If Mort Divine ruled the world

[EternalMetal]

We need to throw out science because gravity is patriarchical racist oppression.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW I CAN SEND LIGHTNING BOLTS FROM MY MIND WITH MAGIC??

This is a ridiculous amount of fail. The empirical evidence supporting the factual basis of modern science is outstanding. Modern technology and medicine is built upon it and succeeds to the extent of it's ability. Just because science cant explain some obscure superstition that her 'people' (of which she is most likely more removed from than a part of) suggest is real does not mean that the body of work thus far should be scrapped. She is suggesting a complete reversion to caveman-level primitiveness based on logic that I simply do not follow. Oh yea, this isnt about being logical, this woman is just being so racist that she denies 'white people science'. Total insanity, why should faculty at any university be forced to listen to the rantings of a racist lunatic? She was probably 30 seconds away from being laughed off of her platform, but nonetheless this shit doesnt belong in a university. I bet she read this lightning bolt shit from an article online rather than experiencing the culture in which she came from firsthand.

The only possible way that her rantings have any grounds would be with allowing tribal communities to exist without 1st world intervention. Im mostly opposed to the attempt to indoctrinate cultures that arent a threat to our cultural ethos. This is kind of what this woman is trying to propose, except in reverse, and our response is less than accepting. We are opposed to their way of life because of science, and they are opposed to ours because of spirituality. The globalist mindset probably wants to civilize these people so that they can barter for untapped
resources, and doing so would probably be an injustice to their current way of life. These people arent aware of global affairs enough to properly speak for themselves. I took a class at Uni that highlighted the exploitation of oil from the Huaorani people of South America, and imo non-interference would have been the best way of dealing with such a culture. The Native Americans suffered similarly from a more advanced culture. This could be this woman's angle, but from a more radical insider (who is actually a projecting outsider) perspective. She could just be attempting to be the self-appointed spokeswoman for the African tribal communities just trying to create a paradigm shift in the greater-than-thou attitude of a more advanced society. If this was the case, id still find her argument to be unintelligible and misguided. Her proposal of upending science in place of spirituality on a scientific platform is bound to result in utter failure. Fuck your establishment of a 'safe space' of discussion.

 

[Dak]

Scientific objectivity is oppression bro. Stop being a bigoted racist sexist. DECOLONIZE YOUR MIND!!!!11!!1!!!

 

[HamburgerBoy]

South Africa is a shithole, what a surprise.

 

[Dak]

Decolonization is so awesome amirite.

 

[Einherjar86]

Scientific objectivity is oppression bro. Stop being a bigoted racist sexist. DECOLONIZE YOUR MIND!!!!11!!1!!!

Well, any purported objectivity is oppression, right? Because it's never actually objective - it's just where the privileged perspective chooses to mark its limits.

 

[arg]

glad i saw paris before this happened



this is what Hillary wants for America

 

[rms]

Well, any purported objectivity is oppression, right? Because it's never actually objective - it's just where the privileged perspective chooses to mark its limits.

I guess the ambiguous thing here is observation vs. interpretation?

 

[Einherjar86]

Observation entails interpretation. Seeing something will produce a different interpretation than listening to the same thing ("seeing" and "listening" both being modes of observation).

In other words, interpretation is built into observation. There's no such thing as an interpretation-less observation.

 

[rms]

so you can interpret without observing but cannot observe without interpreting?

Going to have to expand on this here, I understand the 'human' interpretation, such as we are automatically interpreting because we are human and not everything observes in the same way we do. But human to human, I don't understand.

For instance;

humans have thumbs

humans have thumbs because of evolutionary theory because that was a superior survival trait to not having thumbs.

 

[Einherjar86]

so you can interpret without observing but cannot observe without interpreting?

No, I never said that. I simply said you can't observe without interpreting.

Going to have to expand on this here, I understand the 'human' interpretation, such as we are automatically interpreting because we are human and not everything observes in the same way we do. But human to human, I don't understand.

For instance;

humans have thumbs

humans have thumbs because of evolutionary theory because that was a superior survival trait to not having thumbs.

"Human to human" is an example of drawing limits. You can't simply choose to demarcate a set of observational forms and say "Okay, we're being objective within these criteria."

That's the opposite of being objective.

 

[rms]

But if observation is subjective because you are interpreting, then interpreting must be.

"Human to human" is an example of drawing limits. You can't simply choose to demarcate a set of observational forms and say "Okay, we're being objective within these criteria."

Being a human inherently has a limit set, and that limit is only known to non-humans. If we are unable to know or do not know our innate bias, are we subjective?

But you ignored the analogy which I think demonstrates a difference between observing and interpretation.

 

[Dak]

Well, any purported objectivity is oppression, right? Because it's never actually objective - it's just where the privileged perspective chooses to mark its limits.

Science is more inter-subjective tbh. Anyone can devise an experiment and test a hypothesis. But there are a couple of criteria: proof and reproducibility. "I prayed for a lightning strike and it happened" so far has yet to meet them.

 

[Einherjar86]

But if observation is subjective because you are interpreting, then interpreting must be.

Must be what?

I merely said that we cannot observe something without also simultaneously interpreting it. I never said, or insinuated, that you can interpret something without observing it.

Being a human inherently has a limit set, and that limit is only known to non-humans. If we are unable to know or do not know our innate bias, are we subjective?

This question is confusing, but there's no such thing as objectivity within a set of observational limits that precludes the external. There's no "human objectivity," since what designates the category of "human" can only be presupposed from within, never verified from without - and that is emphatically not an objective set of criteria. So we can only ever be subjective, from our respective, individual viewpoints.

This leads to my next point:

But you ignored the analogy which I think demonstrates a difference between observing and interpretation.

To be able to say "humans have thumbs" necessitates making a categorical claim about the entity in question - in this case, a human. When you say "humans have thumbs," you've already made an interpretive claim that the thing you're talking that has thumbs is, in fact, a human.

Now, you might say that this is one of the biological or physiological criteria for calling something a human: that it has opposable thumbs. But if this is the case, then you must see that you've also made an interpretive claim in order to qualify the thing you're talking about as "human."

In other words, to be able to say "Humans have thumbs," you have to have done one of the following:

Say "This thing has opposable thumbs. It must be a human!" (an interpretive observation)

or,

Say "This thing is a human. It must have opposable thumbs!" (an interpretive observation)

(of course, I'm simplifying here - other animals do have appendages like opposable thumbs)

Now, let's suggest one final possibility: get rid of "the human" altogether, and make the following observation: "This is a thumb."

Ignoring the "this," let's assume you're making a very basic observation that some object before you is a thumb (it doesn't even have to be opposable). In order to make this claim, you're drawing on a history of knowledge preceding that allows you to say "This is a thumb." You're making an interpretation, albeit a very fast one, that the shape/figure/form/etc. that you're observing is, in fact, a thumb. Interpretation is built into this observation, whether you realize it or not.

A more accurate conception of science is, as Dak suggests, that it's "inter-subjective." It consists of competing perspectives that are constantly being tested and occasionally reproduced. Anything that claims "objectivity" is, in my book, trying to pull the veil over your eyes

 

[EternalMetal]

I merely said that we cannot observe something without also simultaneously interpreting it. I never said, or insinuated, that you can interpret something without observing it.

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.

This question is confusing, but there's no such thing as objectivity within a set of observational limits that precludes the external. There's no "human objectivity," since what designates the category of "human" can only be presupposed from within, never verified from without - and that is emphatically not an objective set of criteria. So we can only ever be subjective, from our respective, individual viewpoints.

This leads to my next point:



To be able to say "humans have thumbs" necessitates making a categorical claim about the entity in question - in this case, a human. When you say "humans have thumbs," you've already made an interpretive claim that the thing you're talking that has thumbs is, in fact, a human.

Now, you might say that this is one of the biological or physiological criteria for calling something a human: that it has opposable thumbs. But if this is the case, then you must see that you've also made an interpretive claim in order to qualify the thing you're talking about as "human."

In other words, to be able to say "Humans have thumbs," you have to have done one of the following:

Say "This thing has opposable thumbs. It must be a human!" (an interpretive observation)

or,

Say "This thing is a human. It must have opposable thumbs!" (an interpretive observation)

(of course, I'm simplifying here - other animals do have appendages like opposable thumbs)

Now, let's suggest one final possibility: get rid of "the human" altogether, and make the following observation: "This is a thumb."

Ignoring the "this," let's assume you're making a very basic observation that some object before you is a thumb (it doesn't even have to be opposable). In order to make this claim, you're drawing on a history of knowledge preceding that allows you to say "This is a thumb." You're making an interpretation, albeit a very fast one, that the shape/figure/form/etc. that you're observing is, in fact, a thumb. Interpretation is built into this observation, whether you realize it or not.

A more accurate conception of science is, as Dak suggests, that it's "inter-subjective." It consists of competing perspectives that are constantly being tested and occasionally reproduced. Anything that claims "objectivity" is, in my book, trying to pull the veil over your eyes

I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

 

[Dak]

I know Ein would say that instruments are subjective.

 

[Baroque]

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.



I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

I agree with most of this, but aside from philosophically speaking, science can reach a point of absolute truth. For example: hypothesis - there is frozen water on mars, then we go to mars and find frozen water. At that point it has reached absolute truth, unless you get all philosophical. You're right as far as statistics are concerned on more complicated matters however.

 

[Einherjar86]

This kind of thinking probably applies to anything visual, but science isnt merely literal observation and interpretation. What about data obtained from an instrument? I assert that it is possible to observe this data (especially if it is complicated data) before interpreting it because it is inherently dissociated from our biological sense organs. What im trying to say is that science isnt all initially limited to the subjectivity of our senses, even if most of it's interpretation inherently is.

I think that history has proven science to be subject to social pressure and inherent human bias, but ultimately the goal of science is to be as objective as possible in its methodology. It is a platform where you boldly make assertions about tenuous data and attempt to support these assertions (hypothesis) with empirical experimentation. It is also only objective in the sense that the experimenter attempts to disprove his hypothesis with an equal amount of rigor as he is trying to prove it.

Science never entirely reaches the point of absolute truth. When science states something as 'fact', it is only because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it, and nothing that currently suggests the contrary. I think you guys are looking at science from the perspective that it asserts itself as the end-game of Truth, but this isnt the case. It is more of an interpretive estimation of truth bound by the limitations of its methods. While I would agree that it is inter-subjective, the world that has built up around us is substantial enough evidence to suggest that science isnt just comprised of the mere deception of it's constituents. It may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny as an Objective ideology, but its observable progress suggests that it does trend towards objectivity.

I know Ein would say that instruments are subjective.

Without going too much into this, yeah - our instruments carry their own kind of bias.

There have been studies on the history of the senses and their relationship to the development of various instrumentation. Two good ones are Michel Serres's The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies and Michael Taussig's Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. Ultimately, even the instrument that measures the most extra-sensory information is acting as an interface for our form of sensory perception.

I agree with most of this, but aside from philosophically speaking, science can reach a point of absolute truth. For example: hypothesis - there is frozen water on mars, then we go to mars and find frozen water. At that point it has reached absolute truth, unless you get all philosophical. You're right as far as statistics are concerned on more complicated matters however.

Well, you've kind of foreclosed any discussion by saying we can't consider the philosophical parameters of truth claims. Ultimately, any claim that purports to be "absolute truth" necessitates some kind of theoretical/philosophical qualification.

I would venture that discovering ice on Mars doesn't mean the claim that there is ice on Mars achieves the status of "absolute truth." Instead, we should say that the claim is empirically verifiable, or falsifiable. I would have to insist that it isn't an absolute truth because it is not a necessary metaphysical condition of the universe - i.e. it isn't necessary that there be ice on Mars, there may not be ice on Mars in a billion years, and at some point in time Mars didn't even exist. Current states aren't absolute truths.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ultimately, even the instrument that measures the most extra-sensory information is acting as an interface for our form of sensory perception.

The interface it provides (if it's a good instrument) does not change according to its inputs. If I'm measuring two different substances according to some humanly imperceptible property of conductivity for example, the instrument will feed me data through visual sensory output (probably text on a screen), but as long as the operator's eyesight and comprehension of Arabic numerals are solid, I don't see where human sensory bias comes in. The visual output only exists to give people abstract, non-sensory information (numbers).

 

[Baroque]

Well, you've kind of foreclosed any discussion by saying we can't consider the philosophical parameters of truth claims. Ultimately, any claim that purports to be "absolute truth" necessitates some kind of theoretical/philosophical qualification.

I would venture that discovering ice on Mars doesn't mean the claim that there is ice on Mars achieves the status of "absolute truth." Instead, we should say that the claim is empirically verifiable, or falsifiable. I would have to insist that it isn't an absolute truth because it is not a necessary metaphysical condition of the universe - i.e. it isn't necessary that there be ice on Mars, there may not be ice on Mars in a billion years, and at some point in time Mars didn't even exist. Current states aren't absolute truths.

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

 

[Einherjar86]

The interface it provides (if it's a good instrument) does not change according to its inputs. If I'm measuring two different substances according to some humanly imperceptible property of conductivity for example, the instrument will feed me data through visual sensory output (probably text on a screen), but as long as the operator's eyesight and comprehension of Arabic numerals are solid, I don't see where human sensory bias comes in. The visual output only exists to give people abstract, non-sensory information (numbers).

Experiencing material phenomena via numerical expression is itself a conditioned form of receiving information. In this case, I have to disagree with the mathematical Platonists: in other words, the law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers. The bias is in the very construction of the machine/interface.

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

If we found ice on Mars, I wouldn't try to deny that there is ice on Mars. I would deny that it's an absolute truth.