/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11635430
>if we discover our source code
impossible

>>10428584
>the science is "if you do (i.e. perform the given experiment) X then consequences include Y". the facts trump the theory

Science isn't blind recipe collection like alchemy was. It's all about understanding the underlining mechanisms like chemistry.

>[I] despise is the "can't know nuffin"

It's absolutely true though. You can't know anything for sure because to know of it, you would have to speak with certainty as if you had access to its source code (which nobody does). All we can say is what we can infer based on what we have observed so far. Nothing more or less.

You sound like one of those people that can't tell the difference between their strongly held opinions and objective truths. Stop reading popsci and start actually studying science.

>>10227877
>Why/why not
Read the last paragraph

>>10159712
Looks like Max Planck is anti-science now.

Good thing the non-scientist with no training in science Karl Popper can tell us what is or isn't science.

>>10154722
>Highly debatable

No.

>>10088701
Popper was never a scientist nor has he ever studied science. His falsification nonsense is pure garbage.

>Kuhn tried to describe how scientists work, Popper explained how they should be working.

Which is utterly absurd. Even more so by the fact he completely misunderstands the point of science, presuming that it is about discovering objective truths rather than modeling reality which ironically is based on many unfalsifiable assumptions. Not to mention the many models that have measured error (ie have been falsified) but are still widely used and taught (such as Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell equations, Schrodinger equation, Relativity, etc) because they are convenient, useful, or have no better replacements.

>saying that falsifiability isn't used in sciences would be an outright lie.

It isn't, Popper and falsifiability is only ever brought up in "philosophy of science" circles, popular science, and skeptic subreddits. You'll never see it mentioned in a physics textbook nor a professor mentioning it.

>>10052497
>defies all laws of nature
Prove that there are laws of nature.
Prove that if there are laws of nature, that we know any of them.
Prove that from the laws we know, we have enough to arrive to that conclusion.

>>9830753
>untestable results which seems go against the scientific method as far as my understanding about it is

Stop reading garbage popsci

>Free
>Energy
Pick one

>>9658491

>>9658484
No it's not, brainlet. "Falsifiability" only exists in popsci/philosophy crap.

>>9623060
>understanding the rules of the universe is literally

...impossible.

>>9592090
>Is science real,
No.
>does it bear any value
Only if you use it for some profit.
>you accept that nothing subjective bears any value
That's a non sequitur you postmodernist retard.

>>9519782
>Why is science falsifiable

It's not. Stop reading popper's garbage.

>>9431879
>How much of physics is wrong

All of it (except thermal)

>>9399750

>>9276374

>>9270517
Nature is unfalsifiable. Popper was a hack who never actually studied science.