/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11820117
>Science is a strictly MATERIAL
This contradicts your initial thesis. You have a problem with actual science.

>>11820125
If that statement contradicted my initial thesis then you would elaborate further. You would actually provide an explanation. Since you have not done so, we can only assume that you have no substantive disagreement and you are merely being spiteful.
Tell me where in the steps of the scientific method it talks about transcendental principles? Ethics? Purpose? Epistemology? It doesn't. It only talks about the empirical analysis of material objects and phenomena. That is what science is, nothing more and nothing less.

>>11820196
From your pic, ask a question and form a hypothesis. Both are creative tasks that aren't part of any empirical guide or reasoning process. They are metaphysical.

>>11820117
No one claimed science informs theology. Theology doesn't "deal" with anything, it's just arbitrary nonsense piled on top of superstition. There is nothing to replace.

>>11820210
You're being obtuse. Of course the process of thought, our designations of relevant/irrelevant, are immaterial. But the purpose of science is to observe the material world, that is what I was saying. If all you're going to do is be obtuse, split hairs and nitpick over technicalities then don't bother replying. You're wasting my time.
>>11820215
>Theology doesn't "deal" with anything, it's just arbitrary nonsense piled on top of superstition.
You don't think metaphysics matter? You don't think it's important to have an objective purpose, objective ethics or objective epistemology? You think it's OK to say:
>everything is just your opinion
>we came from nothing
>we exist for no reason
>everything we think, perceive, feel and do is absurd and irrational
>value judgements such as good and evil, relevant and irrelevant, are all purely subjective

That's precisely what you get when you reject metaphysics/theology. You have no grounding for objectivity. Everything becomes subjective, and the only way to justify anything is to say, "that is what I prefer." Humanity is reduced to the status of a dim-witted beast acting upon impulse.
You obviously haven't thought this through at all. You're just a fedora with a knee-jerk animosity towards religion.

>>11820257
>technicalities
Science can observe anything so long as you've formed a hypothesis. If this is splitting hairs to you, then go somewhere else.

>>11820257
>Everything becomes subjective, and the only way to justify anything is to say, "that is what I prefer."
That's already what you are saying, the only difference is that you pretend your beliefs are objective when really nobody else has any reason to believe them, no matter what humans will just do what they prefer, and that doesn't even mean that society as a whole won't choose western christian values

>>11820280
You have no idea how to express yourself. You've made yet another unsupported assertion, assuming that it proves itself. Assert all you want, assertions do not prove themselves and all you're doing is making a fool of yourself.
>Construct a hypothesis
>Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
>Analyze your data to draw a conclusion

>Experiment upon an immaterial concept
>Analyze your data on an immaterial concept

>>11820294
If everything is subjective then why are you here arguing with me? Arguing presupposes that there is a truth to be discovered. If everything is subjective then there is no such thing as truth, only opinions. You cannot prove or disprove an opinion. Therefore, if you believe that everything is subjective, you have no purpose to argue with me in the first place.

Schools really need to bring back philosophy classes. This is pathetic. You have no grasp of logic whatsoever. You probably think logic is "uhhh, whatever, like, Richard Dawkins tells me breh."

>>11820309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>>11820303
>data on an immaterial concept
Thanks, I don't need to do the arguing when you present the logic for me.

it's yet another episode of "Pseudo-Intellectuals From /sci/ Know Nothing About Logic"
Protip: science =/= logic
You guys are dumbasses lol

>>11820257
christcuckery is made up jewish fairytales nothing “theological” or rational about that.

Just because christcucks gave bible study groups a cool name doesn’t mean it’s an actual subject worth respecting

>>11820322
If you have no basis for deciding what ought to be, then what informs your scientific analysis? How do you decide what is worth observing and experimenting upon and what is not? Oh right, it's just like I said earlier - you FEEL like doing certain things. It's all subjective. You have no objective reason to favor one lane of analysis over another, and yet...
>>11820324
Oh yeah? Then shut up you moron. You're wasting everyone's time with your vapid idiocy.
I'm oh so sorry to break it to you but you're not as smart as you think you are.

>>11820330
>Christcuck! You're not worth responding to! Fairytales!
Next time post an argument please. How many times do I have to say this - assertions are not arguments.

>>11820338
It's trivial to collect data on the immaterial. We can do and have done science on it. With a proper hypothesis.

>>11820355
For fuck's sake take a philosophy class. I'm done repeating myself to you, you're a waste of time. Assertions do not prove themselves.

>>11820379
That was a different anon. It was awful to watch you get confused between us.

Ask me to construct a hypothesis about the immaterial. Something you don't know how to collect evidence on yet.

>>11820117
>Science is incapable of informing theology
Your entire thesis is that science has something to do with theology. It doesn't, science is a method to explain the universe and stuff that happens inside it

>>11820379
>Assertions do not prove themselves.
Aren't theological texts simply assertions?
Seperate question don't let it stop you from answering the first.
What exactly is your point? Is it that scientific creation theories are a waste of effort without more data? That philisophy supercedes science in moral constructs? Or that religion supercedes them all? I can't tell.

>>11820382
I already know what you're going to do. You're going to conflate instance with essence, this is what all materialists do when attempting to provide a "scientific" explanation of immaterial concepts.
For example: 7 coconuts are an instance (example) of the number 7, but not the essence of the number 7. In other words: 7 coconuts are not what the number 7 actually is (its essence). If that were the case, then every instance of the number 7 would involve coconuts. That is obviously not the case.
Therefore, the essence of the number 7 - what the number 7 actually is - is something immaterial. It cannot be observed, only thought of.

>>11820401
>What exactly is your point? Is it that scientific creation theories are a waste of effort without more data? That philisophy supercedes science in moral constructs? Or that religion supercedes them all? I can't tell.
Yes, I can tell that you can't tell. I'm amazed that you can tell your own stupid ass from a hole in the ground. You're too far behind to be filled in by a 4chan thread. Go take lessons on elementary level logic.
And I mean it. Actually go out and do it. Actually take the class and educate yourself. Stop wasting everyone's time with your fedora-tier takes. Loud, arrogant, Dunning-Kruger fools like you do nothing but burden the conversation.
We're not going to slam the breaks on the conversation and stop everything dead in its tracks, just to help you catch up. You are not the center of the universe. You need to do that yourself.

>>11820405
>materialists
Didn't read your reply. If you can't predict why, then your hypothesis with regard to me is wrong.

>>11820418
Shut the fuck UP

>>11820428
>>11820432
/sci/ fails to grasp basic philosophical concepts and makes an ass of itself yet again. But hey, at least you posted the word "christcuck" right? That means you automatically win the argument.

>>11820418
You skipped the first question, i had a feeling.

>>11820435
Neither of us posted that. Check the unique poster count.

>christcuck got tired of being BTFO in /his/ so he switched boards
>the one he picked is the one that deals with physics and mathematics
damn you pr*ts are really fucking stupid

>>11820428 here

I didn't say you could leave, OP. You made an immaterial claim. Either defend or recant. We are on a par with one another.

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion%20December%201g_snd.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheists

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Daily reminder most philosophers are atheists

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

http://diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

>>11820117
>To have all the right moral beliefs
What?

>>11820257
Can you prove any metaphysical concept? Because otherwise it is literally subjective. You can’t expect an aboriginal to have the same sense of purpose as a chinese citizen.

>>11820117
Your pic falls off the wagon on the last step. Morality doesn't exist, it's a manufactured rulebook for humans and that's it. We made it all up, sometimes to keep society stable (no murder) and sometimes because we're a bunch of fucking masochists (arbitrary shit religion likes to impose). What we have isn't "right", and it changes constantly.
As for your text, well no shit. Nobody takes pre-origin of the universe theories seriously. That stuff is just people having using their imagination within the constraints of things we do know. Humans can't help but do that, even if their musings are essentially baseless. The truth is we don't know what came before the Big Bang. It probably wasn't God though. Like every single other unknown we've encountered, it will almost assuredly end up being normal physics shit, and the christcucks will have to drum up some more cope.

>>11821103
>Morality doesn't exist, it's a manufactured rulebook
bs, it is firmly rooted in evolution
https://youtu.be/7XtvWkRRxKQ?t=1m30s

>>11820382
Construct a hypothesis on the likelyhood that the reality I am perceiving right now is the 'real' or 'top level' reality and not just a non metaphorical version of shadows on a cave wall.

>>11820257
cringe

also, doesn’t this thread violate the rules? mods?

>>11820117
Which is why, science is useless. It is only used to observer and interpret the material world. When it comes to immaterial world which involves energy creation, aether, definition of FIELD as in magnetic FIELD, particle FIELD, quantum FIELD, and all of which is immaterial. Science consider it pseudoscience when it is theology.

Science nowadays is pure BS. Science will only become 'science' when it is married with theology. That is when humanity's sanity return.

4chan isn't a good place to talk controversy as there are always people who want to protect their belief. When their belief gets threatened, they undergo cognitive dissonance and starts acting like a kid. "Matured" doesn't exist as we are all kids with fake knowledge. It is simply depend on who has more fake knowledge.

>>11821103
"It probably wasn't the creator, Most High". Theorized "big bang" and turns it into a fact? This is your religious science if bullshit.

>>11821217
does acting smart make your schizophrenia less bothersome?

>>11820682
daily reminder intelligent people are retarded as they have no wisdom, can't think outside the box, can't think logically, can't be curious and are corporate slaves to the greedy monkeys.

>>11820682
daily reminder "educated" people are heavily brainwashed monkey who cannot think for themselves, will do anything just to get 'money'.

religious people has KINDNESS. intelligent people are mentally EVIL.

>>11821223
so thinking outside the box, thinking critically and logically, finding a PURPOSE of why you live is considered "schizophrenia"?

Retarded monkey.

Almost the entire commenters of /sci/ are mentally retarded desu. They can't think for themselves. They can't think outside the box. They can't look at things in another perception. They can't think logical and critically. They aren't sane. They think we all existed from nothing and energy can't be created which is direct contradiction of what they think.

Most importantly, they are unable to tell the difference between sane and insane theories.

We existed from something. We are created - sanity.

We exist from nothing. Particles can pops in and out of existence from nothing - this is what you call insanity.

>>11821235
you’re the same guy who posted your perpetual motion device thread, right?

>>11821253
The troll who posted a troll picture which has o label? No.

>>11821253
edit :
with no* label

>>11821260
oh okay then you just have a very similar form of schizophrenia i guess

>>11821265
So people who think are classified as "schizophrenia". Alright then.

Don't pray to the stick

>>11821217
>aether
lol

>>11821244
>desu
Talking about retards.

>>11821244
Speaking like you truly know where we came from, that's real Insanity.

>>11821305
it's 4chan auto word change for t b h.

>>11821297
controversy topic as it is related to theology became pseudoscience, isn't it? Science is none other than a farce.

>>11821312
Did I ever say that? I didn't. It's your own opinion. I simply stated an opinion where we doesn't exist from nothing, but exist from something. This is being true to yourself, not a slave-like thinking. Do we really not have any purpose to live? Sanity and insanity. Use your brain and heart.

>>11821349
>Science is none other than a farce.
you are welcome, nay, encouraged, to post on /x/ instead

>>11821352
Exposing the truth and it is considered paranormal? This is why this world is dead.

>>11821390
You say its the truth, non loonies say that its baseless supposition and unfounded rambling and they will continue to say that until you provide literally any hard evidence whatsoever to back your claims

>>11821120
Oh yeah? And what is evolution? Is it a real thing that exists? No. It's a concept we invented to explain part of the process of change life undergoes. Evolution is arbitrary and so is morality.
There is no objective truth on the question of social interaction. There are only goals, and optimized paths to reach them. Your goals may vary.

>>11821221
The BB has evidence. Sky dad does not. Eat shit, retard. We're going to keep moving our light across the shadows you claim your god hides in. Prepare to be btfo every time.

>>11820117
Yeah, you're right

>>11820117
>define right
>define wrong
>"hurr durr I'm gonna define it by some 4000 years old book"
>"oh wow, it happens to be the "right" definiton"

>>11820117
Thanks for this hot take #1927372948083
You guys always say the same thing over and over and it's so tiresome. Get some original opinions you faglords. If you hate the existence of theoretical physics so much go firebomb Ed Witten's office or something I don't know. Do fucking something about it don't just shit your non-opinion on here all day.

>>11820117
But anon you're mixing up a lot of things.

First you shit on theoretical physics, then you post a pic in >>11820196 that clearly says "construct a hypothesis". But I guess hypothesizing that atoms exist was also a thing science was never meant to do.
>All of these "scientific theories" about the origins of the universe are blatantly unscientific. They can't be tested or reproduced in a laboratory setting.
If I murdered you and your blood was literally on my hand, should the court assume I'm innocent since they can't reproduce how it got there in a laboratory setting?


Then you say theoretical physicists (or scientists?) are somehow trying to make ethics based on science, which I personally never seen a scientist do. Right and wrong are just categories we place certain human behaviours in. Ethics is about how should we define those categories. Now tell me how would you put objects or events into categories without the subjective abstraction of them. Even the "object" itself is an abstraction.

>That's precisely what you get when you reject metaphysics/theology. You have no grounding for objectivity.
So what would be your ground for objectivity?

>>11820117
Our entire life experience is subjective. The science is just a method we use because it seems that we have common experiences, but we can't be sure of anything. Where is the objectivity in a subjective experience? How can you prove something with certainty?

>>11820117
The true answer comes from /pol/. Science is a tool of political propaganda. Desire for power and greed have won out over desire for truth. Science is used to promote atheism which promotes degeneracy and apathy. It is not very hard to find a few professors willing to write a book promoting your agenda, and then promote that book through the media and booklists.