/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7082511
You seem to be under the impression that this "meta-explanation" as you call it must be profound philosophical shit. It really isn't. Of course scientists know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is just so trivial that we don't feel the need to talk about it explicitly. Your post reminds me of a preschooler with down syndrome who thinks he's deep and intellectual for pointing out something every normal child was expected to know a few years ealier.

>>6948251
Proof has a very distinct and formal meaning in math. It has nothing to do with your /x/ or /lit/ notion of "hurr durr if I use enough ad hominems, I win and therefore my opinions are proved". Go back to your containment boards.

>>6917589
>Their modus operandi is to say nothing in as many words as necessary for them to stay employed.

THIS.

Also the /b/tard in pic related summed it up pretty nicely.