/lit/ - Literature

>>21367814
Exactly, anon

>>18217401
The problem is more that people severely overestimate what science can tell us about how we should act, rather than how the world works, and even there people are attributing more to it than what is epistemologically sound.
Also people think "it's peer reviewed science, so it must be true" without knowing the absolutely shady bullshit that goes on behind closed doors. Borderline fraudulent p-hacking, reproductivity crises all over the board (In STEM too, not just psychology), nepotism, people married to their hypotheses rather than doing actual science, etc.
t. mol bio PhD and im going into industry, academia should burn down

>>17404182
they do it in the wild as well

>>16074197
No i mean it was Hume who first showed that we cannot rely on nature to give us any sense of morality.

>>16027886
In the case that this isnt a false flag, no it's not common and you are either a pussy or you need to speak to a therapist. Said therapist will then diagnose you as a pussy and prescribe a dose of manning the fuck up.

>>15751589
you are correct

Everyday words always have multiple meanings and evoke different thoughts because of their universality. If you make up a word and give it a standard meaning, say in a dictionary, textbook or paper, shit just makes it easier to communicate for people who can just consult what the standard meaning is.
See:
>>15106766
Where UV light is very specific, just "sunlight" brings about a whole spade of uncertainties. If I illuminated a plant with pure green light, it wouldn't survive, even though green light is just as much part of sunlight as UV.
Combined with general lack of writing skill in the population, it's easy to see why specialist works can be very challenging.

I say this for STEM. Humanities have very little excuse and most just want to try to give the most possible interpretations to everything, so they can always claim to be right.

>>14396381
Bruh what