Scientific fatalism

OVERVIEW

El gran pecado de la academia cientifica es profundizar solamente en las verdades mas feas posibles — Juan Arnau

This article is short explanation of the whys of fatalist aesthetics are choose for naming conventions at the so called Sciences. This trend is already being explained in different other pages chapters in this website like:

Teleological plurism : Abandoned exeprimentality (end of)

Showhiding middle : Eliminative materialism (criticism)

Projects flaws&patches : Wikipedia sciences categorization (bits)

Also, this diagram may help you understand it (see middle-left):

Instead of focusing in better modelling of bottom up inputs (more subjectivity development), we want to further rely in a supposed better objectivized theory, while we still develop our subjectivities by trying hiding we are doing that (!).

This argument is everyday more present in the field of analytics, possibly the first and or synonim of science, as The media should be considered the first power (and not the fourth). We love some much Analitics that we call them with the buzz of Artificial Intelligence. Buzzs give us a short term emotionl gain, but cretae mid-long term hunger due to their greater unconsistencies for buildign up further on the top of their proposed grounds.

We could then think that reality and convenience would be self explained with a great technical accuracy by Artificial inteligence with their bigger sources accesibilities and through the greater usability defining of The medias (either social networks echo chambers and or journalisms). An increasing crowd believes that more advanced top down Analytical Informatic schemas would be everytime more objective, so winners against subjectivity (as in their rival trend of thought).

It doesn’t look so because finally find the flaws of these overcentralizations not only in their bottlenecks and more obviuos lies, but more specially in the fatalistic aesthetics that they more tend to get as a primary perspective, where it is, more really speaking, only 1/4 or 1/2 of the whole basic perspectivism. You can look at how knowledge is getting unnecessarily complex at dictionaries, with scholars buzzwords or messier categories more wanted to be consensualized as more centralized, but it is even more obvious to see the failure of AIs being able to win subjectivity if you look at the namings aesthetics of categories at whichever more official ontologies at achademical fields, specially at sciences and laws. New words there assume a fatalistic side of existence, which is a side taking at interpreting existence itself within what causal-casual realism and or why teleological intentionalism then. The higher the science, the more it displays fatalism as a frustating result of the namer trying to be but finally not being able to be the more subjective being itself with his-her proposed objectivizing.

This fatalistic trend of sciences has also been made even more clear through the more obvious flaws of so called gender perspectivism theories. Feminism theorizings reliance in the Patriarchy as antithesis, denotes its fundamental misandry, a dimorphic addon for fatalism, which is not false, but it is just a 1/4 of the gender historicism as a whole (1/2 should be about positive things of both), because it should rather be obvious that we males could also tell about (the overall 1/4 of) how fatal is this life where women also oppress us with their manipulative tricks as this macromisandric one, that very clearly more of them (and males agreeing to that too) show everyday more.

Some objectivity has won subjectivity and so describes it fatal? uhmm

El eliminitavismo de la subjetividad que propone la ciencia en su metodo por principios es contradictorio porque esta siendo su sensorialidad lo que interpreta la medicion, en la cual otros animales resaltarian otros detalles en ella.

No hay nada objetivo que no dependa de una subjetividad. Es mas, cuando mas objetivo se propone algo, mas subjetividad intenta esconder. Entonces, cae en una contradiccion donde por un lado se propone menos falsedad, mientras que por otro se esta siendo muy falso al presuponer que no hay sesgo de subjetividad, o este no llega al 50%, en lo propuesto como objetivable.

Cuando tomamos este camino estamos mintiendo bastante, y muchas veces cuando estamos mintiendo, creemos que se nos vera menos la mentira si redoblamos nuestro esfuerzo de esconderla cubriendola con mas supuesta objetividad todavia.

Pero todo intento de exclusion de lo subjetivo empieza por implicar un nihilismo pandeista como punto de partida, que tampoco es ni siquiera neutral, sino que sigue sirviendo de disfraz reformista de un fatalismo que acabara por imponerse cada vez con menos ambiguedades.

Veamoslo de mas optimista a menos. La subjetividad es primero aislable del entorno (pansiquismo), luego hay una especie vanguardista de ella (antropocentrismo especista), que en realidad es un archipielago porque cada uno tiene la suya (solipsismo), mientras esta abandonada sin ningun sentido (nihilismo) desde el principio (pandeismo), pero donde acaba por necesitar justificar toda la existencia como el capricho de un plan malevolo (fatalismo), normálmente llamado YoDios antideterminista que suele vergonzosamente esconderse para describirlo todo bastante feo, basicamente por frustacion masoquista de, en realidad, no poder llegar a verse ela mism@ con omnipotencia que se autoproponia.

Fatal que ni un tal Dios elimine la subjetividad y yo tampoco pueda