No one has ever dared to criticize the scientific method but here I go: Whilst the study of the natural world and reality itself is a good thing. The scientific method seems like it was literally designed to slow down discovery and dumb down obvious truths to an unconscious populace using symbols, an invented vocabulary, and images just to plead to dumb people that the earth is round or some crap. To put it lightly The bird flies without calculating aerodynamics and the jock is popular because he inherently has the ability to be so, the planets move without numbers and empires rise and fall without peter turchins exact models. Technology literally doesn’t make a species more enlightened or civilized, technology only exists to make things faster, easier, and more comfortable and convenient, a civilization is an adaptation to a certain environment not something that makes a species smarter or more superior Only certain countries in certain regions of the earth in a certain region of the universe thinks every intelligent life form needs to create a “civilization”, there definitely are intelligent beings out there, but many of them literally don’t need to LARP and make things easier for everyone So there could very likely be extremely intelligent creatures (even if biological) that exist in numbers across the universe but since they don’t desire to do math or apply themselves in the standard beaurucrate mundane specific way we demand intelligent people to apply themselves. That says alot about us as a species, we could have a whole ocean of genius but we consider it “mathematically impossible” because they do not fit a specific criteria or publicly disclose themselves (like the cibao or multi trillion dollar banking dynasties) Good means eternal and timeless utility, Good is built on long term stability and bloodline preservation. Which is why most sins are said to be extremely unstable in the long term When I say science is “bad” I mean science is a parasocial attempt to distort reality and maximize weakness under the facade of objectivity My critique of modern ethics: they want to get rid of the strong people that protect the weak from malicious actors, they do not do anything to destroy actual malicious actors to avoid being called “fascists” or “eugenicists”. They constantly shout at vunerable young men who just wa…
Several critiques
Replies (6)
Classgenics is a form of psuedo eugenics that rich people talk about. They believe since they have legacy wealth and credentials it means they are “eugenic”
Elite sovereign Working class people could rule the world better than most billionaires
Maybe the earth is neither round or flat or any shape, it is neither existent or non existent, it exists in our mind. You cannot truly empathize with the unconscious because they are fundamentally lifeless, you can make up an imagined version but their minds don’t actually exist, just their bodies. This removes any power they have over you. Methodus Suprema or Aeonismus for short is the next stage to go beyond science .
Before you accuse me of being a midwit, I would like to ask.
How would your new system work? In science the method usually is, Question>Mathematical model>hypothesis>test the hypothesis, and then accept or reject the hypothesis. And Stephen Stearns(don’t remember his exact surname), popular evolutionary biologist says science is the play of alternatives. Which means the process itself is slow.
So are you proposing a new way to create models? Will we use computational models instead of Mathematical ones, or its a whole new thing that has not been explored, and what do you think of Wolfram’s new kind of science. He has basically proposed an alternative to explain complexity that we cannot explain with the current scientific method.
I agree in part. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche made many points similar to this. Obviously instinct is the result of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation and is therefore generally of epistemic value. However, man increasingly needs science as an epistemic crutch in our age of low selection pressure. Many people now are being born with bad instinct, maybe even the majority. In that sense it is a claim to trust one’s instinct, a claim that one is a higher type of man and may rely on it. Poorly adapted men should not rely on it. Furthermore higher sciences take us beyond the realm of even the best of human instinct. Quantum physics is an example. My goal with QSB was largely to elevate “social science” or the science of man to such a level, since I find the mainstream to be at best trivial and no better than a good man’s intuition.
Is it expensive? Or do you have enough money to make all the important discoveries in QSB, then future generations can advance it once its mainstream.
Post a Reply
Log in to reply.