[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.4108513 [View]
File: 902 KB, 2119x1460, Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein3_by_Ehrenfest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4108513

Here's my problem with science... the scientific method.

So pretty much one day, god knows how long ago, some guy thought up a method. For centuries philosophers and observers thought up methods, but apparently this one is special.

What preceded was fanboys of the method, soon to be called scientists, taking the method to be literal guidelines of producing valid results. If it could not fit into those guidelines, words like supernatural, psuedoscience, and unfalsifiable were used.

So when did science become the center of balance? Why is it if something doesn't fit into science, it's discredited, instead of science being discredited for not producing results to explain it.

Take free energy for example. Psuedoscience right? Most of it violates the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc.

Those laws aren't perfect, they rest on theories, and other things man perceives to occur. So if something violates a law, why is there skepticism and other belief bias displayed via peer review? That sounds more like mob rule than peer review.

I'd really like to see something like zero point energy, but it's discredited by scientific communities as being psuedoscience or science fiction.

Further more - what is science fiction anyway? Almost everything in science fiction is capable of happening. Does that mean it has, or it will? Who knows. But it definitely doesn't make it fiction. As for the word 'supernatural' - what is it's antithesis, natural? That seems like a very subjective question.

Man needs to do way with this outdated method of finding results, it's completely relient on perceiving truths and making conclusions off the beliefs one already holds, and the beliefs others reviewing it hold. It's terrible to have a sense of correctness about something under a premise that is built on a foundation of wet sand. Science is what man says about the universe, rather than what the universe is.

>> No.3644040 [View]
File: 902 KB, 2119x1460, Niels_Bohr_Albert_Einstein3_by_Ehrenfest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

/sci/ as much as I see some of you attack religion as holding back humanity, why don't you attack weekends as holding back humanity?

Why do we have 2 days a week, for a total of over 100 days a year that half of society completely shuts down.

Why is our society hellbent on a 9-5 time area that people get work done in?
If productivity and transforming the human race into hive minded robot-like species is what some of you hope to achieve by those arguments, how is being selectively productive acceptable?

Scientifically, why do weekends matter?

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]