Hey Sup Forums, wanna be /sci/ here. Would you agree that the pursuit of objective truths (physics, biology...

Hey Sup Forums, wanna be /sci/ here. Would you agree that the pursuit of objective truths (physics, biology, all of the hard sciences) should be mankind's main focus, and that sociology, psychology, and to a lesser extent philosophy will all follow after?

Where does spirituality fit into your equation pleb?

I guess what I'm asking is weather or not you would support policies that placed an emphasis on technological advancement over political/military power.

You're free to believe whatever you want. I'm not saying you have to be atheist

>over political/military power.
You cant advance technologically when you get conquered by barbarians, user...

But you misunderstand me. The material world is a fucking illusion and material science is faggotry.

As a person with a worthless psych degree, fuck psychology. Complete horseshit.

The truth is that niggers are worthless

Right. I'm not asking for 100% one way or the other. Just, what should we prioritize?

When you put it like that, I guess I would. Like you said in the OP, the rest will follow. New ways of waging war would pop up.

It was the worst of my GEs

No goy, it's so great you should worship me!
>t. demiurge

why even ask that question? You prioritize one when things are calm, and the other when they are not. Its like arguing weather you are a breathing, or eating based person.

Hopefully wars would eventually become unnecessary

GOOD GOY

What do you mean? I said we shouldn't go 100% one way or the other. Are you saying that when things are calm 100% of our resources should go to scientific advancement and when things are chaotic 100% of our resources should go to the military? Surely there is a mix between the two (and other areas of spending) that is better.

Bump

2/3 bumps before I go back to the containment board

Final, sad bump.

I am saying that putting out "Is X better than Y" is a pointless statement to make, if you need to have both for survival.

What even is the practical expression of a society who is "scientific", instead of a political and military powerhouse? Can those things even exist without eachother in the modern day, where tech is what determines the outcome of military conflict?

I think there has been some sort of miscommunication. I agree that in the current age scientific advancement and military and political power go hand in hand. Yet if you look at how resources are spent by nation states, you will see that scientific funding is typically set "on the back burner." I personally believe that funding technological advancement is more important than funding military spending.

HOWEVER technological advancement is only meaningful if the society undergoing said advancement is unified ideologically and willing to confront threats as a unit.

I think throwing out a stamp statement like "military spending bad, science good" is overwriting so many geopolitical realities with naivety its sad.

While i agree that the american military industrial complex is a pointlessly overbloated behemoth, in reality cutting them down would mean that other european states would have to abandon their investment in scientific fields and rearm. This is just an example on how one side disarming forces others to arm themselves to make up for the lack of seurity.

But the problem is that you are not approaching the problem from a practical angle. You are not singling out what part of the military industrial complex is that you want to slim down, and channel the funds into research instead. You are just coming out with a stamp statement, that is easy to dismiss due to its banality.

Alright, I totally agree that I generized my beliefs in an attempt to simplify them. If you want specifics, I would like to see the US military pull out of foreign nations, and close many (not all) of its overseas bases. As for a decrease in US military spending causing European nations to decrease their scientific spending, I don't see that happening. What threat does Western Europe currently face that they need the US's military help to face?

Generalized*

...

...

You're a clueless tech retard. Just stop posting.

Tell me why I'm wrong you Norwegian fuck

>What threat does Western Europe currently face that they need the US's military help to face?
God damn, i knew /ski/ had its head up its ass but i didnt know its so deep they dont even know what the fuck is going on in the world.

I agree with the policy of american isolationism, but it will cause eruopean rearmament due to threat posed by russia, and potential conflicts with Turkey, or even intra-european conflicts between V4 and brüssels central.
In a longer view, the rising power of Chinese military might will have to be if not matched, then at least somewhat invonvenienced by european powers.
This will cause cuts in european scientific spending inevitably.

You need to have a concrete plan, if you want to propose cuts, because otherwise its as worthless statement as the lolbertarians "we need to cut taxes", and then refusing to even tell what, where, how much .

>debate me
Go try this on /lit/. They are smart enough to make you feel like the moron you are.

Thanks for at least replying seriously. I'm not claiming to be an expert, so please refrain form insulting me. I want to learn why my logic is flawed. My CURRENT understanding is that the combined military power of Western European nations is enough to keep Russia in check. As for China, I'm not sure that the US can compete with them indefinitely. I still think that technological spending cal allow the US to compete with China better than purely militaristic spending. I understand that this spending must be blended, but I think that placing an emphasis on science and R&D is is more important than pure military spending.

Great reasoning

Consider this derision and insults justly earned, same way you would insult me if i butted into your field of expertise and claimed something retarded.

Problem with russia is that they are not idiots and they will not declare war on the entire western world. They will keep doing a salami-style foreign policy of snipping bit by bit territory from european nations, always just below the threshold to warrant a total war response. And even if they did, EU states are not unified, and can be easily divided and played against eachother. This uncertainty, especially in the absence of a "world police" role that america currently plays, will mean each nation will take it upon themselves to protect their interests, and will rearm.

There is never a threat of russians doing a blitzkreig and reaching france, but the eastern fringes of europe are more than easy pickings in the current disarmed state of europe.

Also, once more, you are using words like "placing emphasis". They are feel-worlds, they lack anything real or practical attached to them. They can mean anything from declaring a national Science-month or other such pointless PR moves, to treating scientists as a priestly class. There is no action behind your words, its just "i feel we spend too much here, we should spend there"

Also i am curious why you are singling out just military spending for cutting? Why not welfare? Why not police force? Is it just because its the most socially safe program to attack?

I'll admit that I know very little about Russian expansionist policy. But I will look into it. This thread is going to diemsoon so thanks for giving me something to look into. I don't currently see the US's role as world police as a major deterrent, but I admit that I could be wrong here.

As for your issue with me saying "placing emphasis on scientific spending over military, I simply meant to discuss cutting military spending in favor of R&D as a specific issue. I ad it that there are various other areas from which funding can be directed

This is the general problem of your rhethoric. You want extra scientific spending, then just advocate for that. Doing this in concert with ONLY arguing for military cuts is what tips off people that you have no contact with the general reality of the subjects, other than watching john oliver and feeling smart about a snark.

If you want extra scientific spending, advocate for extra scientific spending. Attatching attacks or "science is better than guns" to it is pointless and devalues the case you are trying to make.

American military spending is 16% of the total budget. Welfare is 1/3, Healthcare is 1/3. Narrowing the only place you can syphon money for science to just military is both idiotic in even if you are a science supremacist.

So let me revise my original argument: should scientific funding represent a larger portion of the US's budget?

Hell, my OP never specified a specific suit to military spending.

And the answer to that is Yes. Done. Amazing. I would suggest finding the money to do that from reducing welfare and forbidding foreigners access to american healthcare system, along with a more isolationist foreign policy for america.

thats racist you faggot, send me your address or don't post. I'll come to your place personally, glock out

It depends on you. You can make a lot of money out of it, if you are smart. Also, lot of pussy

Philosophy is the hard foundation of all your "objective truths".

Our focus should be going to space, nothing else matters. Prove me wrong.

But those two things aren't necessarily at odds. A lot of technological advances are gained through military R&D.

never gonna happen. there is no planet B

Thats the kind of thinking that leads you to decide that petrol sniffing is a good way to pass the time.

I think sociology should be eternally BTFO. Psychology should be tied into neuroscience and subsequently considered a hard science. Thus with the categories being set, Philosophy should come first, and the hard sciences second. Everything else should be taken out of the universities.

AYO, WHAT ABOUT REPHARASHUNS? WHAT ABOUT THE HALL OF COST?

Psych and sociology have both been corrupted to hell by leftists. I only took an intro philosophy class, but it was by far the most unbiased.

I think we should adopt a broad-scope eugenics strategy and systematically kill anyone not capable of contributing to the space effort. Take everyone who's left and give them jobs building spacecraft.

that big fat woman sure looks hungry

>objective truths
The world is ~6000 years old and was spoken into existence by the living God.

That is the absolute truth.

how can you say that when you benefit from science literally ever sencond of every day


go live life Varg mode and then ill take you seriously, but you wont be able to post here since it uses science

Deductive philosophy is needed zo establish scientific methods. Science is empirical and can therefore never be as objective as logically deduced conclusions

unfortunately the state of psychology as a science is shamefully cucked with fake conditions (adhd is not real yes really) and the like. the jews have completely subverted every inch of psych. however, i think a better understanding of the limits of the human mind (especially related to social processes) is necessary before material advancements are really going to mean anything. it would be literally niggers in space. niggers on the moon drinking forties and beating the fuck out of each other like beasts. psych needs to uncuck itself but humanity really doesn't deserve the potential

Its the same shit. You support one you will support the other too. A lot of technology was developed for war and military only later to be used by civilians.