Well you see, a meter is the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in
1/299 792 458 of a second; and a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 Kelvin; and a Kelvin is the hypothetical temperature at which ...
At risk of serious-posting in the bit-post again; I wouldn't say that. I think there's a legitimate critique to be made with the concept; Dogmatically applying 'Science' to each and every facet of human life without critically assessing 'Science' itself can be pretty bad. It's how you get industrialized agriculture: Science was applied to maximize an area's output in grain. People didn't really consider that widespread monocultures may have negative effects too, because Science told them that this was the most efficient and effective way to produce the most grain with the least amount of work etc. (or lumber or whatever) - It's good to realize that Science isn't this magical process that will always tell you the best course forward, it's maybe a way to answer a very specific question with some degree of certainty - but not a tool that tells you when your question is entirely the wrong one to begin with.
Viewing science as an unquestionable dogma is, in itself, deeply unscientific. That doesn't change that this kind of thing, this "i read the headline of an article about a study somewhere and that means i got science on my side" is a widespread attitude, and i can get behind a good-faith critique of that.
It's just that i usually see this being brought up in bad faith atm and think we should be vary of that.
you could make the same silly statements about miles, it doesnt change that metric units are easier to convert between and there are more metric units for smaller sizes.
Ok sure but at least I know it's 100 cm in a m. 1000 m in a km.
Like who thought 12 in for a foot, 3 feet for a yard was a good idea. & like only nerds know how many feet are in a mile.
Well you see, a meter is the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second; and a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 Kelvin; and a Kelvin is the hypothetical temperature at which ...
This is your brain on scientism.
precisely measuring distances and time is a normative or epistemological value now? :side-eye-2:
Chuds needed a word to slander the opposite of their obscurantism, so they made up scientism.
At risk of serious-posting in the bit-post again; I wouldn't say that. I think there's a legitimate critique to be made with the concept; Dogmatically applying 'Science' to each and every facet of human life without critically assessing 'Science' itself can be pretty bad. It's how you get industrialized agriculture: Science was applied to maximize an area's output in grain. People didn't really consider that widespread monocultures may have negative effects too, because Science told them that this was the most efficient and effective way to produce the most grain with the least amount of work etc. (or lumber or whatever) - It's good to realize that Science isn't this magical process that will always tell you the best course forward, it's maybe a way to answer a very specific question with some degree of certainty - but not a tool that tells you when your question is entirely the wrong one to begin with.
Viewing science as an unquestionable dogma is, in itself, deeply unscientific. That doesn't change that this kind of thing, this "i read the headline of an article about a study somewhere and that means i got science on my side" is a widespread attitude, and i can get behind a good-faith critique of that.
It's just that i usually see this being brought up in bad faith atm and think we should be vary of that.
deleted by creator
To be fair, the implamentation of science is engineering. Don't blame scientists (unless they lie).
yes, like with measurement in metric, sure it takes into account the scientific accuracies but it's not really designed fantastically for human use
:monke-beepboop:
:monke-ruserious:
you could make the same silly statements about miles, it doesnt change that metric units are easier to convert between and there are more metric units for smaller sizes.
I know, I'm just shitposting.
I mean I don't even care about all that, just that it's easier to count is nice.
:monke-return:
unironically this