that they are generally weirdly sematic, made specifically on the logic that if something gains the name or tittle of science or matter , that they must win?but what would happen if non materialist/science universalist, just call everything they do science or matter without changing how it actually works or is.what would happen if buddist monks call themseleves experts of getting rid of suffering by meditation engineering .new age people saying they are doing scientific progress on their soul ,by industrializing it with love.and Cristian's saying their inmortal soul going to heaven is just an emergent process of matter.I feel like this is something most materialists/scientist universalists , can't really handle it, by the way they argue in their day to day life , but are their any writen texts that talk about a situation like this?any text that rebuke this situation , because I don't think their is anything online commenting on this.
>>25264540*I noticed that in a lot of arguments for only materialism and science
>>25264540we call that pseudoscience
Science requires peer-review and testability that can be replicated other parties who can quantify their resultsScience itself holds no position on materialism vs idealism
>>25264540We value things that are real, means are measurable and able to be studied, you can never win, if you were able to study meditation or praying it becomes materialism, you not being able to see it doesnt mean its not matterIf we end up knowing more about the brain and conciusness that end up explaining meditation and praying, that is materialismIf you try to look at esoteric things from a scientific lense to sell it to us, you basically just trying to make it materialism
>>25264556but in a purely scientific , materialistic , paradime . what does pseudoscience means.what exactly gives you the autority? if people seem to be interacting with matter and exploring different scientific pursuits.imagine if you are a bunch of oil researchers , but the existence of oil is declared as pseudoscience , I guess it doesn't exist????what the fuck were you studying.I mean your answer checks out in how people would respond, is just kind of a cop out.it seems to imply this argument functions by weird semantical logic were you are basically using a wierd semantical slipery slope argument.its kind of like a similar mote and vallie that cristians use with god, now that I think about it. but regardless of how scientific everything is anon, you are forcing people to belive in worldviews they have 0 agency , controll and in some way understanding over, and that is kind of evil , very nasty anon.are their any literally texts that argue this position from the angle of good?
>>25264572*It doesnt mean its not real
>>25264540First of all the premise itself that if something gains the name Science then it's irrefutable by default is retarded, no matter which side it comes from. Having said that, many practice philosophies that are clearly not science or even anti-science. Slapping the word "science" on it would ironically undermine those positions. When I used to debate theists on this board years ago, they would unironically tell me that they've arrived at God via what could be considered science. And then begin to quote the first mover argument.
>>25264582I think op is an iqlet, clearly studying esoterics end up with them becoming science
>>25264562tecnically, but the power of science plus the fact that currently it has issue playing ball with ideas from other sources , has made a very popular and influencial philosophical shift.of basically seeing reality as a caotic , almost digital , bunch "matter" and scientific rules on top of themseleves.this is what I mean by materialist and science universalist, as in someone who belives that both all progress comes from abandoning all thought process that aren't "scientific" , because that is what reality is.someone who can already tell you what philosophy is the only one that exists.people mostly aren't like this because they are evil , is just a natural consequence of a lot of the power science gave us, and other philosophies developing.
>>25264598Omg kys
>>25264582>First of all the premise itself that if something gains the name Science then it's irrefutable by default is retardedwell the premise is more so that if something gains the name of science it goes into a transformation , that destroys it , into the philosophy the person making the argument wants.that is even more retarded , but in a way it clearly can't be that retarded, their has to be something else to it , I just assume that is people playing broken telephone froma specific source(s).>Having said that, many practice philosophies that are clearly not science or even anti-science. Slapping the word "science" on it would ironically undermine those positions.on a normal position that makes sence clearly, but if your oposition only wants you to join their "team" under the understanding that you would be forced to get thier philosophy, then can't you just add claims and truths on top of science until you basically get the exact same philosophies you owned before?if its all about names , what is stoping someone from making only about astetics , astetics are still important specially for theists , but they clearly don't have to abandon much.>When I used to debate theists on this board years ago, they would unironically tell me that they've arrived at God via what could be considered science. And then begin to quote the first mover argument.they were using philosophy , which is a neutral teritory.but yea , I mean desu I have seen theist doing this a little bit, but its always kind of reserved ,for the very simple reason that they are being honest , not really forcing everything ,always just one specific concept out of time.but I wonder what would happen if you comit to a proper change of astetics proper , a remodeling of how you comunicate , but not how you mean.
>>25264599na anon, I love myself and the people around me.I do need to get some writting lessons though.
>>25264589>clearly studying esotericswhat type of study though? , I never said the religios people actually change the way they do research , how they comprehend situations.just that you can just rename everything you do for the faith , as always beeing scienfific research all along.so when would the religion>end up with them becoming scienceand what exactly would that transformation be?no one ever define what it is , exepct when people talk about the whole thing being seen as a ruse.their is an implication that it could be something that exists, but it only exists in a way that would validate the person making the argument for science.but its based on feelings , its based on vibes.whats stoping someone from just saying their religion is already transformed into science , hell what stops someone from claiming science has not yet transformed into science , that we need to change it?obs in a real life situation, claiming something is science is ment to in a wierd sence , ment to be a promise around what the averge joe thinks science must be.but that isn't a logical argument, that isn't an argument that stands on its own two legs, that could be explained well in a book.its a dirty trick using very specific political , culturaly and theistic circustance. are their any arguments that don't depend on this?
>>25264646>are their any arguments that don't depend on this?in a written text specifically, because I think the root of this problem is that is using argumentation , that doesn't work in a self contained text.it needs to dynamically change around human conversation to work.that is why I want a text about it.
>>25264556Mainstream science proponents don't apply that word honestly, almost all "science" today is pseudoscience but the term is only applied to hypotheses they don't like. The word is most commonly used to demonize wrongthink and if language is defined by usage that's what the word now means.
>>25264575Replicability and quantifiability. Model A: uses rigid quantifiable terms and the quantifiable measurements can be replicated by different people.Model B: rests on assumptions, extrapolations and/or subjective experience.In some cases B may reflect reality better than A but A is still the scientific model and B is not, we can't discuss B in "objective" verifiable terms. There is no scientific model of qualia but it's still a thing.
>>25264845but isn't this kind of circular in regards to saying that everything is scientific in nature? this is part of what I mean that , people try to put the claim that everything is scientific in nature, going against the traditional science vs paranormal vs base life, dynamic.to then once someone allready is set in their was of respecting this "science" they start using standars they can manipulate freely.and its also deeply unscientific in nature, how can you talk about "science" if you cant quantify rigidly science.
>>25264540>semioticsenters the picture kek
>>25265037interesting anon.
>>25265061the intro material is easy but the words get very complicated very quickly for the deeper stuff
>>25264990>everything is scientific in natureRead the post, I explicitly talk about how that's not the case.Only our models are scientific. Our measurable maps of a terrain are objective because you can go measure the observable data about the terrain they describe. The terrain itself can be magic or God or whatever, there's an endless amount of data we don't know about any given rock on the map. The parts we can't reproduce measurements about are not accounted for by any scientific discipline but that makes it almost impossible to talk about so rationalists only talk about what can be measured. Qualia for example isn't part of any scientific worldview despite all of us having direct experience of it that precedes any scientific measurement.
>>25265087Dude you wasting time he is retarded
>>25264540Are people really just replying to begging the question that posits nothing seriously?
book of Exodus is what you seek childtrust not in signs
>>25265087Read the post, I explicitly talk about how that's not the case.Only our models are scientific. Our measurable maps of a terrain are objective because you can go measure the observable data about the terrain they describe. The terrain itself can be magic or God or whatever, there's an endless amount of data we don't know about any given rock on the map. The parts we can't reproduce measurements about are not accounted for by any scientific discipline but that makes it almost impossible to talk about so rationalists only talk about what can be measuredbut under a context were someone is claiming that scientific measurement is , everything that does become a significant problem, and that is were I find that situation posible,the main thing is that a lot of this people want you to claim the label of science, so that you are forced to have similar mindset considerations , that you see everything as data and models on top of a trenchcoat , but more importanly than that, that you discard anything that seems to unsciency , even if you might still have grounds to belive in it , even on a scientific understanding, as long as you phrase your belife and expectations correctly. generally scientific logic , being used and having results is how the superficial aspects exist, but in the context of the materialist/science universalists, they start from the premice of trying for you to agree with the astetics of science , with the understanding that once you have the astetics you have to agree with everything else they consider science , not necesarlly science as how it is objectevly , but exactly what they consider science.>Qualia for example isn't part of any scientific worldview despite all of us having direct experience of it that precedes any scientific measurement.but under a materialist/scientific universalist perspective it does not actually exist and in fact their are multiple real life examples of people being against qualia specifically because of this, not matter how stupid is it.imagine if somone was trying to make any understanding of qualia , something completly from the past, and idea most people don't really even consider , too consider.just because it isn't scientific and that seems to be the only reason , the actualy reason why science changes stuff is never officially stated.so while I understand why people in real life don't do this, what really is the harm to just proactevly claim qualia is scientific were it really isn't? , its either than or they stop beliving in it.>>25265188mean anon :d.
>>25265204I do admit this is on my as an OP. but I think I wasn't clear enough with the point of this treath.I really wasn't asking for random people to debate me, the main porpuse was that I assumed an autor allready had to graple with this very specific situation, and they allready had a responce to it.some kind of clear responce against the situation if it were to happen.
>>25264562Science has a major "reproducibility crisis". So they must be doing it wrong.
>>25266789That crisis is mainly among the social "sciences" aka people who just make shit up half the time.
>>25266825It's not just them. Clearly, our vaccine researchers just make up shit too.
