Is it still rape if I write "science" on my penis first ?

Thursday, 23 February, Year 9 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

The whole intellectual underpinning of modernity finds itself balefully corroded by Geoffrey Suprani personally, as well as hordes upon hordes of faceless, nameless imbeciles indistinguishable from him. Let us then pour a drink for people long dead and evidently never replaced, and revisit their supposedly eternal and in practice long forgotten memory.

First off, there is no such thing as "science", minuscle or majuscle notwithstanding. The impression of science-as-a-thing-that-exists comes from poorly designed training environments, which overrepresent the retrospective fallacyii and as such is the sole appanage of children. The notion that "science verb adverb etcetera" is exactly of the same kind as "Santa verb adverb etcetera".

Second off, there is no belief whatsoever involved in the scientific activity. If something appeals to your belief gland that something is called religion, without exception, and equally without exception scientists never do so appeal. The core of the scientific activity is the scientific method, which is exactly as the name implies a method and absolutely nothing more. What scientists engage in, without exception known in the centuries of practice so far ellapsed nor possible in the endless voids of abstraction in the future to be unfurled is a methodical behaviour. Nothing more. Nothing less. A dog who always drools when he hears a whistle and never drools when he doesn't hear the whistle is just as much of a scientist as the best human example anyone could ever think of, today or forever.

There is nothing else, and nothing more to scientific activity than the application of the scientific method. You are not asked to be impressed -- that is for the arts, the craft of actresses and whores and the whole menagerie in between. You are not asked to believe -- that is for priests and "reformers" and "progressives" and whatever you call the charlatans this time around. You are not being persuaded, or entertained, or catered to or antagonized or anything else. You don't enter into it. At all, to any degree and in any way. Science has nothing to do with you.

Third off, the entirety of the scientific method consists of playing liar with reality. The largest and longest running society game known to mankind is this peculiar situation where reality silently pretends to be coherent and we keep trying to catch it slip up. Sometimes we do catch it ; but then it usually turns out we hadn't actually understood something, and it hadn't really slipped. There are some still open questions on this score, but enthusiasm on the topic is drastically moderated (even among the people sufficiently gifted with intellectual power that they can follow the actual point in discussion) by a terrible track record over many centuries to date.

This is why science is a rewarding activity, for they sufficiently human to engage in it. This is also why science as an activity (as opposed to science-as-a-pretense-to-get-laidiii, or as a religion, or as an excuse to write on the unemployment applicationiv and keep the dole running) does not need "being incentivized"v nor needs justify itself in terms of utility or entertainment or anything else. It's there because it is fun, and for the people for whom it is fun. Everyone else -- sandwiches, kitchen.

To sum up : a scientist is someone who applies the scientific method ; "science" is not a thing ; you are cordially invited to do something useful or shut the fuck up.

———
  1. This subhuman -- literally, subhuman, like the red skins found by the Spanish, like the black slaves in the South, like the chinese the British found, like the chuka and the eskimo and the whole rest of the cvasi-monkeys out there, principally and in most cases only distinguished by the sad circumstance that he appears like he could have been human yet very pointedly is not human -- is nominally recorded here because of a choice quote in the logs,

    "We're really trying to send a message today to Mr. Trump that America runs on science, science is the backbone of our prosperity and progress," said Geoffrey Supran, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who studies renewable energy, to the Associated Press.

    but otherwise is not distinct nor distinguishable from the postmodern horde of religious scientism worshippers.

    What he aims to say is that economic extraction in the name of Science (the religion) is the backbone of his own personal prosperity and upward social mobility. This is of course true, as true in the heathendoms of today as it was in the valley of the Nile sixty centuries ago. "The Sun" was, as far as the carefully shaven priesthood was concerned, "what the Empire (of the Sun) ran on", as well as "the backbone of their prosperity and progress" (and conceivably also the backbone of the world not being eaten by baby space turtles, why not).

    I have no intention to dispute this particular troglodyte's views, principally because I am not inclined to engage in insane behaviours such as pretending to hold conversation with inanimate objects. I will however state that outside of the whip and the burning stake there is absolutely no place in the world (not this world, not the world of the future, not an ideal world but very pointedly the world full stop) for him and his (numerous) ilk. []

  2. If Napoleon flips a coin and on the basis of tails coming up decides to invade Egypt and succeeds, inept history teachers barely qualified to wash the bodies of the children under their care, let alone furnish their minds will declare that because he was going to be successful therefore Napoleon invaded Egypt. This is rank nonsense. It stays rank nonsense when applied to the history of scientific endeavour in a ridiculous (and anti-cultural) attempt to distill a "science" from that accumulated pile of coffin liners.

    I am aware that you are should be capable to produce an ad-hoc "systematic history of applied philosophy", drawing a path from whatever arbitrary primitives to Bannach spaces and Cauchy Bunyakowsky Schwarz. Nevertheless, this narrative does not constitute a science of mathematics anymore than any observational comedian's bit constitutes comedy. It may be comedic, but it isn't comedy -- much like your room may be spacious but the collection of objects that you placed inside of it and thereby allow you to decide it is spacious in the first place aren't space themselves.

    You don't say "space is my desk and that crusty old sock on the floor and the air between them". You generally understand that even though you laughed, what you laughed at may have been comedic but isn't comedy itself, even though by now we're starting to lose each other. Make a superidiot cognitive effort and grok that any particular narration of the history of scientific endeavour isn't science, because science is the hole not the filler. []

  3. Have you seen that terrible (and very unfunny) flick with Janine Garofalo and the "astrophysics professor" ? []
  4. Yes, all those "grants" the academitards keep filling and filing are nothing else, but I mean absolutely nothing else than glorified unemployment slips. They get more dole than others and for longer intervals, but it's still dole, and it's still bad for them, and so on. []
  5. You can't "get" ten more scientists because you want to.

    You can't get ten more scientists because you built the Obelisk of Science Level 10 in your city -- that's how you get ten more priests, maybe.

    You can't get ten more scientists because you got together with your girlfriends and decreed "science is sexy". You will get a bunch of confused, centreless dorks with bad haircuts -- but then again in fairness you would have gotten that anyway.

    You can't "get" ten more scientists because patriotism or there's a war or there's a peace or there's a good show on tv. Scientists aren't something you get, and in general the efforts of the cattle to manage the ranch are welcome from a humorous perspective only. []

Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

7 Responses

  1. saifedean`s avatar
    1
    saifedean 
    Monday, 27 February 2017

    This entire generation of troglodytes has no fucking shame in going around parroting the words "The Science says" when referring to the crap they heard on The Daily Show and Jimmy Kimmel. I've been having plenty of fun on twitter with these morons. Whenever I post something about climate change hysteria I get a bunch of snarky responses from troglodytes telling me "oh so you think you know more than The Science!? lol". And every fucking time I ask them to provide me with what it is that this “The Science” of theirs says, the best they can come up with is a snarky piece of garbage written by some worthless malnourished piece of shit in thin-rimmed glasses at Slate dot com or some other den of degeneracy and brain damage.

    The tragicomedy in it all is that it is not just Mr. Braindead Millennial who reads the NYT and watches The Daily Show who thinks like this. Having studied in one of the "elite institutions" where "The Science" is manufactured, I can tell you that the actual "scientists" revered and trusted by Mr. Braindead Millennial are no better than him when it comes to how they formulate their understanding of "The Science", as this worthless piece of shit you quote testifies. Every single one of these people takes as their starting point the idea that "The Science Is Settled" and then focuses their research on doing some utterly invalid statistical analysis on some utterly inconsequential tiny detail pertaining to how climate change will affect one of the holy shibboleths of these cults: renewable energy, or human rights, or transgender issues or African village access to sanitation or some such.

    You might think that these people are just the fringe of "The Science" and that there are some grown-ups in some departments actually coming up with "The Science" that tells you why and how climate change is actually happening, but you would be wrong. It's all idiots on the fringe pontificating about human rights and climate change and how Trump is going to destroy “The Science” all the way down.

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Monday, 27 February 2017

    I do not believe there are any grown-ups involved in English-speaking anything ; but this does not mean that the whole orchestra is not fringe. It's utter fringe, definitionally as well as in any practical sense.

  1. [...] principally of Tim Cooks and Hillary Clintons, bureaucrats of the old regime utterly petrified that "our" way of life might come to an abrupt end preferred it this way. Why permit the alternance of power, should it [...]

  2. [...] money somehow to work exactly opposite its purpose and function, and that's ok because... I dunno, "Science" [...]

  3. [...] of defenders, so it goes : the scientist-calvinist crowdiii of 2017 doesn't like the traditional pillar of Romanian identity because there's [...]

  4. [...] with "the golden rule"iii and "why can't we just get along" and proceeds from there all the way to scientist religion and "just the facts" agitprop praxology. So named to commemorate the Pantsuited Hilarity's [...]

  5. [...] with "the golden rule"iii and "why can't we just get along" and proceeds from there all the way to scientist religion and "just the facts" agitprop praxology. So named to commemorate the Pantsuited Hilarity's [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.