/sci/ - Science & Math

"Scientism" isn't false because "scientism" isn't a thing. It's a pejorative used by faggot psueds and you're a faggot pseud for using the term.

>physics can't reconcile quantum field theory with relativity, the most successful theories, and neither of them can explain over 80% of the matter and energy in the universe
>evolution explains the origin of species, but ask 5 biologists what a species even is and you will get 6 different answers
>psychology and medical science experiments are difficult if not impossible to replicate leading to a "replication crisis"
What causes this? Is science broken?

Karl Popper destroyed as psychology as a legitimate science. Why do people still practice it and consider it science?

Induction is a myth, and yet almost all "AI" or "Machine Learning" research is implicitly assuming its possible. Understanding Popper's epistemology is essential for creating a real, human-level, Artificial Intelligence.

>>10216704
Nothing can be proved.

If Karl Popper's ideas were irrelevant shit, what are the alternatives?

Is falsifiability a meme?

Darwin was awesome because he falsified the theory of creationism. His theory of evolution is constantly being revised. In short, no absolute evidence can ever be provided, however if you believe in creationism you are probably a moron.

>"People that deride the pursuit of exploring abstract mathematics are fucking retards who don't know what they're talking about. Math has its own value, and even if that doesn't convince you, there are tons of results from pure math that were later applied to the real world in ways that no one could have foreseen!!"
>"Philosophy is useless semantics; engaging in conversations about common philosophical topics such as free will or consciousness is pointless because doesn't change anything in your actual life and serves no purpose!!"

Does /sci/ realize that it is the dumb kid in school who would complain about learning something because they didn't know "when they would use it in real life"?

Your perspective is that bad

>>8147466
I do believe that a Karl Popper would disagree.

>>7614781
>You probably think I'm a religious nut
One who says something about "the creator" is a religious nut by definition.
>Since you know everything
I didn't say I know everything. Just when I don't know something, I'm trying to figure it out, not screaming "that's a miracle!"
> how we got here
That's a stupid question. No matter what I would answer, you wouldn't be able to check it, so you are just picking the answer you like.

What degree teaches you advanced formal logic?