/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12672101
Looks like you got the question, now have you performed any background research to form an hypothesis to disprove?

It's amazing how hundreds of years ago we came up with a method that validates our scientific understanding of the world and it still holds up to this day.

>>12405626
Appeal to scientific authority is used outside of science, often by those fucking love it, but it is not used in science. People who do science know that it begins and ends with pic related, and there is nothing in science other than that. On the outside, sometimes people act like all communicated results are true.

>>12064680
>CS isn’t a theory about the natural world.
you seem to be conflating natural sciences with science. yes algorithms are abstractions but they can be studied scientifically. pic related, what is science.

>No it makes a very specific kind of prediction impossible
that's the point, i didn't mean to say it invalidates all of physics. just that we can't know the spin and position. i only bought this up because you mentioned accuracy. here is a place where physics makes accuracy impossible. this you have a failing definition.

>if you have a problem with the current understanding of something like kidney function or the biochemical model of glycolysis or the nature of the fundamental dogma of molecular biology
do accurate protein binding and folding. accurately model what a gene will result in a trait that isn't simple mendelian. there is a lot of fuzzy stuff in bio which are mostly correlative but predictive. just like in economics, psychology, etc.

>Computations run on standard computer hardware are “deterministic” because the machinations of the hardware are well understood from the perspective of electrodynamics, solid state physics, and engineering.
well yes but not only because of the hardware, they are deterministic abstractly as well.

How do climate "scientists" test their hypotheses without a mock earth sized atmosphere to run long term experiments? Seems like BS to me

pic is science.
nothing else is science.

>Is modern science dogma?
Science was and always has bee the practice of the application of science. Modernity didn't change science at all. If someone tells you they have some modern science which is something other than the scientific method, they are probably abusing the language to call "modern science" a science.

>>10734647
>everything there is to know about science

>>10395746

nevermind i guess i am asking like

what is the best way to approach my inner monologue when drawing and critiquing my own work but eh

that's like

putting the scientific method in the scientific method

Cool what other flowcharts do you enjoy?

>>10008995
I don't deny it. Do you deny that the dictionary is the definitive source of what words mean?

Since I do not consider myself to be an adademic, I am not concerned with the academic sense of the word.

>>9574239
Dont assume things, it helps nobody.

<<<<< is science, do it and proceed to either stop thinking you are correct or literally turn the world on its head. Its your choice.

Is math a science?

>>6694373

I'm not the one you're responding to but analysis is a part of Scientific method.

>>6684084
>If psychologists' standards for reproducibility and corroboration of results were as stringent as in the physical sciences, psychology as a discipline would completely fall apart because people would finally realize that it's not science.

Congratulations on your giant circle of logic.

> results all over the board because there are too many variables at play
Variables can be controlled for. You don't know much about statistics or experimental design, do you?