[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 20 KB, 300x393, 701schoolofathens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1660882 No.1660882 [Reply] [Original]

What is the proper role of science? Should science have the final say in matters of fact? Is our culture becoming more and more scientific?

>> No.1660892

>>1660882
Objectivist faggotry? Objectivist faggotry? Objectivist faggotry?

>> No.1660897

>>1660892
Where'd your caps go?

Also,
>Should science have the final say in matters of fact?
Yes.
inb4 herpa there are no facts derpa

>> No.1660900

>>1660897

WHOOPS! I MEANT TO GREENTEXT.

>> No.1660907

>>1660892
Not sure what you're talking about. Nothing I posted has to do with Objectivism.

>> No.1660912

>>1660900
It's Over.

>> No.1660916

Should science have the final say in matters of fact?

Science is still cannot answer the fundamental questions:-

What is the nature of human consciousness?
In what way is matter related to mind?
What is the nature of reality?

Given this I wouldn't put to much faith in their facts. Science is good at creating new technology, as to the fundamental questions about who we are, what is our purpose (if any) science has no more answers than than the philosophers or the theologians(that is to say none).

>> No.1660923

>>1660916
>What is the nature of human consciousness?
>In what way is matter related to mind?
>What is the nature of reality?

Reductive physicalism answers these better than any "purely philosophical" explanation.

>> No.1660933

"Any philosopher worth their salt today would be a scientist" - TyBrax

>> No.1660934

>>1660923
If what you mean by 'answers better' is 'not at all' I'd certainly agree with you.

>> No.1660967

>>1660934
"Answers" may be a bit hasty for all 3 questions. The first question is the most difficult. We've barely started on it. The second can be partially answered by saying the mind reduces to the brain or the mind "just is" the brain. Physics gives a view of the "the nature of reality" at the most basic level. But that of course doesn't mean that higher levels don't contribute to the nature of reality.

>> No.1660970
File: 172 KB, 900x708, cancer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1660970

if your speaking about science in the objective sense between physics chemistry biology pathology you can describe just about anything but as for their role within the next decade or century nobody can really say for sure but personally i think the physicists are going to be the ones to come up with the next big thing in the field

>> No.1660980

>Is our culture becoming more and more scientific.
No. Not in any real way, anyway.

>What is the proper role of science?
To help us live longer and stop us from killing ourselves by destroying the environment or doing something else equally stupid.

>Should science have final say in matters of fact?
Depends on the question, doesn't it?

>> No.1660997

>>1660967
>>1660967
>saying the mind reduces to the brain or the mind "just is" the brain.
But this is unproven if as you admit you have no idea what human consciousness (or mind) is in the first place. Also if this is the case how does matter (the brain) lead to to mind (consciousness), what is the mechanism?

I have looked into the current scientific opinions on these subjects and it seems to me that we don't even have workable theories at the moment. I'm not saying science won't eventually find the answers, but until then I think it's a bit early for science to be claiming all authority.

>> No.1661016

Science should do science.

Matters of fact are all scientific. Science can only answer these questions.

Yes, but too many don't understand science qua science.

>> No.1661028

Words like: "Science" "Proper" and "Culture" make this almost impossible to respond to. Science says there is no "truth", only "facts" (or rather, that is my understanding) I know that reducing all of the various roles of scientific technicians into "Science" will obscure what is actually going on...what is "Science" exactly? I know the general use of the word is nigh meaningless, and worse, popular depictions of scientific facts have made ignorant fools more convinced of their knowledge and therefore even more intolerable to listen to..