Science

how do we un-meme current science?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tNLMN9DBFP0
youtube.com/watch?v=vEVD1qliHzI&t=6s
youtube.com/watch?v=sDqDJJcJAOg
youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Every day I find a new reason to hate black star stuff man

Stop consuming american media.

Serbian intellectuals comparing Nobel prize winners to science "popularisers"/entertainers

Why do people who have never had an interest in any scientific field beyond quoting Einstein about God feel suddenly get upset about "what science has become". I just can't imagine how retarded someone would be to look at entertainers and what they've said in public and compare it to some intelligent-sounding piece that makes low IQ people feel smart and say "this is what science is because my only view of science is what popular celebrities exist".

You're quoting a guy using big words, talking about a fucking crystals and reality. It's the same fucking thing but just with bigger words and a black and white picture. You couldn't comprehend a word of that man's scientific publishing.

You can't even use correcr file formats, you fucking retard

You don't.
The general public isn't intelligent enough to understand the gist of what those men on the left of your image are conveying.

Lol.

(((They))) erased our philopshy on purpose .

That is literally the point of cultural marxism.

>Why do people who have never had an interest in any scientific field beyond quoting Einstein about God feel suddenly get upset about "what science has become".

I do have soem background in sCEIn$$e nigger.
Krauss for instance is not entirely a meme unlike Nye, but still ends up being one. Also Bertrand Russell was a legit nihilist logician before he went full SJW. Its connected.

Aussie has a point,aside from Dawkins all of the moderns you use are known for being popularizers and not for their scientific work. But I think the broader point is that scientism has been running around pretending to speak for science itself, which is some serious fucking bullshit. The old dudes weren't just scientists, they were scholars. I'm hopeful such people still exist in science, but I can't name you any of them; as far as the popular consciousness goes they're unknown.

...

Dawkins is actually a legit scientist, the only one on the right in the OP image.

L1. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't know anything about physics but the logic seems off. It's like saying that the largest number you can comprehend isnt a number, it's a concept. No, it's still a number but infinity is the concept.
L2. This would make sense with better context. He's probably saying that context matters, as does science as a subject that is deserving of inspection so to divine truth instead of biased truth. While philosophical insight may help, it hasn't helped science when those who feel as if they are studying the history and philosophy of science formulate political biases that affect truth.
L3. We only perceive reality, meaning that truth is impossible to obtain
L4. Pretty much the same thing as L3. Nothing is objective and we only perceive reality. Science doesn't uncover reality, it just gives feedback that is interpreted in ways to describe reality.

None of these are profound statements.
And FUCK. It's common opinion on Sup Forums to outright deny L3 and L4. As religious sentiments grow on Sup Forums, so does the aversion to objective relativism. The typical response is being called a Marxist or liberal.

Dawkins actually is the guy who got me interested in pursuing my career because "The Selfish Gene", while considered somewhat dubious by geneticists now, is such an amazingly intelligent theory.
Unfortunately Dawkins is an absolute sperg outside the field of Biology. Not even that he's wrong about some things he says wrt religion, it's just he is so annoying about it. Even in The Selfish Gene he has an out of place footnote about how the Virgin Mary wasn't actually a virgin but the original Hebrew word translates more as "maiden". He's not wrong, the Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that Mary was born without sin and the virgin birth IIRC is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it had nothing to do with what he was talking about.
I was hoping that Brian Cox might be a bit better (although I find him annoying too) but a while back he quoted Feynman's saying that "the philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

>being this much of a philosophy noob

Where did Schrodinger get those round glasses? I want some.

>But I think the broader point is that scientism has been running around pretending to speak for science itself, which is some serious fucking bullshit. The old dudes weren't just scientists, they were scholars.

The sad thing is that many legit scientists are also as nihilistis as Nye or BSM - Russel for instance, I cant name others but cant recall right now.
One acts as infantry (=memers), others are the background (=pure nihilists)

It's true that science needs to be un-memed but you won't trick me into defending philosophy. Nope. Philosophy is 99% pretentious garbage that tries to pass off bad communication as being deep. The few good parts can also be found by applying common sense with short, direct answers. Reading smuggies comic on Sup Forums contributes to a better understanding of concepts and meaning than waddling in philosophy sewage for years. That's how bad it is.

This. The same idiots that like to post that image are puritan brainlets that would disavow Einstein over his other statements such as "expect neither intimacy nor fidelity" to his wife

this
the guy is a fake anyway, had to change universities to get his shitty dissertation passed (which is extremely fucking rare) then cried racism about it.
Nye has a fucking undergrad degree, so he's easily dropped.
Dawkins is just an edgy atheist who stopped going into debates because he kept getting blown out.
Knauss is a memelord.

At UChicago my faculty advisors laugh all day at Nye and NDT. Complete "fairy dust scientists" one referred to them as. And unlike all 4 of these memers, they actually do research and publish papers.

This. It's easily mystified brainlets that think they are so deep for reading what basically equates to entry level fan fiction. Kind of sad really

>Dawkins
>not a popularizer
O I am laffin. He literally made his career out of haphazardly dabbling in philosophy. Should have stuck with biology desu

jesus christ just kill yourselves

>debating christcucks
>da Bible says so
>repeat ad infinitum
>I'm done giving them a platform
>CHECKMATE ATHEIST BTFO
>The absolute state of (((christian))) ""education""

>It's true that science needs to be un-memed but you won't trick me into defending philosophy. Philosophy is 99% pretentious garbage that tries to pass off bad communication as being deep.

I get your position anons, but dont go full autistic STEM software engineer on this one. Philosophy is just common sense pushed to its implications - nothing more, nothing less.

yeah it has its shit, but are you really so naive to think that weLookedAtTheDataTM sciene doesnt?

science started in 16th century after philosophy gave it structure btw. Its all human cognition.

>jesus christ just kill yourselves

they are salvagable teenagers, dont be so crude to them.

Nihilism is basically everywhere though, its not a problem thats localized specifically in the scientific community. Seems like we're still not really close to fixing it, either, short of a leap of faith back into a religious tradition. People like Dawkins, Harris, Tyson all seem to think the meaning question just answers itself

L1 is Heisenberg. He's known for Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, which is basically that if you know the location of an electron you don't know its velocity and vice-versa. It ties in with wave-particle duality, an observed electron behaves like a particle but an unobserved electron behaves like a wave, but quantum physics is so alien to anything we see contextually in every day life it's more like mathematical principles than an actual thing. Like what's a quark made of? What is a quark? It's easier to describe this idea mathematically than it is to actually answer it.
L2 is basically referring to the point that the way you construct theories around data is something that needs to be examined. e.g. how can you assign a definite electrical charge everywhere within a material body (e.g. "electrons are negatively charged"), if the interior of the body is not accessible to test particles? A positivist would say you can't, but Einstein argued that theories and models are just ways of adapting your understanding on different levels - i.e. is something negatively charged, or is it in possession of a force acting on electricity? It's kinda how he came about his theory of relativity; it's a way of looking.
You're correct about L3. Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment meant to showcase how crazy certain empirical approaches are - a cat cannot exist in a superposition of being both alive and dead, but that's what the then current manner of interpreting quantum mechanics basically was implying was possible.
The same's basically true of L4. Quantum physics is not fact. It's just a model we have to help us understand stuff that's very hard to understand.
The reason you're reticent to accept these views is because you've probably been exposed to idiots who also don't understand these views but took the basic ideas to go "SCIENCE ISN'T REAL! IGNORE SCIENTISTS AND LET'S ALL DO CRYSTAL HEALING EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE" which is missing the point completely.

Isn't Nye an engineer? He only started doing science education because Sagan asked him to.

>yeah it has its shit, but are you really so naive to think that weLookedAtTheDataTM sciene doesnt?

INFACT, the bilnd trust in scince these anons represent is being used against you..."whats that, you dont like buttsex? well here is the DATA, checkmate".

>I'm done giving them a platform

why would you give Nye a platform? And New Athism was so impressive with debating Christians. Logic is also anti-nihilism and atheists (=one step away from relativism/nihilism) like yourself are consistently bitchslapped in nonmeme debates.

youtube.com/watch?v=tNLMN9DBFP0

>Nihilism is basically everywhere though

yep, its easy to call it in soc sci and philosophy, but in science!? no way, science is BASED. pic rel is the only way to cure nihilism and relativism in science.

A lot of scientists nowadays are literally Einstein-tier. It was much easier to make a breakthrough 100 years ago, and even more so 200 years ago, and there was so much less competition among scientists in the first place. Today, one man can't make a breakthrough. "Breakthroughs" are made by a lot of people independently, as there is just too many data and stuff to work with for a single person.
In order to become a well-known famous scientists, like Newton, a few centuries ago, you'd need those things on your list:
1. Be generally smart, have a lucid mind.
2. Have a chance to get a proper education (very unlikely 200 years ago).
Nowadays mostly everyone has that chance.
If Bohr, Heisenberg or Einstein were born in our age, they very likely would be a mediocre scientists writing publications at some uni.

Fair enough, I let myself get triggered. Guys, don't kill yourselves, go read the socratic dialogues.

I've noticed, and I'm sure I'm not the first, that faith, reason, and nihilism/postmodernism play a kind of rock/paper/scissors game with one another. Faith struggles when challenged by science, but science can't offer a response to nihilism or postmodernism, which in turn are completely shattered by faith.

But most of Sup Forums hates philosophy because muh 'cultural marxism' and muh 'i aint never learned to read no books so i don't think so good'.

>faith, reason, and nihilism/postmodernism play a kind of rock/paper/scissors game with one another

you should watch this, Schaeffer deals with just the things you said - the less "irrational faith" society has, the more postmodern in gets. I recommend the whole serious also.

youtube.com/watch?v=vEVD1qliHzI&t=6s

>But most of Sup Forums hates philosophy because muh 'cultural marxism'

but that is entirely undestandable and partially correct...but dont throw the baby with the water.

Schaeffer also deals with nihilism in arts - how arts became more chaotic and random compared to the logics or old arts (like Bach or painting of classic painters)

Fucking liberal.

I'll check it out after work, thank you.

It's impossible OP. I guess we'll have to wait for Germans to get fed up with social justice again.

>IQ
>science

hahaohwow.jpg

That image brings my piss to a boil

It's insulting to the pursuit of greater scientific understanding to allow these cunts to call themselves real scientists

>>IQ
>>science
>hahaohwow.jpg

are you mental? IQ has been studied for a century.

Unfortunately, IQ is not a very good scientific metric. The public is lead to believe that IQ is an infallible and accurate measure of a supposedly one-dimensional trait, but none of that is certain. It actually turns out that measuring intelligence in a reliable and repeatable way is really, really hard.

I think there have been studies to prove that IQ determines a measure of success in life though

>SCIENCE IS REAL
cries the libshit, never having had a college level science course.

I fucking hate appeal to authority leftists tactics and their subversion of academia

There would be a loose correlation, sure.

One thing you realize as you get older though, is that success in life is more about who you know than what you know. There are plenty of smart cookies who hammer nails into wood for a living, and just a many brain-dead executives to match.

It's IQ and EQ
having a high, positive z-score on both guarantees success, 99%

>Unfortunately, IQ is not a very good scientific metric.

WOA! easy there buddy, plenty of by in psychology, but IQ isnt one.

> The public is lead to believe that IQ is an infallible and accurate measure of a supposedly one-dimensional trait, but none of that is certain

there is general factor and its specific facets - like overall sport talent and sport talent for specific sport, nothing complex about it.

>There are plenty of smart cookies who hammer nails into wood for a living, and just a many brain-dead executives to match.

...and 0 legit scientists who are under 115-120 as an absolute minimum. That doesnt mean that medium IQ people cant achieve success in life...

Nothing loose about the correlation. If you want to dismiss IQ, you basically have to dismiss all of psychology, because its just about the most solid thing to come out of the field

... I mean if birds could understand a concept like ornithology it would be very useful to them

College "philosophy" is so fucking cycles by liberal teachers. They put their own ideas in their lessons to indoctrinate kids. When I took the class, almost every opinion related thing my professor said was horseshit.

>current science
>right side has no scientists
Science is a political fuckhole right now, but focusing on pop science wont change anything.

IQ is NOT a very good metric, for individuals, and it's barely passable as a metric for groups. It's just significantly better than every other indicator.

i honestly agree with right side.

philosophy is to humanities what alchemy was to modern chemistry.

its outdated.

>Nothing loose about the correlation. If you want to dismiss IQ, you basically have to dismiss all of psychology

the correlation for life outcome is around 0.5 which is huuuuuge.
I would dismiss whole of psychology (not much value would be loss considering the shitlib infestation of the field) before Id dismiss IQ

>College "philosophy" is so fucking cycles by liberal teachers.

college "psychology" is even worse. When I remember that psychology was the epitome of right wing pro-bourgeoisse science...

check out this bullshiter how he rants about Reagan and doesnt understand shit about Heidegger

youtube.com/watch?v=sDqDJJcJAOg

>IQ is NOT a very good metric, for individuals, and it's barely passable as a metric for groups.

I disagree, the most usuall first cutoff you do in selection is below 100 IQ, you can also know from interaction with persons if the person is 100 or 120+ IQ, it has pretty significant life outcome effect.

>philosophy is to humanities what alchemy was to modern chemistry.

that is wrong, philosophy created the basics for modern sci

You clearly don't know what philosophy and it's purpose is. Keep letting pop science cucks tell you what to think

Actual science is not memey. And even those scientists you consider to be memes actually say some interesting correct things here and there.
The problem is the television and the population.
People dont want to listen to and read hard data they want jokes and memes.

I was listening to a scientist that also has a show talk about this and he made a really interesting observation.
His show started in UK and the point was talking about the universe and meaning of things and so on. And at the end he says "What do you think is the meaning to all of this?"

And when he wanted to do that show somewhere in america, the people that made that possible asked him to not ask the question, but to answer it. They asked a human to answer "What is the meaning of life" on live television using his status as a scientist to make the claim have more ground.
This is ridiculous. Not even a man with 30000 iq can answer what is the meaning of life of every human. But these people asked him to do just that.

>you can also know from interaction with persons if the person is 100 or 120+ IQ,

I meant to say if the person is in 90-100 or in the 120+ range, sticking to "muh IQ is 12X" precise digits is ultra autistic, individaul IQ is determined in ranges

Selection for what?

"barely passable" is stretching it.

your comparing nobel prize tier physicists with shitty TV personalities. I'm sure if you actually looked at the 4 most recent nobel prize winners they'd have something smart to say.

>significantly better than every other indicator
This is why the social sciences and humanities need to be uncucked. We need better representations of personality and cognition. The current corrupt academics want to make it all about relativism and "power".

Phrenology was studied for significantly longer. Does that make it science?

Those guys on the right aren't scientists.

>They asked a human to answer "What is the meaning of life" on live television using his status as a scientist to make the claim have more ground.
>This is ridiculous. Not even a man with 30000 iq can answer what is the meaning of life of every human.

yep, I call this the (trans)humanist fallacy. All internet intellectuals will meme with soc sci but arent aware of the fallibility of science.

like in a selection process for some higher job, army pilots etc.

>Phrenology was studied for significantly longer. Does that make it science?

phrenology was dismissed becouse (((racist implications))), there is nothing pseudoscientific about studying skulls - infact neuscience does just that today.
Infact, the orginal ideas of phrenomogy are a perfect match with todays findings of brain part specialization.

and no, being old does not make it science, but IQ has been consistently prooved.

look how the phreno brian map matched to current brain map, phrenology was just basic anthropology method before (((boasian anthropology)))

True scientist are not labeled as scientist, they are usually 'scientific researchers', they are the ones writing textbooks and actually developing the science that these moronic 'scientists' then selectively read and spew out with 'commentary'

The problem is that the scientist didnt want to do that, thats not how he wanted to format the end of the show but he was asked to do so specifically in a way that he doesnt like. Im not sure what he did after that but some might just go with it to assure that their shows on tv.

And you do need these science shows on tv, even if they are memey and no hard data no nothing. Because you need to show to people that this exists. You need to tell them, hey guys look at this black hole thing look at this supernova isnt that shit cool?
And you have to interest them enough for them to do their own research and maybe go deeper onto other topics.
Spoonfeeding information is incredibly bad and the fact that the education system does just that is the reason you have so many people that are just plain dumb even after they finish college.

You have to expose science and expose the idea of looking for your own answers to people, and sometimes that has to be a bit dumbed down for the average person. And you hope that they make themselves smarter after that.

You have no idea how much TV dumbs people down and then those people dumb others down. Having these shows is helpful in maybe interesting some of those people to get a book or go to the internet n look for themselves.
If 1 in a 500k people buy a book id say thats still better than none of them doing so.


Which is why i dont like everyone ripping on neil or lawrence because they do say alot of correct interesting new things and are actually alot better to listen to when they dont have to dumb themselves down. Dawkins i dont know too much about and nye is just deluded so i agree with the cricisim of nye, but i disagree that hes lumped with other people that have actual degrees in the topics they talk about and he doesnt.

Richard invented the term meme, you faggots worship his concept every day

>t. nigger

Idk Mile, we need more hate towards scienceTM POS

(((Lawrence Krauss)))

youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow

By re-meme'ing it obviously

Encourage High IQ breeding and have a non shit education system so people can understand the science and study it for themselves instead of needing memes to dumb it down for them.

While you make some points, but you're missing something that is also key brate, and that is trust. A lot of dumb people will trust everything someone they like says to them, and TV has tried to make Neil, Bill, and other pop scientists as likeable as possible (thankfully they themselves are incredibly corrupt people by nature, seeing as how they've started to crash in popularity recently). This unconditional trust leads to the opposite of advancement, true advancement in areas like physics and chemistry, amongst others. The best thing you can do is go on your own and build yourself. The vast majority of the world is not meant to be in science. Those who are meant to do so, will inevitably find natural attraction to scientific or philosophical things.

Also don't like impulsive, disruptive, apebrained shitskins in the education programs bringing down the quality for everyone else

I am not going to watch the video and ill instantly agree in what i assume hes talking about.
Religion as a way to explain anything thats not humans is outdated.
Throughout history christianity in particular went from sun orbits the earth to god made the universe. The talking point of a religion compared to science is moving further and further away from every day life, because day and day its proven wrong. Because thats how religion works, you dont know something, its god. And once we know it, its not god its the next thing. Its pathetic to watch and its fundamentally anti knowledge. It is against knowledge and intelligence, arguably the most important thing a human has.

That doesnt mean its not a good thing for your every day life to go to church be part of a community and help others. But most religious people dont stop at that. Its a complex issue.
Everything in moderation.
As far as scienceTM, even memey even saturated, even very on the surface, if it interests people to dig beneath the surface its good.

You look at a trailer and you see if you want to watch a movie. This scienceTM shit is nothing but a saturated trailer to what science has to offer. But that doesnt mean you cannot hear something new and interesting in the trailer.
Bill nye is nothing though, he doesnt work in any field he doesnt talk to serious people in those fields either.
Yes i agree that even with these people you shouldnt take everything you hear as 100% true forever, but i think its better to lets say, hear on TV did you know scientists proved that the sun orbits the earth and this and that, and then this person is like wow thats interesting im going to research, and he figures out that the person on the TV is wrong, and in his search he learns so many new things and learns about the skepticism.
Well theyll still find it easier and better if theyre exposed to the idea, you have to know a concept to google it.

einstein was a fraud who stole patents like all jews working at the patent office his corpse should be dug up and thrown into an oven