up by Science which points this out as our perception of reality may not be the perception of all other sentient life. Hell around 40% of the world see the colour Red entirely different to others due to certain rods or cones (whichever it is that controls colour in the eye) and the differences in them and not it's not merely a form of colour blindness.

Even then you when you get to Quantum mechanics stuff we're working on the basis what is know will be proven true at some point even if work derived from some of it can be shown to hold true.

All of this complicated by the modern world and how hard it gets to find truth.

 

[Hawki]

It's really just part of a whole stupid push calling itself "indigenous Science"

I wouldn't go that far.

By the link you posted, I'm skeptical of anyone infusing spirituality with science, but I'll put it this way. It's a given fact that land managed by indigenous peoples retains a higher level of biodiversity than even national parks. We can debate how and why, but these are the results. Or, to use an example close to home, I'm all for bringing back indigenous fire management skills, because fire suppression is part of why we had the blazes in Oz we did last year, and part of what's going on in California right now. You don't survive on a continent like this by being stupid.

The stupid claims are because they mostly don't understand Science and are trying to push "Indigenous Science" ideas to replace hard science because of what can best be described as a post modernist push for subjectivity over objectivity and Science being very much trying to be objective normally which destroys the idea of "peoples own truths"

Again, to clarify, the girl in the video is making rediculous claims. But I don't think indigenous science has to "replace" modern science. Like I stated, there's cases where indigenous knowledge has indeed been ahead of the game.

 

[Buyetyen]

Well the easy definition of science would be

You didn't answer my question, but that's okay because I wasn't asking you. Also, I was asking the smart guy to explain the Crisis of Modernity. Your non-answer only showed you don't know what that is either.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I confess, my education in philosophy is a bit patchy. Could you break that down for me?

Let's assume that we can treat science as a single thing, which historically we can't because people often have very different ideas about what science should be and how to do it. But if we assume that all these different ideas are lumped together in a single category called science, then what fundamentally unites them is the desire to produce universally true statements. That is, statements which don't rely on the particular perspective of an individual, but can recognized by anyone.

Mathematics is a good example. Mathematics is an entirely consistent system which is (or can make a reasonable claim to be) universal. Furthermore, if we know the universals, if we know the rules of mathematics, then we can start to manipulate mathematics to our own ends. Similarly, if we can take nature, with all its complex and chaotic and frightening occurrences, and reduce those phenomena to universals, then we have the ability to manipulate natural forces in a consistent fashion. How much fuel do we need to put in our rocket to get to the moon? If we know the universals, then we can sit down and do the maths and know.

That's the really cool thing about science. It works, or it seems to work.

But universal truth implies something more than just "it works". Any believer in magic or miracles can claim that it works (sometimes). We have staked our entire civilization on this idea of universal truths, and on the ability of science to produce them, and we need to know for sure that they are actually universal.

So how do we know something for sure?

Oh, right..

In very very simple term, that's the "crisis". We have a science that works, but we cannot actually substantiate why it works. We cannot use science to validate the ability of science to produce universal truths, because that would be circular.

On an everyday level, that doesn't really mean much. But it does mean that we should be mindful of the limitations of scientific knowledge, and skeptical of the way "science" is used in a political or aesthetic context, because the colloquial use of science is often completely divorced from any of the things which make science useful. Science can be the maths that takes you to the moon, but it can also be purely an aesthetic convention. It can be a kind of magic dust you can sprinkle onto any statement to make it sound truthful, and that is potentially very dangerous.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I wouldn't go that far.

By the link you posted, I'm skeptical of anyone infusing spirituality with science, but I'll put it this way. It's a given fact that land managed by indigenous peoples retains a higher level of biodiversity than even national parks. We can debate how and why, but these are the results. Or, to use an example close to home, I'm all for bringing back indigenous fire management skills, because fire suppression is part of why we had the blazes in Oz we did last year, and part of what's going on in California right now. You don't survive on a continent like this by being stupid.



Again, to clarify, the girl in the video is making rediculous claims. But I don't think indigenous science has to "replace" modern science. Like I stated, there's cases where indigenous knowledge has indeed been ahead of the game.

There are arguments for some knowledge etc being looked into and in some cases there are arguments about them being ahead of things in some aspects. Though in an age of extremes some people want all of it to be accepted not just the provable stuff. It shouldn't have to replace it but people can't see to accept the idea of Science itself being something that adapts to knew knowledge.

Let's assume that we can treat science as a single thing, which historically we can't because people often have very different ideas about what science should be and how to do it. But if we assume that all these different ideas are lumped together in a single category called science, then what fundamentally unites them is the desire to produce universally true statements. That is, statements which don't rely on the particular perspective of an individual, but can recognized by anyone.

Mathematics is a good example. Mathematics is an entirely consistent system which is (or can make a reasonable claim to be) universal. Furthermore, if we know the universals, if we know the rules of mathematics, then we can start to manipulate mathematics to our own ends. If we could take nature, with all its complex and chaotic and frightening occurrences, and reduce those phenomena to universals, then we have the ability to manipulate natural forces in a consistent fashion. How much fuel do we need to put in our rocket to get to the moon? If we know the universals, then we can sit down and do the maths and know.

That's the really cool thing about science. It works, or it seems to work.

But universal truth implies something more than just "it works". Any believer in magic or miracles can claim that it works (sometimes). We have staked our entire civilization on this idea of universal truths, and on the ability of science to produce them, and we need to know for sure that they are actually universal.

So how do we know something for sure?

Oh, right..

In very very simple term, that's the "crisis". We have a science that works, but we cannot actually substantiate why it works. We cannot use science to validate the ability of science to produce universal claims, because that would be circular. On an everyday level, that doesn't really mean much except that we should probably be wary of the way "science" is used in a political or aesthetic context, which is just good advice anyway. But philosophically, it is kind of a huge problem that we can't produce universal knowledge, and it has all kinds of implications way beyond abstract scientific questions.

Or to break it down further

 

[Agema]

Well it's a vague question to ask what is Science.

It surely isn't a vague question: it's very simple and direct.

It's more that the answer is surprisingly complex: people write whole books trying to explain what science is and arguments over it have run for decades, still unresolved. Frankly, your average scientist doesn't really know what science is in depth, they just tend to know how it's done within the relatively small part of it that they work in.

 

[Buyetyen]

In very very simple term, that's the "crisis". We have a science that works, but we cannot actually substantiate why it works. We cannot use science to validate the ability of science to produce universal truths, because that would be circular.

On an everyday level, that doesn't really mean much. But it does mean that we should be mindful of the limitations of scientific knowledge, and skeptical of the way "science" is used in a political or aesthetic context, because the colloquial use of science is often completely divorced from any of the things which make science useful. Science can be the maths that takes you to the moon, but it can also be purely an aesthetic convention. It can be a kind of magic dust you can sprinkle onto any statement to make it sound truthful, and that is potentially very dangerous.

That clears things up, thank you. I also get why some people would not want to meditate on this: there's no easy solution and it leads them to question science in a way they haven't before.

Aside, you ever notice how people who insist they're super-logical don't know dick about philosophy?

 

[Shadyside]

The process of understanding that which is around us from our perception.

 

[Shadyside]

Perhaps Plato was right all along.

Theory of forms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It surely isn't a vague question: it's very simple and direct.

It's more that the answer is surprisingly complex: people write whole books trying to explain what science is and arguments over it have run for decades, still unresolved. Frankly, your average scientist doesn't really know what science is in depth, they just tend to know how it's done within the relatively small part of it that they work in.

Ah but it is from a philosophical angle for what is life itself and only then can you define Science. To some Science is oppression, to others freedom. To some understanding and to others heresy. Which then brings up which idea is the definition and the idea of truth itself.

 

[Agema]

To some Science is oppression, to others freedom.

Yep. It sure was oppression, when it was busy "proving" that women and black people were intellectually inferior to white men.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yep. It sure was oppression, when it was busy "proving" that women and black people were intellectually inferior to white men.

That would be more the social sciences than the hard sciences really lol

 

[Agema]

That would be more the social sciences than the hard sciences really lol

Oh, I can quite assure you that "hard" scientists have been involved in that endeavour.

Also, there isn't really a clear boundary between hard and social sciences. Not least because the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science. By the common definitions of hard and soft sciences, some elements of what we think of as "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) are actually distinctly soft.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Oh, I can quite assure you that "hard" scientists have been involved in that endeavour.

Also, there isn't really a clear boundary between hard and social sciences. Not least because the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science. By the common definitions of hard and soft sciences, some elements of what we think of as "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) are actually distinctly soft.

You sure it wasn't Phrenology?

 

[Agema]

You sure it wasn't Phrenology?

Nope. Phrenology was invented in the late 1700s or so and dead to the scientific world within two generations, although it creaked along as a societal belief and with some cranks for about another century.

 

[Buyetyen]

That would be more the social sciences than the hard sciences really lol

Correction: the science of the Enlightenment era was very intent on finding scientific justification for bigotry, slavery, colonialism and other assorted moral and ethical failures of the time. Biology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, medicine, the list goes on. All trying to prove the inherent superiority of white men over everybody else.

Science is not a religion, my dude. Absolute faith in its ability to divine truth completely removes the X factor of humanity from the equation and makes you more likely to accept junk science as legit.

Nope. Phrenology was invented in the late 1700s or so and dead to the scientific world within two generations, although it creaked along as a societal belief and with some cranks for about another century.

And now the cranks are trying to bring it back rebranded as "craneometry." Remember Quillette praising Boris Johnson's "broad, Germanic forehead?"

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Correction: the science of the Enlightenment era was very intent on finding scientific justification for bigotry, slavery, colonialism and other assorted moral and ethical failures of the time. Biology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, medicine, the list goes on. All trying to prove the inherent superiority of white men over everybody else.

Science is not a religion, my dude. Absolute faith in its ability to divine truth completely removes the X factor of humanity from the equation and makes you more likely to accept junk science as legit.



And now the cranks are trying to bring it back rebranded as "craneometry." Remember Quillette praising Boris Johnson's "broad, Germanic forehead?"

And long before that medical science thought you could stop a person chocking by putting bread in each of their ears. Or after that there was blood letting etc. Science isn't perfect but it does and has evolved over time.

The weird attempt by some to throw all of Science out because it was wrong in the past kind of show a failure to grasp that Science does evolve over time as our knowledge does and it's hard for fake research to survive long comparatively even in some of the more specialised areas.

 

[Revnak]

Are witches Antifa? Are Antifa witches? I really feel we’re coming dangerously close to literal witch trials and I’m about it.

 

[lil devils x]

Are witches Antifa? Are Antifa witches? I really feel we’re coming dangerously close to literal witch trials and I’m about it.

People setting each other on fire at the protest FINALLY makes sense. They were testing to see if they were witches or not.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And long before that medical science thought you could stop a person chocking by putting bread in each of their ears. Or after that there was blood letting etc. Science isn't perfect but it does and has evolved over time.

The weird attempt by some to throw all of Science out because it was wrong in the past kind of show a failure to grasp that Science does evolve over time as our knowledge does and it's hard for fake research to survive long comparatively even in some of the more specialised areas.

...half of white medical trainees think Black people have thicker skin or feel
less pain than white people.
This is now.

How we fail black patients in pain

An expert looks at how false notions and hidden biases fuel inadequate treatment of minorities’ pain.

www.aamc.org

Our science has a massive number of biases, a lot of which most people don't recognize. I can see the argument for starting the slate clean.