I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

Reminded me of this.

Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

While the term was defined originally to mean “methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists”, some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”.

Exactly. I keep trying to get people to understand that it’s a process, just like running is a process.

And a method in which beliefs are important. Not the religious ones, of course, but there are other kinds of beliefs.

Believing that science yields universally true results or is the only method of finding truths, however, is an ontology and something you have to believe.

Edit: I’m not anti-science or anything, just a pedant.

I saw this earlier and really wanted to pipe up, but I just couldn’t bear it.

It’s referred to as “Scientism”.

My 2nd least favorite religion.

The placebo effect works even if you know its a placebo tho.

That’s medicine. Science just sees it as a problem to be sorted by good study design and statistics

deleted by creator

Literally I would not be caught dead drinking from that thing

problem?

seems like you’re drawing on a guilt by association fallacy

Is there anyone out there who hates Ben Shapiro and the temperamental cranks who act like their subjective appeals to emotion & outrage have anywhere as much merit as valid, objective arguments that take actual effort? The latter is tiresome, and they absolutely deserve Ben’s catchphrase: everyone should be appropriating it to nobler causes than Ben’s to annoy him & criticize those irrational twerps.

You’re referring to quantum effects? Don’t worry about whether you’re not watching, the universe is watching. If one photon is emitted from the thing in a quantum state and hits anything, that’s the observation

A lot of the confusion around quantum mechanics comes from misleading cartoons about the double-slit experiment which don’t occur in reality. They usually depict it as if the particle produces a wave-like interference pattern when you’re not looking, and two separate blobs like you’d expect from particles when you look. But, again, you have never seen that, I have never seen that, no physicist has ever seen that. It only exists in cartoons.

In fact, it cannot occur because it would violate the uncertainty principle. The reason you get a spread out pattern at all is because the narrow slits constrain the particle’s position so its momentum spreads out, making its trajectory less predictable. There is simply no way you can possible have the particles both pass through narrow slits and form two neat blobs with predictable trajectories, because then you would know both their position and momentum simultaneously.

What actually happens if you run the calculation is that, in the case where you measure the which-way information of the particle, the particle still forms a wave-like pattern on the screen, but it is more akin to a wave-like single-slit diffraction pattern than an interference pattern. That is to say, it still gives you a wave-like pattern.

It is just not true that particles have two sets of behavior, “particle” and “wave” depending upon whether or not you’re looking at them. They have one set of equations that describes their stochastic motion which is always wave-like. All that measuring does is entangle your measurement device with the particle, and it is trivial to show that such entanglement prevents the particle from interfering with itself when considered in isolation from what it is entangled with.

That is all decoherence is. If you replace the measuring device with a single second particle and have it interact such that it becomes entangled with that particle, it will also make the interference pattern disappear. Entanglement spreads the interference effects across multiple systems, and if you then consider only subsystems of that entangled system in isolation then you would not observer interference effects.

I say they do in the same way that I care about the world in general, but I don’t think they pay much attention to layfolks for the purposes of their work.

What do you mean? Sociology I kind of get, but psychology nowadays is a purely quantitative discipline (despite its subject being squishier than other quantitative sciences).