I sometimes wonder if Science exists to be a thought-limiter

[skykiii]

Undoubtably its done some good, and certain concepts certainly need to be checked by science....

.... But overall, well...

I explained to someone once that one of my problems with a scientific world view is that it basically means whoever can afford the fancy machinery, controls the world, and that you're not allowed to think outside of paradigms some forty-dollar-a-month science journal says is okay.

EDIT: Sorry somehow hit "send" when I was trying to start a new paragraph. Not sure how that happens.

But like...

"Hey, what if I want to time travel back to the past?"

THE RELIGIOUS VIEW: "Ask God."

THE MAGIC VIEW: "Meditate hard enough and maybe it'll happen."

THE SCIENCE VIEW: "Win the lottery, get a spaceship and fly around really fast."

"Hey, my planet is currently controlled by an evil empire, what do I do?"

THE RELIGIOUS VIEW: God has a plan.

THE MAGICAL VIEW: Well we've been doing these dance ceremonies which might summon a flood...

THE SCIENCE VIEW: You need lasers. Wait, the evil empire owns all the lasers? Guess you're fucked, then.

This is before you get into stuff like behavioral science. Which is basically "you HAVE to behave like X because of something something survival in hunter-gatherer societies evolving a trait still around in modern people, even though logically this means everything we say people should be like seems to only ever happen in movies."

Anyway, just something that's been on my mind.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

You have basically made a case that science itself is classist and oppresses poor people.

Please don’t give them ideas. I don’t want them to cancel science.

 

[TenMilesWide]

This is before you get into stuff like behavioral science. Which is basically "you HAVE to behave like X because of something something survival in hunter-gatherer societies evolving a trait still around in modern people, even though logically this means everything we say people should be like seems to only ever happen in movies."

There is no proscriptive property to the scientific method: you don't HAVE to behave a certain way, we have simply observed that you DO and pondered on reasons why.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

whoever can afford the fancy machinery, controls the world, and that you're not allowed to think outside of paradigms some forty-dollar-a-month science journal says is okay

1. Not every science is an empirical experimental science. Look at deductive sciences like mathematics or praxeology.
2. The problem is not the science, but the "science", and especially the government funding of science and media, and the big role that government plays in picking winners and losers in the economy. If your livelihood strongly depends on government liking you and not outlawing or taxing you, then you better do what the government likes.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

All of them are limiting if you allow them to stifle your critical thought or lead you to inaction.

E.g. sitting around "trusting God's plan" while ignorant of the dangers and unwilling to take action just means you'll lose or die.

 

[Joe Swanson]

What you're describing is materialism, which is the philosophy that a lot of modern scientists marry themselves to.

 

[Kim]

Science gets you the nuclear bomb and airplanes.
"The Science" is what you dislike and it isn't the same thing.

Journalists have done so much damage to the public's perception of science it's just unreal.

 

[ADHD Mate]

Science is about creating theories that can predict shit, and then testing them.
That's all. You don't need anything fancy.

 

[N Space]

I explained to someone once that one of my problems with a scientific world view is that it basically means whoever can afford the fancy machinery, controls the world, and that you're not allowed to think outside of paradigms some forty-dollar-a-month science journal says is okay.

You always have the option of going the theoretical route, Einstein became famous not because of one particular experiment he performed, he became famous for coming up with several theories that turned out to be remarkably successful.

 

[Meth Dick]

You have basically made a case that science itself is classist and oppresses poor people.

Please don’t give them ideas. I don’t want them to cancel science.

They already try to cancel science when you remind them that biology is in fact, a science. They don't Trust The Science™ it seems.

 

[7.62x38mmR]

There is so much stuff "science" cannot explain that it's actually comical. If anything, pretty much every single field ends up with unanswered questions where "oh God just decided it was this way" can be a legitimate answer since we've got no fucking idea why some things are a certain way.

 

[Vect]

I'm going to quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson from a talk I personally attended - I know he's seen as cringe now, but he was the best articulator for the emotional gulf between man and science.

All of our atoms, all the parts of who we are, came from the stars: we are part of the universe, but the universe is part of us.

 

[conodont]

"Science men," not scientists, are 90% of the scientific community nowadays. They may be erudite, but they easily fall in line and are unable to innovate or challenge boundaries. In fact, the boundaries are mostly created by science men, and they're not okay to challenge. The mere acknowledgement that Jah exists or that the laws of the universe contradict each other is enough to get you ostracised for life unless you repent on your knees.

 

[We Are The Witches]

you're not allowed to think outside of paradigms some...

This in itself is unscientific.

The problem you have is with whoever is trying to push an agenda, ADHD Mate up there pretty much answered you already.

 

[Idiotron]

Here's the thing about science though:
You can create something for cheap and then use it to make a lot or use the plethora of amazing things we already have available in 2024.
You can do so much without even moving your ass because of the wonders of science such as smartphones and the internet.
People take shit for granted and don't do anything productive with it.

 

[libRT]

Soft-science is gay and is for brainlets and women (e.g. psychology, sociology etc). Alot of which is retards throwing out any old shit, which like parts of religion is just to manipulate and gain clout in circles. Though religion actually had its place in trying to keep the masses alive before it got all corrupted, the soft-sciences are just fags being fags for fags sake.

 

[Nero Fiddled]

I thought the world stopped doing science when it was scientifically proven that women have penises and men had periods, or did I read the memo wrong?

 

[Jewthulhu]

"Science men," not scientists, are 90% of the scientific community nowadays. They may be erudite, but they easily fall in line and are unable to innovate or challenge boundaries. In fact, the boundaries are mostly created by science men, and they're not okay to challenge. The mere acknowledgement that Jah exists or that the laws of the universe contradict each other is enough to get you ostracised for life unless you repent on your knees.

Most scientists are autistic people who hyperfixate on one particular aspect of whatever field they study. Their collective work results in a scientific consensus about a certain subject, which tends to be very complex and nuanced. While the scientific consensus on certain subjects is hard to break a lot of the time, it's largely because that consensus was driven by a lot of evidence-based research. A new consensus needs to account for the previous information, while taking into account new information (all of which needs to be proven to be significant).

The problem, in my eyes, is pop scientists. They take the scientific consensus and suck all the nuance out of it, resulting in overly simplistic and easily distrusted "rules." They're also are the ones with the habit of injecting their own beliefs into science and presenting it on the same level as their "rules." But, since *actual* science is fucking boring, complex, and incomprehensible to the uninitiated, people rely on pop scientists to get their information, resulting in a lot of blind faith on one side and mistrust on the other.

 

[Diesel Boogaloo]

I explained to someone once that one of my problems with a scientific world view is that it basically means whoever can afford the fancy machinery, controls the world, and that you're not allowed to think outside of paradigms some forty-dollar-a-month science journal says is okay.

Even teenage niggers in Africa can do science, your argument is invalid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

OP is describing scientism, the religion our society has. Scientism derives from science, but isn't actually science because it has a clergy consisting of pop science influencers (scientists who speak out their ass like Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson) and at the lower levels science journalists. Theoretically, science itself is an open process. That's why

If science has an actual problem, it's that it can't prove everything. Incompleteness theorem proves it. But this even extends at lower levels too. There's no good evidence disproving the anthropic principle, and the very existence of such a thing proves that a higher power exists. But science can't prove this higher power, all science can do is go "WTF" when you point to weird shit like there not being an equal amount of matter and antimatter created at the Big Bang or how beryllium-8's very short-lived state relates to nucleosynthesis of the carbon-12 which is the basis of all life.

Also, there's not many alternatives to science that aren't prone to the same problem. Just look at traditional Chinese medicine, it's full of all these obscure rules and requires an expert to read hundreds of texts written over the course of 2,500 years. Today the CCP act as its gatekeepers. That doesn't make the gatekeepers of science-based medicine Big Pharma any good, but I'd rather trust their cures than I would some sketchy Chinese doctor. Hell, I can even use the process of science to pick and choose, like if I'm worried about covid-19, I can look at my risk factor based on my health and then the effectiveness of the "vaccine" for it and say "yeah, I probably don't need to take this dangerous injection that has marginal at best utility, just like I don't need to take pills of ground-up bat penises."

Soft-science is gay and is for brainlets and women (e.g. psychology, sociology etc). Alot of which is retards throwing out any old shit, which like parts of religion is just to manipulate and gain clout in circles. Though religion actually had its place in trying to keep the masses alive before it got all corrupted, the soft-sciences are just fags being fags for fags sake.

Soft science is how you control societies. Sociology controls the relations between groups of people, anthropology controls how we relate to the world, history and literature controls a society's outlooks and grounds us in our moment, psychology controls how our minds function. The left wins so much because they control these fields and use it to propagate leftism to even infants.

If we'd kicked the Frankfurt School and their disiciples out of sociology (the first discipline to be wholly subverted) and forced the commies in academia deep underground (as they were in the 40s and 50s), we wouldn't be having many of the problems we see today. But we didn't, so now we have 60 years of "scholarship" in sociology and the soft sciences that advances a communist agenda so now are "established facts" that politicians and courts and corporate boards can point to when you challenge ideas like diversity being an inherent good or white people being evil oppressors.