Pee comes from the balls, postmodern science and Karl Popper can eat a brick

  • 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 day ago
cake
Cake day: February 3rd, 2026

help-circle


  • Haha, i agree, and thank you for the correction, my memory is not what it used to be, the montreal protocol did fix the ozone layer problem, the kyoto protocol adressed different issues, my error. Hopefully common sense will shift regarding the assumption that nuclear energy is bad, in my view, it is the only way to sustain humankind as we move past the recent start of the fifth industrial revolution. Humanists like Marx, Keynes and Rifkin seem to agree that the hopeful (and paradoxially very unlikely) sixth will be the death of work but I still have to see how things advance before I start believing into it.

    China has shown a lot of promise thus far with their carbon reduction and development of small scale nuclear reactors, and hopefully someone will fix the fission theory someday. And concerning the simpler times, things are strange indeed in the future we live.


  • At times when we cannot understand the causality of a problem, it is better to acknowledge what we know, and more importantly, what we do not know rather than to create narratives from ignorance. I hope that my words will find you in a tone of compassion, not as an attempt to be classist or make you think that your grasp of reality is not valid.

    Rest, and relax, math is not the issue here, the problem is ignorance. What you have just posted a tribalistic fallacy believing that things are simple, us vs them and the system being akin to big brother, this is a normal human behavior that some describe as Projective Identification. Nature is more complex than we think and so is a reality in which over 8 000 000 000 exist, and all pitch in to the pool of what the future will always carry back to us. Wether positive or negative.


  • Birds are not real@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneLove this
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    45 minutes ago

    I relate to your struggles and it often is so infuriating to see people on the bigoted end conflate mental health as an inherent characteristic of queer individuals blaming their queerness rather than to be able to see what alienation does to a brain. Wether it comes from sexism, homophobia or racism, it all is ignorant hate.

    I also walked the path that leads to us corrupting our thinking and giving in to the pressure and hate to think that maybe it is better to rest eternally than to live and suffer.

    Gay pride is proud because it fights the shame that we live in because of hate. And I am proud to still be alive and I am proud of hearing your victory in preserving your mental sovereignty. 🏳️‍🌈


  • I believe it is on lemmy and you’re right since most users of this platform are here for a reason, and it mostly comes from witnessing first hand digital changes, mine is seeing recurring patterns of digital weaponization and coporate/governmental appropriation of the digital medium.

    But to most people, using facebook, tiktok, using public access internet with no filtering of their IP or using the router your ISP gave you is totally valid and the broad public lacks the knowledge to understand why some people default to avoiding these options and why there is a moral explanation for why the internet should not be used with ignorance. My sharing of a historical fact was only because I made the error of thinking this was not public knowledge here.


  • Thank you for your reply. I’m new to Lemmy, and while replies like yours are why I’m still falling in love with it (since no platform has felt as representative of the human experience as Reddit before Helen Pao) it is a genuine pleasure to be met with careful intellectual consideration rather than misguided reductionism.

    To address your point: yes, it is true that there are alternative ways to describe the practice of human abstraction of the natural realm, or “Science” which is a word that will be met by scrutiny under any ethics review for a university paper but works perfectly well in the common and fun daily discussions of any intellectually curious human.

    Karl Popper is the one who perfected this for us, owing to the parallel contributions of two Jinns of knowledge who shook human and natural disciplines to their foundational assumptions: Einstein and Freud . Each published groundbreaking works using profoundly different methodologies. Popper, perhaps unintentionally—and arguably by mistake—brought this tension into sharp focus, setting in motion the philosophical move that ultimately negated Freud’s claim to scientific status and is now an (imo highly slanderous) general point of view that psychoanalysis has no merit and should therefore be discarded. By extension, this helped solidify a framework in which only certain forms of inquiry were deemed truly “scientific.” This, in turn, is why naturalistic physical abstraction and the echoes of scientism are now “painting the walls white” in every reflection of what we understand our world to be.

    I was initially drawn into this because I am male and a lover of all scientific knowledge—knowledge acquired through hypothesis synthesis, verification via empirically and statistically supported evidence, and peer review. I also practice and teach at a Canadian university, though I’d prefer not to leave identifying details online. My husband (a brilliant art historian and big advocate member of the LGBTQ+ community and reform of logically outdated concepts such as race, gender, work and others), had the insight to engage me in a careful, sustained dialogue debating and reflecting on every facet of my materialist worldview. Through this, it became easier to understand why societal mental health is in its current state, and why humans seem (at least to my eyes) less self-aware than in prior eras. It had also a profound effect in allowing me to understand so much of myself and only got better as I became more and more nuanced in how I abstracted upon thoughts. But it also kept being a friction point on linguistics and academic nomenclature and yes, I do still believe that the abuse of language often made by calling academic disciplines “Science” is why “common sense” and popular points of views have done such a disservice to “human sciences” (despite them not using the scientific method).

    This dialogue brought me to realize that the natural sciences are merely the tip of the iceberg, and that humanistic discourse plunges into far deeper waters. The journey has been mentally taxing, if I may share my lived experience, and I now feel a certain intellectual jealousy toward my husband’s discipline. I’ve come to believe that the humanities, scientism, and, by extension, the common abuse of language (such as treating “Science” as a monolithic entity) do a profound disservice to the second half of what it means to see the world as a human. Human and Natural sciences operate in a dichotomy after all and this is why the world can be interpreted as; There is everything outside of you, and then there is everything inside of you. The interior world remains a profound puzzle, one that still demands enormous focus. In my view, significant reforms in scientific methodology are urgently needed, especially as the dominant model has been a systemic impediment to disciplines like psychology and anthropology. And if I can pique your curiosity; below is a good paper on the issue if you happen to be tied to academic practice and if you are looking for a good challenge, natural sciences (in my eyes as I now get older and wiser) are total child’s play compared to how more robust and taxing humanities can be from a logical standpoint.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368879558_Hoskins_1_Emerson_in_the_Digital_Age_The_Transcendent_Potential_of_Human_Nature


  • I agree that the perception of Americans lacking the agency to reform their own systems is a valid critique. However, I would respectfully add that this perceived inertia is not just a failure of internal will, but also a symptom of a profound lack of substantive, critical input from within the dominant cultural narrative.

    The issue is self-perpetuating: a system that prioritizes defensive certainty over rigorous self-examination actively stifles the critical discourse necessary for its own health. When negative or challenging feedback is dismissed as unpatriotic or illegitimate, it creates an intellectual vacuum. There is no reason to remain self-critical if the only acceptable dialogue is celebratory or accusatory without nuance.

    This is the core flaw of a one-sided, regressive, and restrictive Western narrative (particularly the American engagement in it). It often confuses loyalty with unanimity of thought. The historical pattern is clear and alarming when one has the brillance to read historical records: when a powerful system prioritizes being right over understanding why it might be wrong, it enters a state of dangerous decadence and insularity. We see this time and again, from the hubris of empires to the downfall of leaders like Nero, whose tyranny was enabled by a court that echoed rather than examined.

    True agency isn’t just the power to act, but the wisdom to course-correct. And that wisdom cannot exist without the uncomfortable, essential gift of critical perspective—whether it comes from within or from outside looking in.




  • Birds are not real@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldamazing...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Fun fact: the internet actually has a precursor believed to be the real origin of the concept of the internet. It used to be called ARPANET developed by ARPA, a US military organization which later changed name to DARPA. This is similar with the concept of VPNs which actually were invented by the US military when they designed IPsec. I will abstain from trying to connect the two since this would sound conspiratory but it is a pretty weird phenomenon that instances of the western internet being militarized are becoming more frequent and observable through time and this aligns with the tendency of most digital innovations usually having creation origins stemming from military research.


  • Don’t overeact, the US ain’t France where half of the popular opinion is leftist, pro-strike and progressive and the other is outdated hateful conservatism. Instead, to most of the international population, the press corruption is very apparent since the popular opinion is very uniform and both of your politcal parties have times and times failed to recognize popular ideas and keep up the neo-liberalism, foreign interventionism and collaboration with lobbyists.

    It’s not an attack on individual americans, it’s someone pointing out obvious systemic flaws that show in the way the citizens behave.


  • Birds are not real@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonecops do not rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I personally would object to my boy being gay but also if my daughter was straight. I just don’t like the mental image of penises around my kids.

    Vaginas are alright tho, they don’t enter you forcefully and lay eggs inside like some weird alien, not to be taken seriously tho since I’m also a queer man so yeah…



  • Birds are not real@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneLove this
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    53 minutes ago

    I think it’s useful to remember what happened to Francis Bacon after his father caught him wearing his mother’s underwear and had him whipped by a group of boys who worked on their land. He’s my favorite painter but that whole approach at manning someone up is just destructive.

    You should raise a child to allow them to reach their full potential and accept their individual nature, making them fit a very specific indentical mold your pre-conceived ideals is a good way of destroying them.


  • I agree, I mean project Nimbus is a pretty good example of events like this.

    Also to add onto your comment, I’m reminded of an old 4chan argument that went viral on reddit because incels were trying to rationalize why the age of consent was set to 12 years old for women in spain at the time, and I am afraid of it being where the Epstein apologists may rush to, to even preserve a semblance or rationality.

    Essentially, hebephilia is not the same thing as pedophilia, even the DSM-V makes the distinction using the term pedophilic disorder for the latter. For most of humanity (pre-modern (1945 and before) agrarian societies), hebephilia was common and seen as normal since marriages would be contracted and done the second a female starts puberty, mostly as a tool for economic gain, familial association and to secure the female as a patriarchal acquisition.

    It is pretty much illegal everywhere because we now understand developmental capacity enough to know that a 12 year old should not engage in sexual acts with an adult and this is why I see it as just as evil as pedophilia, but to psychologists, it is simply a natural yet immoral facet of human sexuality.

    Humans and therefore males are outcomes of evolution and because of this, they feel natural aversion to sexual acts done with an already pregnant female, a female past her reproductive age, or a female that is within their immediate family, because the first two will not lead to pregnancy and the last will lead to pathologies in the offspring. This is the same when it comes to pedophilia because it is often induced from trauma, statistically, it often happens because the pedophile themselves were a victim of pre-pubescent sexual acts. They then typically will engage back into it and it is understood as an act of traumatic transferance.


  • Couldn’t they also be a mathematician? The Pointcarré recurrence theorem is a good example of infinite rate in a fixed dimensional space. Also, that quote really oversimplifies environmental engineering, the ozone layer has been fixed by the kyoto convention because every person with the simplest understanding of the carbon cycle can understand why the earth has been able to sustain ressource consumption for all animals and can still do so for a very long time still, infinitely or not.



  • Birds are not real@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzWhy I gave up electronics club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Electricity is not a real-concept, it is a qualitative aspect and the elec-root is what defines that aspect. There is no such thing as electricity, to cut it short, it’s like talking about “Science”. There is the scientific method, scientific advances, natural science which is a category of academic research, but science is a broad abuse of language, same thing goes for electricity when people picture “the blue stuff that flows in wires”, it’s reductive, ignorant and meaningless when you can talk about electrical arcs if you mean the “blue stuff”, electrical current, electrical charge, electrons if you refer to the subatomic particle allowing this exchange, electrical energy is the volts per coulombs, etc.

    But there is current and in direct current, those particles flow as historically, that was the first convention for current, AC operates through frequency oscillation. Also, electromotive force is what causes the movement of electrons, the magnetic field is just a componenent and does not induce EMR and the energy generated by it is akin to mechanical “work” caused by kinetic forces. It boggles my mind how even modern electrical engineers sometimes get this wrong.