3 ms·

This is just absurdly simplistic. The enlightenment did not appear in a vaccuum either. It is predicated on specific philosophical arguments. This becomes immed

by Bakary 4y ago

This is just absurdly simplistic. The enlightenment did not appear in a vaccuum either. It is predicated on specific philosophical arguments. This becomes immediately apparent when you consider non-Western industrialized nations. The scientific method is one thing, but it is not something that can be used to prescribe a way to live. Plenty of aspects of our society aren't predicated on post-enlightenment thinking.

spicyusername 4y ago
> The scientific method is one thing, but it is not something that can be used to prescribe a way to live. I understand what you're getting at. I agree that much of what is considered "philosophy" isn't just "what is", but "what should we do about it". I would argue that the answer "what we should do about it" is either: - So relative that there isn't an answer (or are infinite answers), at which point everyone is welcome to substitute any answer they like. - Dependent on as-yet-undiscovered information in the physical sciences (biology, cosmology, physics, neuroscience, etc), which is why we're still reliant on incomplete (or incorrect) proxies
- Bakary 4y ago
  The key takeaway is that what you are currently evaluating as a neutral, logical, science-based way of looking at the world is actually based on very specific philosophical and epistemological ideas that are ironically not themselves based on any kind of scientific approach per se. There's only a small portion of our lives that is actually lived on the basis of the scientific method and rigorous experiments, and this is not due to lacking as-of-yet-undiscovered material, so rejecting anything that does not employ the method as a source of knowledge or claiming that it's all relative is already a very curious position. The STEM-bro/SWE/HN/LessWrong/Sam Harris mindset is hyperspecific in its cultural conclusions and it doesn't come to those through experiments but by making prescriptive claims just like any philosopher. This isn't just an academic problem, but something that has real practical consequences when it comes to living in a society dominated by FAANGs and other such structures.

by Bakary 4y ago

spicyusername 4y ago

> The scientific method is one thing, but it is not something that can be used to prescribe a way to live. I understand what you're getting at. I agree that much of what is considered "philosophy" isn't just "what is", but "what should we do about it". I would argue that the answer "what we should do about it" is either: - So relative that there isn't an answer (or are infinite answers), at which point everyone is welcome to substitute any answer they like. - Dependent on as-yet-undiscovered information in the physical sciences (biology, cosmology, physics, neuroscience, etc), which is why we're still reliant on incomplete (or incorrect) proxies

Bakary 4y ago
The key takeaway is that what you are currently evaluating as a neutral, logical, science-based way of looking at the world is actually based on very specific philosophical and epistemological ideas that are ironically not themselves based on any kind of scientific approach per se. There's only a small portion of our lives that is actually lived on the basis of the scientific method and rigorous experiments, and this is not due to lacking as-of-yet-undiscovered material, so rejecting anything that does not employ the method as a source of knowledge or claiming that it's all relative is already a very curious position. The STEM-bro/SWE/HN/LessWrong/Sam Harris mindset is hyperspecific in its cultural conclusions and it doesn't come to those through experiments but by making prescriptive claims just like any philosopher. This isn't just an academic problem, but something that has real practical consequences when it comes to living in a society dominated by FAANGs and other such structures.