You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

These ideologues who insist that science is just a method and not the manifestation of that method are essentially saying, “look, we have this perfect, invisible tool, but you cannot measure the output or operation of that tool. And if we eventually discover that the product of that tool is mistaken, then it actually wasn’t our tool at work, since ours is infallible, it was another invisible tool which is always fallible.”

Also: Marxists.


Tequila_Wolf OP wrote

Was a worthwhile read. Gelderloos is pretty impressive.


idkalice wrote (edited )

the point about about trigonometry being an "offshoot of artillery" just doesnt make that much sense to me, like sure afaik it's important for artillery but if you search from what i can find that's clearly not the reason the thing exists or the only reason for its application, like the history is ancient. obv not trying to dismiss the article on this but i just find it weird that trigonometry here is just dismissed as a way for militaries to kill people deader


Antarchtic wrote

I agree, it feels like a pretty lackluster dismissal. I think it would've been a bit more coherent to mention the ways trigonometry is the basis of current military artillery and general manufacturing, I think it would flow very nicely into the argument about the things they don't teach us in school.

On the other hand, maybe Gelderloos just really despises trigonometry. Which is understandable, honestly


Spring wrote

Yeah definitely, this was quite jarring to me. When I think of trigonometry I immediately go to Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks. And OK it is useful for artillery and OK in the mediaeval ages there was a lot of funding for military applications. But as you say 1) it massively predates this situation and 2) it is incredibly useful for other things - building housing for example, machinery, electronics and communication. Now OK maybe we have a separate argument about the morality of technology, but that it is a very different argument.

Which is a shame because the argument against science (or the veneration of science anyway) was great and very important.


moonlune wrote (edited )

Classical physics & differential geometry was perfected in the 18XXs thanks to the prussian army's funding and their hope to shoot straighter cannon balls.


ArchimedesLightning wrote

Fuck this shit. Anyone that says that the scientific method is somehow related to some sort of "ideal" and not reality, which is its literal definition is at best miss informed. Done with talking to idiots that think they know what science is.


ziq wrote (edited )


<1000s of words critiquing the scientific method and its proclivity for corruption by authority>


Fuck this shit. Done with talking to (ableist slur) that think they know what science is.

The scientific / christian method in all its glory. Don't question science, science is perfect, incapable of corruption or weakness. People who question it are simply too feeble to understand it.


Spring wrote

I don't think that's what Gelderloos is saying. The argument is that either the scientific method is empirical, deals with reality (including social realities such as institutional blindspots) and therefore fallible. Or none of science's failings are "real science", they could all be solved with more science and that is all that is needed to solve them. But this is a nonsense argument, if no imperfections belong to science and none of the imperfect realities belong to science, then science must be unreal, unable to affect reality in any way, at which point - isn't it completely useless?