meanwhile in physics: "ok, so like, there are these strings that are like vibrating, maaaaan..."Shush. You're not supposed to mention that when people want to diss social sciences.
meanwhile in physics: "ok, so like, there are these strings that are like vibrating, maaaaan..."Shush. You're not supposed to mention that when people want to diss social sciences.
Wait, physicists are still on that? *checks wiki*meanwhile in physics: "ok, so like, there are these strings that are like vibrating, maaaaan..."
Physics seems be in large part "Here's a load of mathematical equations showing stuff. What do you mean, prove it's real with an experiment?"meanwhile in physics: "ok, so like, there are these strings that are like vibrating, maaaaan..."
I...just... if this actually happened it would be a good thing. It doesn't, at least not regularly enough. Physicist get away with not replicating things far too often to, mainly because there is zero money in replication. The best thing I can say about physicist is that they are more regularly attacked by their other scientists. And, this is a personal theory of mine, they are laser focused on a grand unifying theory that limits how physicists tackle problems.That is kinda unfair considering that physicists try to prove/disprove it whenever someone agrees to fund their multi-million-dollar experiments.
More a case of "What you you mean you want to know how that knowledge could be used ?"
I think it's not so much the millions of pounds as the extra 50 years technology to even make the experiment possible.That is kinda unfair considering that physicists try to prove/disprove it whenever someone agrees to fund their multi-million-dollar experiments.
Yep.Physics seems be in large part "Here's a load of mathematical equations showing stuff. What do you mean, prove it's real with an experiment?"
I think there is a misunderstanding of how science works. Much of it is eventually dismissed because new data has come out to disprove it. That's how science is DESIGNED. Failure is a feature, not a bug. I think of medicine and what they had 'proven' 100 to 200 years ago. Most of it was nonsense.Yep.
To be fair, it's difficult to think of things they could prove with experiments that haven't been done already or wouldn't require absurd expense. "The math looks good, maybe it's that" is about all one can reasonably expect.
Right. I'm just saying though, few people would think me a great biological scientist if I made a huge number of speculations that I never bothered to back up with an experiment. That's not to say biologists haven't made waves with theories that they couldn't defend at the time experimentally, but they don't have the same sort of entire field based on it.I think there is a misunderstanding of how science works. Much of it is eventually dismissed because new data has come out to disprove it. That's how science is DESIGNED. Failure is a feature, not a bug. I think of medicine and what they had 'proven' 100 to 200 years ago. Most of it was nonsense.
Theoretical Physics (or even astronomical)is especially interesting becuase much of what they think about is unprovable with today's technology. The most important part of your quote here is the maybe. Scientists should have a willingness to say maybe on everything they've discovered
More or less agree.THe problem isn't being woke, its not getting the wokeness.The problem with woke ideas isn't that the policies aren't good. Rights for LGBTQ+ will do an enormous amount of good both in society and especially towards those that need it in those communities. Sam bee who I don't agree with on many issues said it best, there's a 100% chance a trans person will need to use the bathroom, and gay marriage is basically an economic issue due to the tax benefits.
Ditto for police reform & defunding, immigration, and economic justice for Hispanic-Americans, and African-Americans.
It's that some people including the US military, CIA, Amazon, and etc. are using, and co-opting progressive language in bad faith, and to further their own goals. granted their competitors Russia, and China are even more hellish versions of the US government in their plutocracy, and capitalism due to the income inequality in Russia, and China.
And the global left-wing governments aren't that much better, they side with either side because they are too chicken-shit to start the third side. The lefty-south American government's side with Russia, and China, and the left-Europeans with the Americans.
There are a few ways to deal with this that are realistic.
- Form a lefty coalition in the US, and abroad with trans people, and people of color in the coalition, and hold the line against being co-opted, and bad faith arguments.
- Attack the bad faith arguments directly, and the bad faith actors
- Focus on non-political corrected align labor groups(working class, people of color) and abandon trans issues(problems with this)
- Force the social issues, and call the bad faith actors buff while working on econ issues in combination with identity politics
The problems with abandoning trans rights are that you lose a valuable part of your coalition to the right-wing, and center. I also have this feeling that trans-people are not the new same-sex gay and bi people that then supposedly sided with corporations, and the establishment like said Mayor Pete, and Sinema is. And even then there are many LGBTQ people, for example, trying to reclaim San Francisco from the tech bros, and in Seattle who are on the ground organizing, you just don't see them on TV.
And then the cops attacking those same protestors an hour or so later because cops.Finding common ground between BLM protestors and lawenforcment? Great, plenty of photos and videos of just that either coming to eachothers aid, BLM using themselves as human sheilds against rioters to protect cops, cops kneeling with them, and so on and so on.
I like to think it’s the fault of the logical positivists and the rest of the Anglo modernists and their obsession with falsifiability as the most important part of the scientific method over replicability. I personally view the latter as more important to forming an accurate image of reality, at some point any framework will have axioms and viewing that as inherently “bad” is impractical and makes for bad science.Just gotta point out, this seems to be similar for medicine. Like 44% of medicinal experiments cant be replicated. While not as bad as psychology and economics, still pretty bad. It's a problem we have with science in general
Disagree. I'm not sure what the situation is/was elsewhere, but here, you could get a civil union that was basically a marriage in all but name until gay marriage became legalized in the 2010s. If it was purely an economic issue, there wouldn't have needed to be the campaign that there was. Course I can't speak for everyone, but the question of whether same-sex couples can marry is a question of dignity/equality, not economics.and gay marriage is basically an economic issue due to the tax benefits.
China's actually a more equal society than the US or Russia, at least going by the Gini co-efficient. As for companies appropriting progressive language, I mean, yeah, they do, but it's academic to the topic at hand (unless you're talking about mandated diversity/sensitivity training and whatnot).It's that some people including the US military, CIA, Amazon, and etc. are using, and co-opting progressive language in bad faith, and to further their own goals. granted their competitors Russia, and China are even more hellish versions of the US government in their plutocracy, and capitalism due to the income inequality in Russia, and China.
- Form a lefty coalition in the US, and abroad with trans people, and people of color in the coalition, and hold the line against being co-opted, and bad faith arguments.
- Attack the bad faith arguments directly, and the bad faith actors
- Focus on non-political corrected align labor groups(working class, people of color) and abandon trans issues(problems with this)
- Force the social issues, and call the bad faith actors buff while working on econ issues in combination with identity politics
Shh, there are only two political positions that exist, and each includes a stance on every conceivable issue. Any deviation from one of the two allowed positions makes you a traitor to the cause. Trans rights is gun control and if you don't agree with both you are a literal white supremacist.You can care about the working class, you can care about trans rights, but those are separate issues.
I'm not sure this "obsession with falsifiability" has ever existed as you think it does.I like to think it’s the fault of the logical positivists and the rest of the Anglo modernists and their obsession with falsifiability as the most important part of the scientific method over replicability. I personally view the latter as more important to forming an accurate image of reality, at some point any framework will have axioms and viewing that as inherently “bad” is impractical and makes for bad science.
Would you say that it's more time consuming and stressful than working a 40 hour week at minimum wage?Tried that once when i was in the Pirate party. Doesn't work. Even if everyone was able to take part in every decision both from ability and opportunity, that is just way too time consuming and stressful.
I feel like the idea that being a politician is a full time job is frankly laughable. The fact that you think a technocracy would be a reasonable form of government, that people who already have full time jobs could also find time to engage in the political process, kind of puts paid to what an enormous lie that is.Politician is most of the time a full time job for a reason.
What is it?I know the difference of science and natural philosophy.
Where exactly was science firmly established?And Kant living his adult life in latter half of the 18th century lived at a time where science was long firmly established. Yes, most of the flashy innovation come later but a lot already had been discovered in those roughly one and a half century of scientific progress.
And I still maintain that that's an incredibly reductive answer. For one, it equates scientific "race theory" being synonymous with the Nazi interpretation of racial theory. Now, that's not entirely wrong. You can certainly draw a pretty clear line between the way topics like eugenics were covered in public education before and after world war 2, but the point of my comment was that racial theory wasn't confined to the kind of overt racial supremacism advocated by the Nazis.You didn't ask where racism or even only race theory comes from. If you had, i would have started way earlier. Instead you asked about the event that led to race theory being no longer taught. And the reason for that was the fall of the Nazis.
What model of ideological critique are you using to decide that?I also would not call racism an ideological system. It is not.
To whom?Yes, even today. They can't. And if they actually could prove race theory, the proper thing for us would be to accept that they were right. But they can't.
See, this is the problem.Well yes. But that is just the science part of "social science". That is not some recent addition from philosophy. Science has battled with experimentator bias a long time. Especially for experiments where humans are involved a lot. Blind experiments to limit bias were already done in Kants time.
It is not enough to "educate" people. To make good decisions, they need to know what people argue about at the time and they need to actually read arguments of the sides, maybe even look for further sources and then form a opinion. And on every new issue again. And again.If it's possible to educate a political class, to that degree, then it should also be possible to educate everyone, or almost everyone. If it's possible to have a class of people who can work "full time jobs" and also be politically engaged, then why can't everyone be encouraged and emboldened to meet the same standard?
I am not sure what your schools are teaching, but i would question teaching "humans don't have races" could be construed in any plausible way as still teaching race theory.I'm pretty sure you could make a very convincing argument that we never stopped teaching scientific racism in schools, because we still tend to teach race as if it is a self-evident biological category defined by traits.
Who cares what people believe ? Race theory predicted differences that could be falsified. And were. Repeatedly. End of story. Yes, it took a while and we learned new things about sampling on the way. People who still believe it are as relevant to its merit as people believing in homeopathy. Just because someone believes in it it doesn't become trueA lot of people still believe scientific race theory is real. Heck, again, depending on how you categorize racial theory most people still believe elements of racial theory. Given that, one could flip the assumption around and ask why you can't prove that racial theory is pseudoscience, because you can't. Not to the satisfaction of everyone.
You are right, that is the problem.You don't actually know enough to understand the limits of your own knowledge, because if you did some part of you would stop you here and say "wait, is there something I'm missing", and there is. Once again, you haven't actually thought about this at all, and you haven't understood the basics of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking to you as an equal, this is a pedagogical mode of speech of the kind I would use to explain these concepts to undergraduates, The fact that you don't seem to understand that is a bit sad and kind of exhausting to deal with.
They are not codependend at all. Which is why scientists have basically no philosophy and philosophers no science in most university curriculums. They very much don't need it. They also don't really use it, know it or understand it. And it is not just the curriculums, there haven't really been any new ideas from one field gaining traction in the other for quite some time. Or when was the last time you remember that new scientific discoveries changed the philosophical discourse meaningfully ? It doesn't even help. How is that co-dependend ?What's really bizarre to me is this absolutely incomprehensible display of misguided STEM elitism whereby you seem to want to turn this into some debate of science versus philosophy (going so far as to assert that that distinction magically existed in history when it didn't). It's a pointless debate to begin with, even before you start throwing around anachronisms, because we live in a world where the two are incredibly mutually co-dependent.
And what do you mean with this ?We are, in fact, very fortunate that science doesn't actually work the way you think it does, because there are few things in history more terrifying and potentially destructive than the uncritical application of scientific principles.
OK, what is the fundamental disagreement ?A good exercise to consider might be to ask what is our fundamental disagreement, because frankly I'm having trouble figuring it out. It is, however, definitely not science versus philosophy. That's such an asinine debate I'm not giving it any more time than I already have.