Holy shit... this dude destroyed science. Why does nobody talk about this?

Holy shit... this dude destroyed science. Why does nobody talk about this?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You answered your own question.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science isn't something which can be destroyed. Science is natural philosophy as action. Natural philosophy is science as intuition. Mathematics is the means by which natural philosophy becomes capable of action. All of these things are indestructible, so long as Humans exist.

    In what way does this man, "destroy science?"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Debunks logical positivism and the general framework which science is understood in the modern pworld.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, sounds like a pointless read, honestly.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nobody is a logical positivist anymore, constructivism is far more common in universities

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Science is natural philosophy as action. Natural philosophy is science as intuition. Mathematics is the means by which natural philosophy becomes capable of action.
      What an embarrassing moronic statement. Did you come up with that yourself?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Try argument next time, troony pseud. Three phd'd stems in my family btw. Two in progress, for a total of five, that is. Yeah, eat shit.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a family of academics
          this is not something to be proud of

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            P L E B C O P E
            Additionally, they don't work in the academies.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            MDs and JDs are leagues better than PhDs
            simple as

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m a shitposting lawyer and I get into arguments with my girlfriend constantly about “what is science” purely to russle her jimmy’s as an anthropologist (she’s very cute when she’s at it). I drop Foucault and Marx and “scientific” jurisprudence. Will OP’s book make me even better at this line of questioning?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, Against Reason will allow you to bait your girlfriend better. Unless she's already an Engelsian.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are any of the PHDs you bro?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In time, copepleb, in time.

            MDs and JDs are leagues better than PhDs
            simple as

            Wrong, but I have one of those in the making too. My sister was top of her law school class and the first to be offered a job.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Three phd'd stems in my family btw
          But you have none lol.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm an phys undergrad, of course I don't have one, but I will.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Observation of nothing isn't a scientific conclusion

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More gutter pleb ad hominems. *Yawn* Post an actual counter-argument or suicide already.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Science without a methodology is extremely expensive c**t

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Confused.

            >Mathematics is the means by which natural philosophy becomes capable of action
            aaaaaaand now you overshot your midwit capacities and produced this nonsense

            Filtered.

            Yeah, whatever plebs. Talking to you, like reading OPs book, is pointless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For you talking is always pointless

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Confused.
            the more holes there are the more you need to do

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Haha I remember being this exact kind of person when I was a physics undergrad. The field is a joke mate, I wish you all the best, but you'll come to appreciate Popper and Feyerabend more in the coming years. I think a really big issue in modern physics is philosophical illiteracy which leads to extreme tunnel vision and inability to process the results and what they could potentially mean.
            Out of curiosity, why did you choose physics?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was looking for new innovative ways to fit more wieners in my mouth when I heard about quantum physics

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Super impressive with your family, shame about you tho.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          reported for underage

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Explains why you're so dogmatic about it. If your family can't explain to you or hasn't already why academia is an absolute fraudulent institution and a PhD doesn't mean anything other than the ability to eat shit for years then they are either a) moronic sheep themselves or b) ignoring their actual intellect in order to get ahead. Both are reprehensible positions. Sadly, you've been left in the lurch of total naivete.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like a kid who brags to his friend about his dad's job being better that their dad's job. Have you not realised that no historian judges the greatness of a man by the achievements his relatives made? Rather than being impressive, you only draw attention to the fact that you have no accomplishments of your own.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Mathematics is the means by which natural philosophy becomes capable of action
      aaaaaaand now you overshot your midwit capacities and produced this nonsense

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've seen philosophers mention it. No one else really cares. Scientists kind of hint that what they are saying is bullshit sometimes but they don't really have the conceptual structure to make sense of what they even mean by it.
    But the main reason is because the illusion of total human domination over nature is the whole underlying myth of modern society, the state, academia, and every large institution. It's a foundational myth that justifies every abuse and horrific thing they do. (I got into it after covid and I think a good number of people did)

    He has a really good rule of thumb that any one discussing scientific information outside of a scientific context (say with physics/using math) they are literally just social engineering, because it's all they are capable of.
    That gives good context as to why people don't talk about this, "scientific" discussion and ideas is one of the primary means of degrading the population and training them to be manipulated by the powers that be.
    >We are just atoms that appear to be a human being
    >We are just evolved monkeys
    >We can kill fetuses they are just a clump of cells
    >Everyone just a clump of cells
    >I have no dignity and the State is justified no matter how they abuse me

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >That gives good context as to why people don't talk about this, "scientific" discussion and ideas is one of the primary means of degrading the population and training them to be manipulated by the powers that be.
      I think I get this point, but how is that different to theocracy, or monarchy (for a more concrete method of unfair control).

      Also, 2 things can be true at the same time, but your monkey argument demonstrates you don't actually know what evolution is: we didn't evolve from monkeys because monkeys exist today.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we didn't evolve from monkeys because monkeys exist today.
        How autistic are you that you felt the need to type this out?
        Obviously he was making cheap remark

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >How autistic are you that you felt the need to type this out?
          It's not autistic to be correct. It's autistic to be incorrect but believe adamantly otherwise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >autism is whatever I find convenient
            yes, insisiting on making everything "correct" regardless of circumstance is autism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which is what you're doing, no?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no i'm the brad lite at the party telling you to stop scaring the hoes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the majority of scientists probably deserve to be put in jail and many would probably merit public executions (after a fair trial).
        Like I said the "truth" of scientific facts (models that are practical and map onto the world are not true) doesn't matter at all. No one gives a frick what's real. Not scientists, not academics, it's not set up for that, and ESPECIALLY not science PR people who publicize and talk about science.
        ALL that matters is subjugating people, getting them to blindly submit to the state, and endure all possible indignities for the sake of global control and manipulation. It's about the flow of money/energy. Science and what people research is dictated by universities, corporations, government funding, billionaires, etc. And who will publish it.

        The entire modern scientific enterprise only exists and is dignified at all so the powers that be can grab whatever morcel is useful, and use it has a hammer to destroy whatever they can.

        As a point people do think we evolved from monkeys, I know if you press them they'd say "Uh maybe chimpanzees are closer or something?" but that doesn't matter. What matters is what ideas are in people's head that impacts their self image. The "science" is what tells you when you go to a zoo, and see some primate throwing shit that you came from it (and are equal to it).
        That's the image people operate under, that's what matters.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >As a point people do think we evolved from monkeys,
          You. As a point, you think that. As explained we don't come from monkeys.

          >The "science" is what tells you when you go to a zoo, and see some primate throwing shit that you came from it (and are equal to it).
          I think some self awareness is in order for you. Look what you scraped from the arse end of your brain and threw at our screens.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So he's criticising scientism rather than the scientific method?
      People have known that Popper wasn't able to solve Muchhausen's trilemma in the 1930s and just pushed it to the side.
      Political theology, which is what you are referring to, was written about by Carl Schmitt in the 1930s as well.
      This Feyerabend guy sounds like a hack.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No he does that as well. Mainly pointing that scientific innovations often come from things like Alchemy, religious views, just fricking around because you like a certain plant, and other bizarre things. The scientific method has basically never been a significant factor in any major advance, it's just a way of refining what is already known. The idea is just pushed to increase the idea and integrity of science. He advocates for a sort of totally open approach to science, encouraging people to use any possible method or approach. Including the things I mentioned above, mythology, astrology, whatever. He encouraged them teaching the biblical creation story in school as an alternative equal to the normal one even though he wasn't at all religious at all.

        I'm mostly sharing my own views but they are partly informed by Feyerbend.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The foundations of knowing things (science) are categorisation and analogy. Anything else is garbage.
          Alchemy/religious views are used to train your mind with analogies.
          Having an autism for plants presupposes you like categorising.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's actual science, modern science is more about following bureaucratic structures that exist to keep the machine going. Bureaucracy is fundamentally contrary to contact w/ reality, or analogies because anything that exists within it has to be reproduceable and easily engaged with at scale. That also in such a way there is "nothing more" past what exists at scale, it is about restricting our interaction with the things we know to such a way that they can be explicitly integrated with those largest systems.

            Even then modern science has never been concerned with knowledge. It's about constructing models that help you practically engage with the world, and be able to predict things. Models aren't knowledge, there are infinite models that can be fit to any dataset. Most of say physics as it's sort of the epitome of this, has almost 0 idea of what they are actually referring to. They have highly refined models, with many sorts of "objects" within those models and how they interact, but they have no interest in what those objects actually are. (some will say they don't actually exist which I am inclined to agree with)

            It applies just as much to far more practical sciences like medicine, things are largely determined again by the larger economic structures (insurance, malpractice insurance, research things I mentioned above, political issues, something you can teach to a moron because of lowering standards to doctors (which also impacts what the "good" doctors are taught/trained with))
            We literally have the medical industry regularly totally destroying the lives of children because of some schizophrenic model of what a human being is and what sex is that got funded by some billionaires. Truth, knowledge, is just not an interest of them.
            They mimic many aspects of genuine science, but what determines your nature is your structure not if one exception is legitimate. The structure of what science is nowadays is if anything contrary to knowledge, not seeking it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >illusion of total human domination over nature
      What a false statement that is. You mention COVID which is literally proof we don't have dominion over nature due to the inability to proactively stop such an event.
      >manipulated by the powers that be.
      oh shit sorry, didn't realize you were trolling

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        sorry you are just moronic, reread the sentence you quoted

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Works on my machine. I'm sorry this happened to you or am glad for you.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Holy shit... this dude destroyed science. Why does nobody talk about this?
    I literally trolled this shit with Popper Kuhn Lakatos Feyerabend for years.

    Feyerabend doesn't destroy Science as a social practice, he destroys it as a discipline capable of claiming truth within its own structure.

    Lakatos *LIED* about having a refutation for years then died.

    Popper's a c**t. Kuhn is interesting because he introduces historiography and thus sociology/anthropology to the study of science. After Feyerabend wipes the board with philosophy of science, for 40 years people try to deal historiographically and sociologically/anthropology with science-as-it-actually-is-practiced.

    Anyway, SMOKE CONES SUCK BONES.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you need a background in like fifteen obscure philosophers from the 19th century to read this or does it stand well on its own?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Read laktos' book then this book or not it's really not relevant.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this is like asking if someone who owns the book should use it or just look at it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did this lil' homie just diss me or what

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Of course the pettifogging shyster is moronic and illiterate kek

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because unlike philosophers science actually works.
    Descartes already figured this shit out. If you don't constantly correct with physical experiments your reasoning will always lead you astray cause physical reality is simply to complicated. And that includes the physical reality of doing science which Feyeraband comments on.
    He's and Lakatos are correct in that there is artistry to science, in what we decide to do, but the facts are the facts. And you could in principle apply the scienctific method to what we choose to research and which theorems we choose to communicate.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we don't have actual science, we have "consensus" science

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't confuse politics with science.
        "A thousand experiments can't prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong." -Einstein

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only people who don't know anything about scientific disciplines could say this so naively

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you know about William Briggs and David Stove?

    https://archive.org/details/JobForTheGirls
    https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html
    https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.html

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stove:
      >How to rewrite the sentence: Cook discovered Cook Strait.

      Lakatos:
      > Cook `discovered' Cook Strait.

      Popper:
      > Among an infinity of equally impossible alternatives, one hypothesis which has been especially fruitful in suggesting problems for further research and critical discussion is the conjecture (first `confirmed' by the work of Cook) that a strait separates northern from southern New Zealand.

      Kuhn:
      > It would of course be a gross anachronism to call the flat-earth paradigm in geography mistaken. It is simply incommensurable with later paradigms: as is evident from the fact that, for example, problems of antipodean geography could not even be posed under it. Under the Magellanic paradigm, however, one of the problems posed, and solved in the negative, was that of whether New Zealand is a single land mass. That this problem was solved by Cook is, however, a vulgar error of whig historians, utterly discredited by recent historiography. Discovery of the Strait would have been impossible, or at least would not have been science, but for the presence of the Royal Society on board, in the person of Sir Joseph Banks. Much more research by my graduate students into the current sociology of the geographical profession will be needed, however, before it will be known whether, under present paradigms, the problem of the existence of Cook Strait remains solved, or has become unsolved again, or an un-problem.

      Feyerabend:
      > Long before the constipated and boneheaded Cook, whose knowledge of the optics of his telescopes was minimal, rationally imposed, by means of tricks, jokes, and non-sequiturs, the myth of Cook Strait on the `educated' world, Maori scientists not only `knew' of the existence of the Strait but often crossed it by turning themselves into birds. Now, however, not only this ability but the very knowledge of the `existence' of the Strait has been lost forever. This is owing to the malignant influence exercised on education by authoritarian scientists and philosophers, especially the LSE critical rationalists, who have not accepted my criticisms and should be sacked. "No doubt this financial criticism of ideas will be more effective than [...] intellectual criticism and it should be used". (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. LVIII, 1978, p. 144).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Maori scientists not only `knew' of the existence of the Strait but often crossed it by turning themselves into birds.
        *FLIGHTLESS* birds. Also you missed the bit where his power of thought forces Lakatos to suicide.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are you the dumbass who keeps shilling these morons? They are the absolute personification of self-certain autistic wannabe analytic philosophers who are about 150 years too late to institute their philosophy of "common sense". Stop posting them

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, I don't come here often enough to shill anything.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was a nazi or something.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How? By miss-representing guidlines as rules and calling for a violation of them?

    And even if they trully are "rules" why would we throw them away if they clearly work, which they do.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science is a bunch of fantastic nonsense and a repository of superflous information about nature. It is complete bogus once you learn to think, but to say so puts you entirely at odds with the Zeitgeist.

    For every serious anti-science argument there are a thousand frivolous pro-science arguments. Truth is always gettong burried under whatever noise is convenient and fashionable to the day.

    To wit- it is not talked about because nobody wants to hear it. That is a hallmark of truth in all times.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Science is a bunch of fantastic nonsense and a repository of superflous information about nature

      Imagine using a computer to type this and then share it over a global communications network.

      Never change, IQfy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >science is all about value-free judgments, scientific method all the way
        >it is a moral good that technological advances allow us to communicate over thousands of miles, don't argue with me, it's science

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So we can hang Black folk and literally understand?

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This guy debunked science and now my car won't start. What a bastard!

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science is all about practical results. You can't destroy it because it just werks homie. Else we would be medieval serfs or something instead of futuristic, high tech serfs.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science can't be destroyed, it can only be humiliated when it is in denial about its true nature - it is, nearly as much as mathematics, a form of mysticism. Since Pythagoras, only Wittgenstein was willing to address this.

    I will not explain further.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *