How do we deal with pseudosciences?

Yes, end of discussion. Now do you have something interesting to add, or are you looking for >>>/reddit/ ?

Argument of whether it's science aside I'd say linguistics is pretty interesting, even if questionably useful. Languages all have a lot of rules and if someone doesn't keep track of them subhumans are going to ruin them. What are you going to do if a generation from now everyone's using german compound nouns wrong?

They're not going to stop the decay. A modern linguist will tell you that if subhumans use a language improperly for long enough, the language how now changed.

He isn't wrong though. The solution is not to get rid of linguists, it is to get rid of subhumans.

and how do we do that, fbi?

Look up the word, "scientism". I hate these faggots. Their entire worldview is "muh science" and if you contest it then "science says otherwise so you're wrong lol" even if that's not what "science says" in the first place. For example, on the race question, science proves niggers are animals but the (((popular maymay))) is that everyone became exactly the same in Africa like 5 years ago and then spread across the whole world and if you think niggers are dumb then you're __. Or when they say "science proves homosexuality" (because of some video of a monkey buttfucking another) even though scientifically, homosexuality would be a harmful defect that would greatly reduce the risks of survival and reproduction and would be selected very strongly against via natural selection.

Well the fag is right even if it's not possible in the current scenario and you can always deport shitskins to canada or where ever

Deport them to Mexico. I want every single non-white in America dumped over the wall into MEXICO.

Especially the NIGGERS!

So I'm guessing the Barack and Michael Obama sex tape got leaked?

Canada is always a last resort though

Just shame them all.

GAS
THE
JEWS

Linguistics may not be physics-tier science but it is a well defined field with a long history of serious people including Nietzsche (it used to be called philology). There are branches of linguistics and anthropology and psychology (and all of sociology) that have been turned into hubs of Marxist propaganda in the 20th century but that doesn't mean they are unsalvageable pits of garbage. The bullshit just needs to be attacked head on. Actually if you look up the "replication crisis in social sciences" this is already underway for the last five years now and lots of feel-good leftist propaganda "studies" have been demolished.

I read a book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and it had a nice introduction chapter inside of it, the very crude basics of linguistics 101. And I can tell you easily that linguistics, at least when it was conceived had no kike traces…probably.

Its just that the jews have very high verbal IQ and thus seek fortune inside of it. But their pilpul and other "argumentative techniques" are just horrible, skvetching sounds that are as if they were made by retards. The understanding of language, of other cultures, translating them is still a thing that mostly only whites can. The jews just project way too much.

Though lately I have been thinking as to how translations of older works work. I read "the prince" lately and there is a whole chapter at the front dedicated to the ambiguity of language. Its a strange thing to see the "meaning" of a word change over time. Language is not as simple as maths obviously. There are no standards, many words are tied to other words, or even to events, or maybe even what is around at that time in industry, economy and other things. It makes older works of language quite horrible to comprehend.

So lately that picture of information overflow of the metal gear solid thing seems to stick with me. I find it quite miraculous that even we here managed to still communicate so well together to have been able to destroy the jew in the memetic spheres. But our cryptic nature, our language, as it shields us from the jew, and from the normie eyes. So too it has many disadvantages, as it will always be extremely hard to recreate the perfect shitposter. And we cannot explain ourselves that well to the normies, no matter what most likely. As half of our stuff that governs us is probably unwritten, yet still very specific to us.

This is what Rockwell was talking about when he mentioned a 4th tier of propaganda the Jews have created.

The only logical way is calling for their bullshit each and every time those jews open their lyting mouths.
Scientific method TRUMPs unfalsifiable claims.

Also never forget that:
Reality TRUMPs theory

Oy vey! You're wrong you stupid goy. Linguistics is absolutely necessary for the development of A.I.

this is a good read, very amazing stuff.

You literally them that. Normalfags are gullible but they like to be treated like they're smart. The ones that still have a common sense itch to scratch will accept you reminding them that, "Just because something has science in the name doesn't mean it's actually scientific." If you want to give them a normalfag friendly explanation why, remind them that advertisements do this for the dumbest reasons by literally slapping the word science onto a word like it was a suffix, e.g. "patented something-science." Once they swallow babby's first discernment pill, expand that to (((pseudosciences))). For maximum effect, talk about (((pseudosciences))) like you were describing the aforementioned reasons because it possesses less or the same dignity. If you use the right tone it will make them understand it better.

I first found it in pic related, but most if not all the things in this book would be able to be found on the internet for free. The books only like 15$ or something on amajew. The article itself as it says inside it was from National Socialist World - which is harder to obtain, if you can at all.

So OP is attempting to say there is no science in the study of languages?
I'm sure there is a formula describing how much of a faggot he is through his linguistic muliebrity.

...

linguistics/etymology is a very, very important field of study. The vast majority of the kikery that the kikes pull off is the result of them twisting the dictionary over hundreds and hundreds of years.

The majority of the work of rene descartes revolved around proto critical theory. Even his "cartesian geography" Actually that was more to do with tesselating facts than critical theory, but point still stands.

(checked)
(checked)
(checked)
Kek is interested in this…

There is evidence that the siblings of homosexuals have more kids, which is probably why it sticks around despite being obviously maladaptive on the individual level. It is likely similar to tay Sachs or sickle cell anemia

The study of language is important even if it is not quite a proper science. Just look for biological based fields such as neuro-linguistics or psycho-linguistics, but be wary. A quick google search of the author should be instructive. The more kvetching on twitter about the author is a racist or a ___-phobe, the better off you are. Pinker is a Jew, but his autism is strong to make him a useful anti-Marxist there are no good jews, only useful jews With pic related and The Stuff of Thought, he wades through the pilpul and demolishes it step by step. Learning the (((academically approved))) linguistic theories is just as important as learning the correct biology based facts, since you will constantly encounter the (((academic))) theories in everyday life. His books are still comparatively kosher, but just read them with a Holla Forumsacks eyes.

Biological psychology, neuroscience, and even parts of anthropology have been quietly studying “taboo” topics like racial and sex differences for the last 30-40 years. Any serious investigator of human nature (they do exist at universities, but are usually smart enough to keeps their heads down) knows that race and sex matter and have real world consequences. Even standard psychometric textbooks will include the facts like the Black-White IQ gap is 15 points and has not changed in a century, and women are biologically inclined to be less interested in technical-related fields. They will still hedge their bets by saying things like it is due to “a complex interaction of genes and environment.” Which is a massive cop-out since every behavior is technically a complex interaction of genes and environment. But they still post the facts as is, even if their interpretation is tepid.

I once read a linguistics book for a uni entrance exam that said that some niggers don't use the copula "to be" or "is" in certain sentences, such as "who dat guy?". This was apparently OK since similar grammar is acceptable in Russian.

Except faggotry was proven not to be genetic decades ago.

This is a symptom, not the disease itself. Solve other issues and this one will go away since nobody will take these kikes seriously and they won't be """scientific authorities""" anymore.

That being said, symptoms are still useful to look at so you can point out to people how sick something is. You can very easily point out how logically flawed all of the pseudoscience is in order to redpill people, for lack of a better word.

this is good advice

I could only find two of his books, but I found a lot of (((authors))) writing about him. Curious that his writings are important enough to write novels on, but can't be found easily online.
fuck

The word "science" has become a buzzword to the left. It's their new god.

And it's not just the linguists that throw this word around. Ask a normie whether they think computer science is actually a science and they will probably tell you that it is.

This has happened because there are a lot of academics who aren't smart enough to get ahead in an actual science like physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc. but who still want to call themselves "scientists" so that they can go around acting all smug.

The best way to deal with these people is to belittle and mock them.

Ive seen this one a million times and it still blows my mind that that stupid bitch, standing right at the wall, couldnt throw the grenade over the fuckin wall

I've seen this most often in the mentally ill, more often women. They seem to have basically no self awareness

I want to end it

I forgot the conclusion

Ok but do any of you know what linguistics actually is, or even what a bilabial fricative is?

enlighten us, scholar

Scientific (meaning of the scientific method, empirical) study of language. This includes phonetics, or the empirical study of how humans speak (explicitly how articulation is performed). I don't think there's a jew hiding in your larynx.

Perhaps semiotics is a little less concrete than phonetics, but it still attempts to be empirical, hence 'science'.

Since all of you are so quick to lump everything linguistics together as a Jewish ploy, I guess you ought all give up your western identity, since western philosophy developed in tandem with the study of grammar. Not that it matters. Enjoy your echochamber.

Before you storm off this website in a little huff, go into more detail about this.

FWIW the docu "Scientism Exposed 2" has just been released
>archive.is/jMbHh

It takes more than an attempt to be empirical to become a science, faggot. It must be consistently and always verifiable through experimentation, these experiments must have consistent results, and from these experiments we should be able to make generalizations about reality.

If a theory cannot be tested through the scientific method, as is the case when looking through past records that require faith, then it isn't scientific

Not that you need to be scientific to be useful of course. Art isn't scientific, yet it is still culture, and should be celebrated.

Except that isn't science, nigger. It isn't "science" because it strives for objectivity.

A good rule of thumb is that any field of "study" that has "science" appended to it, isn't science. Same thing with "studies". "Sciences" and "studies" are neither.

Holla Forums is the worst place to ask about science. While we have a few STEMfags around the bleating uneducated burgers far outweigh them here.

Elaborate.

i think you may actually be mentally challenged, please don't try to give advice if you obviously do not know what you are talking about, you've not only dis-serviced others but have dis-respected many peoples schooling and hard earned degrees. if something has science at the end of it then it should be empirical and measurable in a logical way if not, whoever has written sciences on the end has used the term wrong

This

It pains me to see how much Holla Forums has fallen. I guess that for good reason, about two years ago, I stopped spending time here, only visiting about twice a month. This place looks more and more like an intellectual desert populated by edgy kids who read some Mussolini and some Nietzsche and think they've got it. Pathetic rubbish. I guess that nowadays there is no difference between the majority of people who browse here and your average white trash with swastika tattoos on his forehead.

they actually pay for this shit?

Hell of a thread.

Maybe the social sciences were an attempt to let people of more typical IQ participate as well. That thought almost inclines me to forgive academia of its errors. It suggests an extant community bound not by specific knowledge or specialty, but by the shared drive of learning.
I wish I could believe in such an idealistic concept of academia myself. It's a nice thought…

Something tells me you're not much of an academic yourself.

Here's an example of how flimsy linguistics is. It's all based on the theoretical until a little morsel of reality completely destroys all of that pseudo intellectual mumbling.
aeon.co/essays/is-the-study-of-language-a-science

Two more good paragraphs I forgot to include.

Last one. It's too good.

I think linguistics is a bad example, it's really very interesting.
Though it's certainly one of the "softer" sciences like taxonomy, it's no anywhere near gender studies or cultural anthropology.

explain why larry wall, creator of the perl programming language, was a linguist.

explain why perl, brainchild of a linguist, has the most natural syntax of all languages.

pr0-tip: you can't!

Linguistics aside lets talk about (((social science))) in general.

People often call these fields out as being non-scientific, with good reason I might add look up Replication crisis, but sometimes this equates too throwing out the baby with the bath water. Lets take child psychology as an example not (((Freud))) fuck him. It focuses on healthy childhood development, parent attachment and healthy parenthood styles. This gives us insight into what children need, it's universal in most cases and applicable too all children when it can be predicted with relative accuracy how a child will grow up when given certain circumstances. Neuro-psychology can help and predict childhood development as well.

David Reimer serves as a basis that children DO have gender predefined with birth, I don't remember the researcher but he is doing work in Cambridge proving that children are set in their genders from the very onset, a couple of months old. This might seem obvious too us but it just serves as a basis too show how politicized social sciences are.

Social science was not always a Jewish mans game, throughout the ages Europeans have been studying man, starting with philosophy and as our understanding grew about the nature of what it is too be human we have created sub-fields of social sciences. For example social psychology focuses on how the community interacts with each other and the individuals role in the broader community, lots of research proving in group bias and people with racial homogeneity are mentally better off gets conveniently ignored. The "mirror test" when it comes too the difference between races is called problematic instead of being called for what it is, indicating a clear difference between races.

Cognitive psychology has produced one of the best tests too determine academic and long term success, the IQ test. All the kvetching surrounding it and calling it "culturally biased" is a way too try and take away it's power as the best metric we currently have for predicting mental ability.

Hitler did not purge social science faculties, he purged Jewish academics on the contrary he implemented social science on a grand scale like with the Hitler Youth.

The problem is social science has been heavily politicized the better question is how do we depoliticize it? People talking about social sciences are often not educated about the topic they are talking about armed only with a couple of pop-sci articles or feel they have the authority too talk about social sciences because they themselves are human. In most instances they are spouting political opinions and not in fact what you would learn in most social sciences classes, but my experience with American psychology and anthropology has been that it conveniently glosses over a lot of facts at undergraduate level and only learn students about "politically incorrect" topics at higher degree levels.

Hate those faggots they probably couldn't even do first year statistics. They literally use science as a deus ex machina with extremely basic if any understanding of what they are saying is "scientific fact"

That explains why perl sucks.

By a linguist jew's definition, it IS the scientific study of language. Repeating that enough times might make it true in academia, but it doesn't actually make it true. Faggot linguists would love for it to be a science. They'll say "science" over and over again. All these non-science fields will agree to call each other science. It's still not science.

>d…don't pay attention to anything but physics, chemistry and mathematics goy, nevermind that psychology stuff, it's "social science", who wants to understand how the mind works anyway? that's dangerous, you might end up influencing people and a goy can't be trusted with such power, just leave that jewish shit to the kikes, like (((Freud's))) nephew, who single-handedly and overnight converted White American women from non-smokers to smokers, through an applied understanding of group psychology.

...

Make your own. Make fifty. Flood the market with alternatives. Bury their false gods in a sea of shit.

…like christian science is science.

You are a special kind of retard if you think every succesful person who built something useful is a scientist. Carpenters aren't scientists although they are very useful.

...

I'm looking for more books on furthering my understanding of English. Preferably one not written by a Jew this time.

Use the words "science", "scientific consensus", "scientific fact", "denialist", "studies show", "research is needed into", the way the left uses them.

Modern, scientific sociology is based on the biology and ethology of the human animal. Only a small handful of religiously motivated denialists reject the fact that thots need to be patrolled.

Less of a huff, more of an exasperated sigh. I'll try and develop my point though. Whilst grammar is in part just the natural and internalized mechanics of a language, mechanics which govern syntax and morphology, it ought also be recognized as the conscious and deliberate inquiry into language. Before one can delve into the depths of ontology, metaphysics, or anything else, one must have language. And alongside inquiry comes the inquiry into how that is conveyed, in the form of rhetoric, logic, and grammar.

From a naturalistic perspective, it's no surprise that grammar emerged as a field of inquiry around the Hellenistic period arose, and Greek thought and art flourished in the classical world.

Wow, you mean that it makes and test hypotheses, thereby determining its own falsifiability, and refining the general predictions and central ideas? That's totally not scientific at all!

And yet it remains science, because it strives to follow the scientific methods. Just as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and so forth do. It shouldn't be that difficult to conceptualize phonology from a biological framework, or grammar from a darwinian perspective.

If you spent as much effort studying linguistics as you did performing mental gymnastics, you'd put that kike Noam Chomsky in his place.

English grammar for dummies (don't take this as a slight, I started there too). If you're ahead of that, than some old English Language textbooks, or something like Oxford Modern English Grammar. Luckily most grammars are descriptive nowadays, so you won't be learning English with Latin syntax like in the 1800s.

A big problem with science is really just between casuals laymen, actual scientists, and the individuals who try to act as a go-between for these two groups (the media).

Everyone believes in science (or rather, the vast majority believe it is an overwhelming good for society). The problem is that so few people are scientifically literate. They believe they are scientifically educated by reading a news article because it has a bunch of science-y words in it, or comes from an informal publication which specializes in technical articles.

The VAST majority of people in developed countries NEVER conducted any kind of scientific research, or took science classes at the level where they learned the mechanics behind the process.

So in an odd way it's sort of like the old days where only the priests are literate, and the peasants have the Word explained to them. This is where so many false ideas spring from. Being scientifically illiterate doesn't make you stupid, and doesn't mean you are low-IQ. It means that you are more likely to make mistakes in your reasoning because your tools for evaluating the world are not as sharp as they could be. You fall into traps of reasoning, and so on.

This problem infects all ideologies, but in my observation seems to infect authoritarian ideologies the most because people who place their faith in an authority are more likely to meet an idea without skepticism just because it comes from a trusted source.

The paranoid libertarian, in this case, is probably less poorly-informed because he doesn't trust enough to invest himself in enough misinformation. Rather, he is simply aware of it.

This post is an example of what I mean. You heard from an authority you trust that africans are animals compared to whites, biologically speaking, and so you accepted it at face value. Same with homosexuals and evolution.

It doesn't matter what a scientist tells you, or what (more importantly) the published literature tells you, because they are not the authority you trust here. Your skepticism is merely a front for the trust in an authority which is not scientific.

As to people deferring to scientific authority, it is the only acceptable outcome if you are illiterate in scientific inquiry. Similar to how as a child you need a parent to read something to you, until you learn how to read for yourself. Once you learn how to reason scientifically and read scientific publications, you can start to investigate the questions yourself.

Reminder that economics is a social science

just link a board that can >>>/pdfs/20

Bump

Get out ignorant nigger