to a large degree our understanding of scientific truth is shaped by corporate interest. i find science-minded people to not actually be very intelligent people: they do things like treat MLA Standard like truth and foolishly lock themselves from evolving further. also their rigorous and analytical behaviors remove them from inquiry into emotionality and the sensory experience so much as to render them philistine
i prefer philosophers and artists (writers) personally, or, shit, nurses and gardeners: they seem to be caring wild amounts of Truth in them
edit: “caring” was a typo but i like it so im leaving it lol
hmm, well Descartes invented science (in a dream, lol @ philosophical materialists) and would likely agree with me just like pretty much anyone in the world of intellectualism
i’m cherishing my downvotes here, please bestow them onto me, because i know that they are a reflection of my — as you put it — “unique take” dissenting from the masses. but i know what the masses are like: watch Jerry Springer and see for yourself. and i also know what the Sciences are like: i work in Science. and i think that this 110-iq habit of deifying Science is parasitic and the same institutional worship as the church. on top of that, half of the people doing it are working off outdated frameworks like Classical Physics and have created their own religion that rivals contemporary evangelism in its dogmatic-and-unproductive nature.
sorry, philistinism just pisses me off. read Deleuze or study metaphysics or something.
Still hypocrisy? You just know the name for an ad hominem fallacy but don’t seem to mind your own irrelevant points. So yeah I’m making fun of you cause you have no argument lol
“pro-science” has come to represent a type of behavior in people that, much like the evangelicals, exerts this dogmatic-and-unproductive understanding of the world, and with utmost faith to an outdated portion of the western cannon. and beyond that, it lends itself to corporate interest by nature of corporate being the ones who fund scientific studies
i don’t really have interest in taking this conversation beyond that. i realize that this argument is new to you, and that it’s scares you, and i’m sorry for that. you can have the last words and i just hope for readers to take my argument for what it is.
Like how our state of the are nutrition science is in such a pathetic state because of the literally billions of dollars Coke has spent perverting scientific research.
to a large degree our understanding of scientific truth is shaped by corporate interest. i find science-minded people to not actually be very intelligent people: they do things like treat MLA Standard like truth and foolishly lock themselves from evolving further. also their rigorous and analytical behaviors remove them from inquiry into emotionality and the sensory experience so much as to render them philistine
i prefer philosophers and artists (writers) personally, or, shit, nurses and gardeners: they seem to be caring wild amounts of Truth in them
edit: “caring” was a typo but i like it so im leaving it lol
wat. That’s a unique take I’ll give you that.
hmm, well Descartes invented science (in a dream, lol @ philosophical materialists) and would likely agree with me just like pretty much anyone in the world of intellectualism
i’m cherishing my downvotes here, please bestow them onto me, because i know that they are a reflection of my — as you put it — “unique take” dissenting from the masses. but i know what the masses are like: watch Jerry Springer and see for yourself. and i also know what the Sciences are like: i work in Science. and i think that this 110-iq habit of deifying Science is parasitic and the same institutional worship as the church. on top of that, half of the people doing it are working off outdated frameworks like Classical Physics and have created their own religion that rivals contemporary evangelism in its dogmatic-and-unproductive nature.
sorry, philistinism just pisses me off. read Deleuze or study metaphysics or something.
This is such a fabulously stupid position.
Oof this was the most neck beard thing I’ve seen on Lemmy so far. None of what you said had any bearing on the original point but keep going
ad hominem means that you can’t negate my argument
Whereas bringing up Descartes has some kind of relevance? At least you didn’t abuse and punctuation in this response but it’s-funnier-when you: do
still just ad hominems
Still hypocrisy? You just know the name for an ad hominem fallacy but don’t seem to mind your own irrelevant points. So yeah I’m making fun of you cause you have no argument lol
to be clear, this is my argument:
“pro-science” has come to represent a type of behavior in people that, much like the evangelicals, exerts this dogmatic-and-unproductive understanding of the world, and with utmost faith to an outdated portion of the western cannon. and beyond that, it lends itself to corporate interest by nature of corporate being the ones who fund scientific studies
i don’t really have interest in taking this conversation beyond that. i realize that this argument is new to you, and that it’s scares you, and i’m sorry for that. you can have the last words and i just hope for readers to take my argument for what it is.
Like how our state of the are nutrition science is in such a pathetic state because of the literally billions of dollars Coke has spent perverting scientific research.