IFLS is an intended result of Science

LAX: What is that supposed to mean
REZ: whats what supposed to mean
LAX: “objectivity is a big fucking meme, just like science”
REZ: it’s the same group of people and same mentality
REZ: IFLS is effectively a religion
REZ: or if you’re a bit more highbrow, the Rationality Community e.g. Less Wrong, Slate Star Codex et. all
LAX: Are you saying you’re opposed to science?
LAX: Science and being objective are appropriate in certain situations
REZ: I am opposed to both science and IFLSers, though they’re two slightly different topics
REZ: well, i suppose it could be seen as two slightly different ways of being the same thing
LAX: How can you be opposed to science yet use a computer?
REZ: my using a computer has nothing to do with science
LAX: It’s a byproduct of science
REZ: i will give you 5 more arguments until i stop this line because it’s base as fuck and wastes my time
LAX: I get being opposed to the IFLS shitlords
REZ: it’s a byproduct of a bunch of things which aren’t science too; doesn’t mean anything
REZ: it’s like saying haha aren’t communists funny they complain about capitalism but they still buy things
REZ: communists are idiots but that’s not a legitimate argument to level against them
REZ: they have about as much choice to not buy things as they do to evade taxes or not drive cars or not speak english
REZ: there’s one great thing that everyone touts about science and it’s that it’s self correcting
REZ: which is completely nonunique since every way of thinking has methods of self correcting
REZ: religions have priests who interpret their holy books, science has scientists who interpret their experimental results
REZ: i forget the number but something came out recently showing that something like 1/2 or 2/3 of scientific papers in recent years have experiments which aren’t reproducible
REZ: in english that means “most of recent science is effectively made up shit and not science”
LAX: I know of this
REZ: science isn’t so great that i have to acknowledge tribute to it by using something i have to use in order to live
REZ: science sticks its name in a bunch of things just because it’s only ever so marginally related
REZ: like a college claiming “oh yeah that famous guy? he went here.”
REZ: whereas the vast majority of people who’ve actually been to college can tell you, it really isn’t that special.
REZ: except for the partying.
REZ: when colleges start saying “oh yeah that famous guy? he partied here. and that’s why he’s famous” instead of pretending it’s some great knowledge or insight he gained through hard work and education, i’ll take another look.
REZ: same with science.
REZ: but if they do that, then their credibility goes out the window, so i won’t have to.
LAX: So you’re not actually opposed to the scientific method, just the way people use science to “seem smart”?
LAX: like people using science to publish a paper that’s just total bullshit?
REZ: why would the difference between what something is and how it manifests matter to me?
REZ: we had this conversation like yesterday
REZ: my brother COULD be something that ISNT a complete literal retard
REZ: but unless it’s demonstrated who cares?
REZ: science COULD be the greatest thing ever but if the big people who are so much smarter and so much more productive than me are 1/2~2/3 LYING about their SHIT then why do i care?
REZ: i don’t have any personal investment in the word or ideology of “science”
REZ: i see its leaders being shit, as far as i’m concerned, it’s shit
REZ: if i remember high school science and youtube atheism from pre-2010 correctly this is the scientific response too
REZ: god COULD exist
REZ: but if we can’t detect him then he’s not in this universe, i.e. he doesn’t exist
REZ: that’s the big problem
REZ: the other problem which is somewhat related is science is one of the mainstream religions
REZ: anything which is NOT “proven by science” is “pseudoscience”
REZ: things which have long existed before science are deemed “immoral” or “wrong”, even if they are accurate predictions and have demonstrable effects, up until the moment some “scientist” records it in an experiment and presents his conclusions to a “scientific community”
REZ: at which point it becomes truth, oh look we were wrong this whole time, isn’t it great we have science to correct our ways?
REZ: like literally go fuck yourself
REZ: the point, anywhere in any field of human activity, is to be “correct” or to get a job “done”
REZ: whether it’s “scientific” or not is secondary
REZ: and the more i see and hear about science it’s the modern day equivalent of religion in the sense that they’re the gatekeepers of knowledge
REZ: just like media
REZ: “if we say its true its true, if we say its false its false”
REZ: media has eroded a bit thanks to internet and smartphone video but people just keep lapping up whatever they hear when they also hear the word “science” or whatever
REZ: it’s all related
REZ: IFLS is not a mistake, it’s an intended consequence of how science is portrayed and how their people work in our system
LAX: Okay I’m with you now
REZ: good
REZ: laxeris was not an idiot today
LAX: I don’t know about not an idiot.
LAX: But I wasn’t totally retarded
LAX: :3
REZ: yes, which is why i said “today”.
LAX: Sometimes I forget the way you view things and it makes it really hard to comprehend how you come to conclusions
LAX: Like how you put science and science people in the same category. Which makes sense, but not the way I do it.
REZ: people like to recite that one line from v for vendetta, ‘you can’t kill an idea’
REZ: but you can kill people, and you can censor books, and if there are no people to espouse an idea and no one to hear the tree fall in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound
LAX: I dislike that line, it’s pretty stupid
REZ: in obverse: an idea is only as much as its people
REZ: i could take the conventional stance, “those guys weren’t real scientists, how horrible they abused our system!”
REZ: but why would i do that?
REZ: people generally don’t reach that question because they just accept that science is correct
REZ: which it might or might not be
REZ: if we’re to believe the great message of science, that we’re always learning and 90% of what we knew 100 years is wrong today and 90% of what we know today will be wrong 100 years from now
REZ: it’s pretty plausible what we think of as “the scientific method” today will look fucking stupid in 100 years
REZ: in which case the only thing retained is the name
REZ: the brand
REZ: the marketing.
REZ: the religion.
REZ: and i don’t care about marketing that brand for free.
REZ: i’m gonna need to get paid.
LAX: I think it’s fair to assume that science is correct a decent amount of the time. But to place one’s entire faith into the results of science and accept it as fact, I completely disagree with too
REZ: i’m not going to assume science is correct even a decent amount of the time
LAX: I think the baseline of what science would change into (should) still remain the same
LAX: To compare them to computers, in 100 years our computers will be slow and basically useless
REZ: first of all stuff we actually operate on day to day doesnt rely on science
REZ: science today is string theory or other nonsense
LAX: But at their cores they’d still be the same fundamental idea
REZ: yes… a same fundamental brand.
REZ: an idea in your head and not related to anything that’s actually done.
LAX: The methods used to “extract data” would still remain fairly the same
REZ: you say this without any knowledge of how university researchers do things today or how university researchers did thing in the enlightenment.
LAX: I don’t need to know the tiny details of how they find things, like what equation they use, or what material etc
LAX: Those things will obviously change
LAX: The core of having an idea, then testing the idea, then retesting the idea should remain the same
LAX: Which is the core of what science is built on
LAX: If that were to change, and it still remained “science” that would be a problem
LAX: But if the catalyst in which science is preformed is changed that doesn’t really affect anything.
REZ: clearly it doesn’t exist anymore then, because 300 years ago a majority of experiments were actually done to retest other people’s ideas, these days everyone’s trying to do their own because that’s what gets published
REZ: which is why you hear about all these studies being done on some really specific super obscure shit that doesn’t matter
REZ: it’s “still science”
REZ: just like how people living in california can “still own a gun”
REZ: have fun marketing pointless research no one’s interested in for grant money and not being able to buy a rifle with a detachable magazine in the current year
LAX: Plenty of people still test old ideas with new variables to see if it still holds ups
LAX: Obiviously not a lot of people though
REZ: undergrads in chem 02a and that’s it.
REZ: you’re right though
REZ: chem 02a is mandatory, so “plenty of people” is an accurate statement.
LAX: Until someone finds a new variable to test the old things with, what would be the point of testing them with the same variables?
LAX: Thus people look for new variables and have to go through the bullshit procedure of getting funding
REZ: “what would be the point of testing them with the same variables”
REZ: well lets see
REZ: lets see if i cant find some textbook-like description of the pillars of science
REZ: actually i dont have to
REZ: you already conceded that the 1/2~2/3 story was true
LAX: Mhm
REZ: the only reason why that story matters is because reproducibility matters
REZ: if i do an experiment and you can’t reproduce it, that means, in science world, that something is wrong
REZ: whether you can’t won’t or don’t is irrelevant
REZ: that it isn’t means science either is dying or isn’t happening

Orange Chicken Tastes Bad

Reuters – “Vatican calls for global authority on economy, raps “idolatry of the market””

They just started calling for it? I thought they’d been calling for it since, oh I don’t know, since they lost that power during the Renaissance? The FREE MARKET Renaissance? There’s a reason why the Dark Ages were Dark, and it’s not just because there was no intellectual enlightenment. It was literally dark, because centrally planned economies are as inefficient as public school teachers are at teaching, so nobody but royal guards and rich merchants could see at night.

If I paid attention to the news and what was going on a little more, I could probably form some kind of “conspiracy theory” as to why they just started saying this now even though they’ve believed it since forever.

But I don’t, so I’ll leave that part up to you.