Are scientists somewhat nihilistic?

[s1eep]

There are many ways to imagine the world; but scientists imagine the world in line with the scientific method.

Are scientists somewhat nihilistic, therefore?

And what I mean by this is that the infinite nature of the mind, seems suppressed to a particular standpoint.

[iNow]

Some are. Some are not. Nihilism is only peripherally related to the category "scientists" and neither is causative of the other in the way you seem to be suggesting.

[s1eep]

Some are. Some are not. Nihilism is only peripherally related to the category "scientists" and neither is causative of the other in the way you seem to be suggesting.

The way I'm suggesting is what's written on the face of the print, no strange meaning involved.

[Phi for All]

The scientific method is a set of tools for making sense of nature in a trustworthy way, precisely because of our seemingly unlimited imaginative nature. The only thing it suppresses is nonsense and ignorance.

 

I think the pursuit of science is definitely not nihilistic by definition. That's an awful lot of study and hard work for someone who thinks it's all meaningless.

 

For the moral aspect, a rational being doesn't need religion to define his morality. I'm a moral person, but not because I fear punishment from a deity.

[swansont]

A basic premise of science is that there is an objective reality which can be measured. That seems diametrically opposed to an "extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence." (quoted from Google)

[Prometheus]

What flavour of nihilism do you want to talk about? There's a few according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

[s1eep]

What flavor is that of scientists?

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

What flavor is that of scientists?

 

I'd assumed you knew enough about nihilism to accuse all scientists of being somewhat nihilistic.

[iNow]

I get the very real sense that there exists a deep failure of basic reading comprehension actively occurring here in this thread.

[s1eep]

Let's not delve into child's play, it's not about winning, it's about living and learning. Don't get too fatherly, surely that's arrogance, you are also "wrong sometimes"; throwing a tantrum or stretching your ego I don't care, but doing something that brings us off-topic. The question seeks an answer, remember, you didn't answer it you dodged it and left a little subliminal insult. Yes I am "pointing the finger" somewhat. Who's to say that scientists aren't to be pointed at? Especially if they are doing something wrong. Perhaps the perfect philosophical theory is balanced with a more imaginative and knowledgeable mindset -- you would be less nihilistic with your presentation and productivity, and this, may, mean science needs to balance itself with this particular philosophy.

 

A scientists nihilistic nature is abstruse, it's not easy to address it directly. Like cancer, perhaps.

It's not addressed on wikipedia.

Perhaps it's undiscovered.

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[dimreepr]

Let's not delve into child's play, it's not about winning, it's about living and learning. Don't get too fatherly, surely that's arrogance, you are also "wrong sometimes"; throwing a tantrum or stretching your ego I don't care, but doing something that brings us off-topic. The question seeks an answer, remember, you didn't answer it you dodged it and left a little subliminal insult.

 

A scientists nihilistic nature is abstruse, it's not easy to address it directly. Like cancer, perhaps.

It's not addressed on wikipedia.

Perhaps it's undiscovered.

 

 

 

The question was answered in post #2 then again in #4 and #5, then clarification was sought in post #6 (nothing forthcoming); in what way were any of the posts, other than yours, childish?

[s1eep]

 

 

 

The question was answered in post #2 then again in #4 and #5, then clarification was sought in post #6 (nothing forthcoming); in what way were any of the posts, other than yours, childish?

The question at post 7 was not answered at post 5.

 

The correct answer would be, there is no flavor, but seemingly people can see it's flavor.

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[dimreepr]

The question at post 7 was not answered at post 5.

 

The correct answer would be, there is no flavor, but seemingly people can see it's flavor.

 

 

You don’t seem to understand the word ‘flavour’ in this context, not the first time your comprehension has been challenged.

[s1eep]

 

 

You don’t seem to understand the word ‘flavour’ in this context, not the first time your comprehension has been challenged.

I don't see how when a man has nil submission, civility and obvious understanding for peoples words... he is 'challenged'. The man is just confident in his own prowess, has his own ideas, doesn't want to be like the 'rest of em''. My ideas have always been intelligent, just not expressed as scientifically literate as they could be. Because I have shown weakness before you have pounced on it before, but it was an act of kindness at the time, taking us away from an aggressive stance - you want an enmity between myself and an audience of people whom I can discuss with. That's all. This is a measure, of what I think, scientists of today's nihilism can achieve, social problems like this because of disinformation. It's sickening but people can get over it, even admitting that is showing weakness which will be pounced on in the future. Name one time my comprehension has been challenged without bringing up things which aren't debatable ( because of moderation ) because that would be childish, tehehe, we wouldn't want to do that now would we?

 

[1] Taking note of weaknesses, it means you are also predictable - meaning you may be a source of depression; because when some people think ahead about their passions, it's your words that echo into their mind, saying what? Things like "crank", etc. :'(((

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[dimreepr]

Name one time my comprehension has been challenged without bringing up things which aren't debatable ( because of moderation ) because that would be childish, tehehe, we wouldn't want to do that now would we?

 

 

Indeed not, so I give up, you win.

[s1eep]

 

 

Indeed not, so I give up, you win.

It's not about winning,

You live and you learn.

 

It's up to you whether you like this or not...

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

The question at post 7 was not answered at post 5.

 

The correct answer would be, there is no flavor, but seemingly people can see it's flavor.

 

You ignored my answer to your question, and now I see why. You already have "correct answers" in mind.

 

So this is not a discussion, it's a soapbox. Again.

[dimreepr]

Thank you for my lesson.

 

 

 

Edit/ cross posted.

Edited June 26, 2015 by dimreepr

[s1eep]

 

You ignored my answer to your question, and now I see why. You already have "correct answers" in mind.

 

So this is not a discussion, it's a soapbox. Again.

I have evidence that it may or may not exist, I don't have an answer which is why I came to discuss.

 

Your standards of discussion are shadowed somewhat by your own attitude toward some innocent members.

 

I repeat, I do not have an answer. I wonder what it would be called. You hate style of writing, you want it all normalized...

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[dimreepr]

I have evidence

 

 

So present it.

[s1eep]

 

 

So present it.

It's not stable evidence; it consists of social studies, noticing nihilistic behavior in light of defending the image of scientists and securing sciences supremacy in social groups. I already asked if 'one perspective' was nihilistic toward the vast array of different perspectives; my evidence is that scientists present the world to people from one particular perspective, most without ever anointing the other perspectives or even demonizing them. This is evidence, but it's not in presentable form yet.

 

EDIT: If I imagine an image of a sustainable planet or something unreal which makes me happy, am I stupid? I don't think I am. I'm creating things out of nothing, I don't even need to draw each circle in the face I imagine, it comes out of thin air as I think it. How is this not intelligent? Imagination contributes to civility, imagination is important... Without it you will end up doing stupid things.

 

And I quote:

 

"extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

The only thing it suppresses is nonsense and ignorance.

Edited June 26, 2015 by s1eep

[dimreepr]

It's not stable evidence;

 

 

LMAO

[s1eep]

 

 

LMAO

Rather than rationalizing with the world you sense around you, you prefer to take the slower route, obstructing us fast learners in the process with low-effort comments.

 

If you're not going to contribute don't reply at all.

[dimreepr]

Rather than rationalizing with the world you sense around you, you prefer to take the slower route, obstructing us fast learners in the process with low-effort comments.

 

If you're not going to contribute don't reply at all.

 

 

Sorry but it was funny...

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Sleep

1. You do not get to tell other members that they cannot participate
2. Many questions have been asked of you - these have been met with stonewalling, insults, and prevarication; please endeavour to meet your obligations as the OP and respond to these requests for clarification. You are soap-boxing - stop it.
3. Describing yourself as a fast-learner and the members as slow is insulting, not borne out by past posting history, and unacceptable. Concentrate on the argument not the person making it.
4. NUNC LENTO SONITU DICUNT, CONFORMABIS. Apologies for the shameless paraphrasing
5. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by imatfaal
fix spelling