/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11046855
>You could replace them with "most well adapted
And you have the exact same problems as using better or superior. Mr Hume is not going away that easily

>>10216393
>>10216397
>implying causality
One of the things we do know is we can't prove causality is a thing outside our own perception

Science is the only way to truth and any material explanation is the right one, because NASA says so too.

so how have you faggots answered the problem of induction?

or have you not, and has all your science been a waste

>inb4 not science
induction is the very basis for science, if you don't have a proper solution to this problem then you have no business doing science

>Problem of induction and the scientific method

discuss.

>>5957136
Who is the best philosopher and why is it hume?

ITT we discuss why philosophy is generally crap. I find it interesting, but rarely useful. Hume especially.

>>5765768
>So you are the judge and the jury of what is stupid? I'm not trying to be witty but that's a pretty funny title. You might want to reconsider.
This is /sci/, not /spirits/. The whole point of spirits is that they are undetectable and unpredictable.
>No, I would like to discuss thoughts that come to me while I'm thinking outside of normal and dull perception of reality.
What does that even mean? Your thoughts are grounded in physical substrate.
>Let's call this spirit.
whatever.
>What I wish to know is, what kind of science would be needed to explore, analyse and study it in order to graitfy our need to realize who we are.
Predictive physical models can't answer that question. You'll need to make up some sort of subjective framework of value within the bounds of your own experience.
>Because you're just repeating what everyone else has told you.
That has no bearing on its relevance or accuracy. Also, you're doing the same thing, so that's hardly a strong argument.
>If you were alive in 500 BC, you would try to convince me that the Earth is flat.
So? So would you.
>Today, you're trying to convince me that our way of doing science is the only way of doing science. See there's no difference, only the semantics have changed.
No, I'm telling you that the way scientists have agreed to do science. There may be other methods out there, but they are not relevant to this board or to physical phenomena in general.

>>5725881
this bitch.
also: Popper.

>>5720211
B, because there is no "you" to transfer.

There IS no man in your head. There is no single indivisible immutable "you" - you are a bundle of perceptions that is constantly changing and adapting to stimuli.

there's no way to know

A generalization which has held up til now will continue to hold in the future.

>>3109126
And which one's objectively better?

>>3088215
'sup pal?
...just trolling you.
Probably.

nobody has a clear idea what a cause is
old problems don't just go away

>If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask,
>Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.
>Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
>Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

lol, science