/sci/ - Science & Math

oh hello there post-modernism, long time no see

>pretending to make an objective statement about how you can't make objective statements

I see you haven't changed one bit

Even though I think he's correct, Karl Popper comes off such a prick here.

what assumptions are they talking about?

>>1039542

Materialism would be one such assumption.

>scientism
>scientistic

>>1039565

Why do scientists hate these words?

>>1039535
"... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Found the second half of that quote for you.

You're welcome, anon.

>>1039553
Materialism isn't necessary for science to produce more understand of reality than any other method can. It's just the only one that has any reasonable evidence. Prove there's something else and we'll study it.

>>1039588
Souls

>>1039588

>Prove there's something else and we'll study it.

Scientism at work.
>"Prove the existence of something outside the scope of science using science."

>>1039598
Obviously scientists spend too much time studying things that exist and not enough time studying things that don't exist.

>>1039604
I laughed, then realized this is actually what people believe.

>The Faustian pursuit of power and knowledge

Oh my god. You're serious, aren't you?

>>1039598
argument and evidence are not exclusively employed and analyzed by scientists doing research.

>>1039598
How do you search for something that is beyond your reach?
It doesn't fucking work.
Something that is not "material" cant be studied, because it is non existant in our world.

>>1039616

>because it is non existant in our world.
Not true.

>>1039616

>How do you search for something that is beyond your reach?

Who said it was beyond reach?
Ever heard of something called the mind?

Faustian
>possessed with a hunger for knowledge or mastery.

oh noes! dem scientists are driven to understand shit!

>>1039613
If you use argument and evidence to discover previously unknown things and are rational in your method then you're a scientist. Inb4 no true scotsman.

>>1039624
Prove otherwise.

>>1039632

>"Prove the existence of something outside the scope of science using science."

>>1039624
If something does not interact with our world and can not be detected then for all purposes it does not exist. Faeries and gods and infinitesimal numbers might exist in your imagination, but that doesn't mean they actually exist.

>>1039639
Who said anything about science? You can use whatever methods you want. All you need to be is convincing.

>Prove it
>Prove it
>Prove it
>Prove it
>Prove it

Modern science asserts a Promethean autonomy and scorns all other avenues of knowledge. This is the crux of the problem.

So hey, OP. Is this your thesis for one of those pseudo-seminary diploma mill degrees? Are you a first year philosophy student? Find this on a creationist's website?

It's clear to see that you don't adhere to the principles of skepticism, considering you find it acceptable to cut out all the preceeding paragraphs and not give any sort of context or source.

>>1039627
waaait the mind is material.
Everything that is within our reach is material. So anything we might "discover" that was thought of as non-material instantly becomes material.

>>1039654
>other avenues of knowledge

Enlighten us. What are these other avenues of knowledge?

Science is the best means of understanding the universe that we have. Doesn't matter if it really observes the things in themselves; it observes the things as we can interact with them and that is enough.

>>1039660

Religion for one.

>>1039660
Shrooms, man. Shrooms.

>>1039654Modern science asserts a Promethean autonomy and scorns all other avenues of knowledge.

What other avenues of knowledge? That acid trip you had was, while likely interesting, NOT an "avenue of knowledge". Also those poems written by that dude that pretended to talk to God so he could fuck little girls are not "avenues of knowledge".

>>1039671
troll. dont respond.
DO NOT REPSOND:

>>1039661

>it observes the things as we can interact with them and that is enough.

I can observe things without science.
You want scientific "knowledge" so that you may control nature.

Might as well be honest about it.

>>1039671Religion for one.

>>1039680
No, you cant observe things without using science...

>>1039687

A baby looking at a butterfly is a scientists?

>>1039687
AHEM!

See:
>>1039597
>>1039678
>>1039681

>>1039692
No, but he uses science methods to look at it (eyes), because guess what scientists also use sometimes? (eyes)

>>1039696
Really you can observe (non existing) souls?
(I know you not serious)

>>1039680

Collectively observing something and then using our reason to say something about it without invoking the supernatural is science. You couldn't live without it.

>>1039660
proofing through the scientific method keeps hoaxes, religion and pseudo-science quackery from running rampant within the scientific community.

>>1039709

>You couldn't live without it.

Oh really?

>>1039710

Dissolving the scientific community would solve that problem.

>>1039717
Not the one you were quoting but,
yeah, really.

>>1039718
>dissolving
>solve

>>1039709

>then using our reason to say something about it without invoking the supernatural

Couldn't we use reason AND invoke the supernatural? That's how it used to be. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

>>1039708(I know you not serious)

Psst. It's a troll. You can tell because of the trollface.jpg

Kind of like "It's a trap. You can tell cause the penis"

>>1039565
Couldn't take it serious after reading those two 'words'.

>>1039730

Invoking the supernatural is outside of the realm of science and isn't very productive as supernatural claims cannot be tested or verified.

>>1039730
Why would we do that?
No, seriously, why?

>>1039751

Why?

>>1039752

>supernatural claims cannot be tested or verified
The saints and mystics would disagree.

>>1039757

Because he doesn't know what they mean and thinks they undermine the scientific method.

>>1039709science. You couldn't live without it.

Please please do not challenge him. He'll try.

>>1039730Couldn't we use reason AND invoke the supernatural? That's how it used to be. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

The big problem is that people decide the supernatural should supersede reason. So long as you realize that reason should ALWAYS be favored over fairy stories it's not a total problem.

But if reason can invalidate your supernatural assumptions then why make them at all?

I dont even know about what we are talking here.... Dont we all agree that there is nothing "supernatural" because we cant prove or disprove it?
Why are we still in this thread?

>>1039772

>The big problem is that people decide the supernatural should supersede reason.
Generally speaking, it should. Many immaterial realities are ontologically prior to our reasoning faculties.

>But if reason can invalidate your supernatural assumptions then why make them at all?
They can't.
Physics cannot invalidate metaphysics.

Anything otherwise = You're doing it wrong

>>1039777

>Don't we all agree that numbers don't exist because we can't touch them or smell them?

>>1039776

GOLD

>>1039791
>Many immaterial realities are ontologically prior to our reasoning faculties.
What does that mean?
Can someone translate to normal english?

>>1039794
yes, yes we do. What is your point?

>>1039797

Some supernatural things are "more real" than reason.
These supernatural things should come before reason in our daily lives.

>>1039776
Firstly:
Fucking retarded: geocentric universe
Better: heliocentric solar system
Even better: the center of the solar system is a barycenter created by the average position of the mass in the solar system which moves in and out of the sun's own radius depending on the position of the planets
Even better: special relativity blah blah blah
Perfect Truth: we don't know yet

Secondly:
Telling the truth to the best of our knowledge does not mean we no longer have stories to provide moral guidance. It merely decouples those stories from the stories of our own creation. If you're inspired by Superman comics you still have a much better moral guide than the events in the bible.

The only thing coupling moral stories to biblical creation stories does is imply that a lie is preferable to the truth.

>>1039800
thanks...
and no. Some supernatural things are more real than reason? which?

>>1039764

Mystics do not verify anything. They "think" with their emotions.

Theologians typically employ invalid arguments based wholly in thought.

>>1039803

>It merely decouples those stories from the stories of our own creation.

Science decoupled from transcendent realities is morally corrosive.

>>1039809

>Some supernatural things are more real than reason? which?
The intellect (as conceived in the ancient world)
Angels
God

>>1039797
He's trying to say that they're true on a baser level than our critical thinking ability. In short: he's a troll.

>herp a derp spirituality more important than thinking
>derp a herp religion makes sense

really /sci/ you're better than this

>>1039817

>Implying morality and ethics derives from mysticism and not from observing how human beings interact with one another

Oh you.

>>1039800

If the supernatural is outside of reason and science then we cannot know it through any verifiable means. The mystic who claims to know God through vision is about as reliable as the guy who knows the invisible pink unicorn that lives underground.

>>1039816

>Mystics do not verify anything. They "think" with their emotions.
Mystics surpass the sentiments. A cursory look at the literature will show you this.

>Theologians typically employ invalid arguments based wholly in thought.
Theologians take divine revelation as their starting point and use reason to eliminate contradictions and illuminate obscurities.

>>1039828
>The intellect (as conceived in the ancient world)
how did they conceive it?

>angels
>gods
you best be trollin'

>>1039837
Brb, my brother died so now I have to fuck his widow cause Bible said so

>>1039853
But also because it is hot (if widow is hot)

>>1039841

>If the supernatural is outside of reason
This is not quite accurate.
The supernatural is "more" than reason. It is supra-rational if you will.

>then we cannot know it through any verifiable means
A unitive mystical experience could verify the truth of supernatural claims.

It might be worth pointing out that most people do not know science. That is to say, most of us talk scientific "facts" on authority. Very few of us actually go and redo the experiments. Supernatural truths are like that too.

>>1039846

>how did they conceive it?
A faculty that grasps the truth non-discursively.

That's the gist of it really.

>>1039841

>If the supernatural is outside of reason
This is not quite accurate.
The supernatural is "more" than reason. It is supra-rational if you will.

>then we cannot know it through any verifiable means
A unitive mystical experience could verify the truth of supernatural claims.

It might be worth pointing out that most people do not know science. That is to say, most of us take scientific "facts" on authority. Very few of us actually go and redo the experiments. Supernatural truths are like that too.

>>1039861
Information from any source that is not data is questionable and should be approached with skepticism, although it often is not. If individuals speak science purely from authority, then they are committing a fallacy equivalent to those who speak of the supernatural only from authority. Both parties are in the wrong.

>>1039877
was supposed to quote:
>>1039872

>>1039846

>>angels
>gods
>you best be trollin'

You need a source for reality (God)
And there's bound to be intermediary agents(between humans and God).

>>1039856
Dude. NOT cool. I just said my brother died. We're probably both going to be crying the whole time.

>>1039872

The mystic takes a completely unattackable and unprovable position. I might accurately liken it to solipsism. There is no reason to entertain such a ridiculous worldview as fact.

>>1039877

>Information from any source that is not data is questionable and should be approached with skepticism

I don't know about you, but I find it a lot harder to disagree with beauty than with a page filled with numbers. The former is known through a direct apprehension of something special. The later is a lot more prone to error. Or so it seems to me anyways.

Qualities > Quantities.

>If individuals speak science purely from authority, then they are committing a fallacy

Don't we all do it though? How many of us accept Einstein's theories without reproducing the experiments.

>Both parties are in the wrong.
No. Trust is a part of being human. There's nothing erroneous about trust. Though trust can of course be misplaced at times.

>>1039872It might be worth pointing out that most people do not know science. That is to say, most of us take scientific "facts" on authority. Very few of us actually go and redo the experiments. Supernatural truths are like that too.

Finally someone says something interesting!

Yes, all knowledge is potentially wrong. Taking scientific knowledge on authority does not mean you have that knowledge - you must understand it and figure out the experiments yourself. For this purpose reading the results of experiments is far better than relying only on an authority's conclusion.

Religious "knowledge" is the same, but it differs in that there are no experiments. None of it is verifiable and so it's all bullshit.

>>1039896I don't know about you, but I find it a lot harder to disagree with beauty than with a page filled with numbers

>Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars

>>1039886

>There is no reason to entertain such a ridiculous worldview as fact.

The fact that mystics from all over the world have come to similar conclusions about the nature of reality independently of each other could be taken as a form of "soft" evidence for the truth of their claims.

mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination

stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
-Richard Feynman

>>1039924

or it could be a cognitive bias that comes from the way our brain works.

>>1039900

>Religious "knowledge" is the same, but it differs in that there are no experiments.

I would argue that the saints experimented on themselves through ascetic practices to discover the truth of religious claims for themselves.

>>1039924

Biologists and anthropologists can also account for the development of similar ideas around the world.

>>1039896
Perhaps you're a troll, but an eloquent one. Because there exists a possibility of seriousness, I'll continue to feed you.

And yes, we all do commit this fallacy frequently, a truth which does not affect the nature of it's error. Appeal to authority is under no circumstance substantial enough "evidence" for any claim.

And i'm afraid,

>No. Trust is a part of being human. There's nothing erroneous about trust. Though trust can of course be misplaced at times.

Contains a glaring contradiction. If trust can be misplaced, then trust CAN be erroneous. Trust is ultimately a good thing, but equally good is skepticism. Without skepticism, we would be living in a geocentric world where we all paid large portions of our income for salvation.

>Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars

The have a point....

>>1039924
1) mystics all over the world have not come to the same conclusions
2) if they had it would say more about us than it says about the universe for example; most people instinctively believe that larger/heavier objects fall faster than lighter/smaller objects. 5 billion people instinctively believing this does not make it true
3) 10/10, persistent troll is rewarded for persistance

>>1039924

>The fact that mystics from all over the world have come to similar conclusions about the nature of reality independently of each other could be taken as a form of "soft" evidence for the truth of their claims.

Sup ad populum.

>>1039937

Modern man assumes that their is something wrong with our minds.

Traditional man assumes that their is something right with our minds.

>>1039931
These go together but 4chan decide part of my post isn't allowed:
>>1039929
>>1039922
>>1039945

An example of using words but not saying anything:
>>1039511

An example of using words and saying something:
>>1039576


Learn the difference. It could save your life.

>>1039955
>their is something wrong with our minds.

Your mind, not mine.

>>1039955

The modern man says there is something similar about our minds.

>>1039942

>Contains a glaring contradiction. If trust can be misplaced, then trust CAN be erroneous.

I could have worded that better.
Trust is itself a good.
Goods can be misused.(making them evil in a certain relative sense.)

Goddamn I hate mystics.

>>1039992

Are you jealous of their abilities?

>>1039997

No, my hate came to me in a mystic vision.

>>1039997
Yes, I'm under a gypsy curse.

>>1040014

>I'm under a gypsy curse.
Have you talked to your priest?

We are all one.

>>1040028
I'm an underage boy. I don't think that would go well.

>>1039945

I can't think of any poetic description of the stars that could be more awe inpsiring than their scientific explanation.

>>1040041

i wish i was abused in the ass as a kid

>>1040071

You think "ball of gas" is more interesting than "fragment of heaven"?

>>1040085
Me too. If I had an older sister that was a futa and taught me about sex I'd probably be a lot less messed up.

Some say the stars are angels watching over us.
I always did like that one.

>>1040090
>implying we can't still use poetic language to talk about the stars

>>1040114

We can, but scientists make fun of us for it :(

weenar

>>1040090
It's more interesting because it's true.

>>1040241
There are different types of truth.

read this if you haven't already
>>1039776

>>1040090

Yes. The sense of perspective gained from realising the sheer enormity of what you're looking at is rather more interesting than god's sparkling jizz drops or the souls of dead cats.

>>1040257

>from realising the sheer enormity of what you're looking at

God exudes infinitude.
Is that not amazing to you?

>>1040255

Shitty religious dogma doesn't prove anything. Beleiving you are God's special creation gives you unwarranted arrogance about your place in the universe. Looking at interstellar distances gives a sense of how small and fragile and precious earth is, and how lucky we are to be alive.

>>1040255
>There are different types of truth.
There are truths which have basis in reality and then there are truths which are bullshit. So yes, one form of truth is a lie.

>>1039776
I agreed with the first few posts but wtf man

>>1040269

Infinity is boring. Huge but finite distances give a much better sense of largeness.

>>1040300

>Beleiving you are God's special creation
We are the only "rational animal" are we not?
Can you prove otherwise? Doesn't that make us special?

>Looking at interstellar distances gives a sense of how small and fragile and precious earth is
So the earth is precious eh? Doesn't that make people who live on earth precious? Doesn't this give you an "unwarranted arrogance about your place in the universe"?

>>1040327

Crows, apes, dolphins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPHxA8-aaE

>>1040347

You forgot parrots

>>1040327

Chimps can use tools.
Whether or not we are special, as a species we desire continued existence and so far the earth is the only planet we know can sustain us. It is precious to us, but the universe as a whole is indifferent to its existence.

>>1040372

>but the universe as a whole is indifferent to its existence
This doesn't go against religion.....

>>1040387

does it have to?

>>1040347

That was brilliant. Couldn't ask for a better combo than David Attenborough and problem solving crows.