/lit/ - Literature

>>6837637
to me the flaws in science are that it predicts only, that there is no uniquess of mathematical proofs (inside each models) and no proof of uniqueness of the models..
So basically, people think that
-science is about knowledge, while it is only about predictions (whereas their is no reason to call predicitons as knowledge about the reality (reality that we posit)
-even if we have a description of every phenomenon possible, some theory of everything, we would not have, apriori, the proof of the uniquess of the description (and since there can be several mathematical proofs for each amtheamtical theorem and since physics is about interpreting mathematics of the models, we have twice a plurality)

science is not able to prove its relevancy beyond the predictions more or less accurate.

Science cannot answer ''why do the human predictions matter ?''
I share the view of the exposition of discursive logic (I know nothing about this logic). To me, each person seem to have her world, her language, her logic, her intuitions, her truths [=obvious facts according to her and logically obvious [according to her] inferences of facts [typically via an induction]]


ex: ask people in the street what is justice/acting/orange juice, what is the appropriate behavior in such or such situation ?. we will end up with nearly as many definitions as there are asked individuals.
few people jump to the conclusion that because we obtain a plurality of responses, then justice/acting/orange juice do not exist.
Another group consisting a majority is that justice/acting/orange juice can still exist/make sense, even though we lack an agreement, amongst all the people, on what it is.
too few people however ask why does the question ''what is justice/acting/orange juice ?'' matters. A subject worthy of discussion by one person may not be worthy of discussion by another. many people do not care, do not know about such or such subject.

>>6644916
>but does anyone here enjoy reading books on science?
NO

because the entertainment industry is here to entertain you, not to make you understand any model in science.

If you want to learn those models, you must watch a course on coursera for instance, or conferences made FOR SCIENTISTS, especially those in interdisplinary fields, where the panelists will expose concesily their models. Once you enjoy a model, you learn it deeper in watching the conferences and courses of these persons.