Thread 16755957

Most schools of science have dogma. It’s a normal part of humans: tribalism and claiming certainty. Every group deals with it to a degree. Yeah it’s a horrible thing that causes countless issues, but again, it’s just what humans do. We shame and ostracize outliers even they’re on to something. We have taboo, even heretical fields of inquiry that will brand scientists as the equivalent of witches. The official Science™ is treated like another Church. It leaves no room for dissent.

You also have quantum quacks believing in a variant of God when they believe that something comes from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty.

Religion is quite literally the precursor to the scientific method in observation-theory. The ancients looked to the night sky, observed the stars, then theorized them to be the very gods. How is that any different from science as a method? It’s just quackery theory. An Ancient Greek, the ‘father of the atom’, Democritus (or perhaps Laurentius) *knew* that things got smaller and smaller and smaller just from observing sand.

>>16755957 (OP)
Is your post indistinguishable from a pile of dog shit?

>>16755960
You’re the one shitposting.

Why is it that attitudes, once set in motion, will keep going, even in the face of opposing evidence?

Because most people are driven by belief systems, which are generally set in childhood and then modified some by the group in adolescence. After that, for all but the most exploratory thinkers, they’re pretty much set.

Why would that be?

Quite simply, our cognitive faculties are an adjunct to our instincts and drives, to the paleomammalian brain.

In the pre-scientific era, we didn’t know enough to survive on the basis of knowledge. We could say, for example, that trichinosis is caused by larvae that can be killed if pork is heated to a certain temperature. But we did observe that pork made people sick. So we decided to prohibit its consumption, and, as justification, said that God had mandate it. It became a matter of belief rather than of understanding.

For this reason, we have evolved with a strong tendency towards belief. After all, our parents survived, and if we adopt their example, we will likely survive as well. Whereas change — trying pork, say — is hazardous.

There is another aspect to this too, which is quasi-Darwinian. If a society adopts a belief system that is less productive than another society’s, the other society will prosper, grow in population, and spread its beliefs.

Today, the pace of scientific change is so great that there is often a conflict between the adult’s tendency to believe and change. For example, someone raised to think that homosexuality is a sin will be upset by scientific evidence that it has a genetic component and isn’t just a matter of choice. The younger person, on the other hand, is likely to adopt the new belief in adolescence, when he is primed to do so and the neural net undergoes its final pruning and solidifies into the less mutable adult brain.

>>16755957 (OP)
Someone post the bell curve.

>>16755957 (OP)
>something comes from nothing by way of quantum uncertainty.
no such thing as coming out of nothing. what you call nothing is actually the collection of all that can be. "randomness" just manifests one of these possibilities, which aren't nothing. they are not actualized but they exist as possibilities. this concept breaks the midwit brain

>>16755957 (OP)
It is now.
The mistake was giving out degrees like free gifts inside a cereal box.
It gave too many people a heighten sense of self worth whereas in reality they are the intellectual equivalent of lawn mower mechanics.

>>16755960
>I take multiple brown dicks up my ass.
The post.

>>16756157
Randomness is not a good root for this because a particular event manifests from nothing, for no reason.

>>16755957 (OP)
Ah yes, thread #1000-something of someone who:
>doesn't understand what scientists are claiming
>refuses to understand what scientists are claiming
>thinks himself qualified to tell others what scientists are claiming
>spouts retarded bullshit as if that's what scientists are claiming
>smugly pats himself on the back for pointing out how retarded it would be to believe the retarded bullshit he says scientists are claiming.

I'm sure you're onto something here, OP. Keep me posted.

Is murder undistinguishable from the murder weapon?

>>16756327
You’re refusing to elaborate. You’ve posted the equivalent of “no u”. Nice.

>>16755957 (OP)
>babbys first epistemology

>>16756822
>he thinks scientism hasn’t won
>he thinks epistemology doesn’t have a pecking order
lul

Are you looking for an excuse to continue believing the Earth is flat.

>>16757013
No. Believing in a flat earth is stupid.

>>16755957 (OP)
>Is science indistinguishable from religion?
Spoiler alert: It's not. They both stem from the same exact nihilistic anti-life impulse. Some eastern religions are cool though.

>Is science indistinguishable from religion?
Spoiler alert: Yes... They both stem from the same exact nihilistic anti-life impulse. Some eastern religions are cool though.