/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12107345
The second one.
Empiricism does not deal with Truth.

>>12107345
Something something Noumenal world, Transcendental Idealism, Copernican revolution.

>>12107345
Whatever cannot be tested is irrelevant

I want women willing to sacrifice themselves for me but not so fucking stupid as to actually do so.

>>12107345
>my opinions
objective external reality
>your opinions
fundamentally subjective

glad i could clear that up

>>12107351
Empiricism is Truth.

>>12107476
Wow, it's self consistent!

>>12108046
Empiricism is to truth what regression is to interpolation

>>12107456
Why do you want this?

>>12107345
Symbols and language is subjective, truth is ultimate and mutual understanding is not guaranteed even trough use of dictionary.

>>12107345
Truth is a meme. Its like the limit of a function where we could approach closer to the truth but probably wont arrive to the truth.

>>12107345
There's only one way the world is. Humans are thrown into the world with given sensory and cognitive limits, a language and syntax, etc. It's most likely that our finite capabilities get lots of things wrong. There's also the problem of axioms that have no epistemic justification, how each scientific observation needs to cohere with a previous set of auxillary beliefs (which may be wrong), and you get reality as more subjective than objective. Does it matter though? Science works fine. Our lives go on. Maybe you were wrong in your assumption that there can be objective truth with a truth-knower.

>>12107345
>In science
>truth
Science does not deal with truth, that's in the realm of metaphysics. Science deals in models.

>>12111170
This, and what it deals with regarding models is their ability to accurately predict occurrences that are necessarily implied by the model.

>>12111217
There is no "thinking outside" of the model for the model. There is only the model. To think outside the model you need metaphysics, which is indispensable.

>>12111170
>Science deals in models

>>12107345
Truth might exist but humans probably wouldn't know of it. Even the idea that we can get close to truth is a bit dubious because to know whether or not you are close to knowing the truth you would have to know what is true, i.e. you would have to know where the destination is to know how far away you are from it. Science is more unguided meandering in dark unknowing hoping to accidentally bump into something than it is to some approach towards some light at the end of the tunnel, like how most pseudo-religious futurists like to see it as.

>>12107345
>is everything fundamentally subjective

Yes, it is possible for two people to see the exact same data and come up with different conclusions.
Ex:Racial differences in intelligence, liberal progressives will explain any differences are because of environmental differences, systemic racism, flawed tests, etc. They fundamentally reject the idea that intelligence is different for different races.

>>12112243
>it is possible for two people to see the exact same data and come up with different conclusions.
Of course, the trannime poster as an absolutely braindead take. People having different conclusions about data isn't proof that truth is subjective, more like it's proof that people can be wrong. Take that image you posted as an example; it ignores the fact that the original picture of that dress everyone was arguing over was a photo of a dress that was blue and black in reality.

>>12112280
>dress that was blue and black in reality.

You totally do not get it.
If the dress was yellow and white and the background dark then the image it would IDENTICAL to the original one and you would be claiming that people who saw it as black and blue were obviously "WRONG".

Data is interpreted differently based on the observers perception of reality.

>>12112352
>If the dress was yellow and white and the background dark then the image it would IDENTICAL to the original one and you would be claiming that people who saw it as black and blue were obviously "WRONG".
Because they would be in that case. But that wasn't the case; the dress was black and blue in reality and therefore the people who said black and blue are correct.

>>12108046
Wrong

>>12107345
Functionally, there is such a thing as objective truth

>>12112489
>therefore the people who said black and blue are correct.

You slow speaking, slope headed, inbred, mouth breathing moron!

The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to look at the image and know which dress color created the image.

>>12112887
>The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses.
No, it can't. Look at your trannime pic and isolate only the color shifted rectangles. Notice how the rest of the rectangle besides the dresses is either yellowish or dark bluish depending on the dress color?
>It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to look at the image and know which dress color created the image.
You can if you have other elements in the image besides the dress to base it on. The original image is obviously overexposed based on what's going on around the dress, so lower the exposure.

>>12107345
If there was no Logos, there could be no science.
I understand why you'd think that though, as the reproducibility crisis shows, science is dying due to how much kikes, cunts, niggers, pajeets and other lying subhumans are "scientists" these days.

>>12112887
>>12112922
>The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses
Regardless, this entire issue is settled by the fact there isn't a fucking yellow-white dress to compare it to begin with. The dress in that photo is fucking black and blue in real life whether you like it or not. The "yellow-white dress" doesn't fucking exist and is a fucking illusion.

>>12107476
In my opinion, you are correct.

>>12112352
The act of applying interpretations will one day be fully elucidated by neuroscience, opening up a science of interpretation itself.

>>12107414

Irrelevant only as far as material evidence is concerned. Not actually irrelevant.

>>12111170

Science deals in models that have a relationship to whats true, and tries is supposed to reflect it.

>>12107345
Op, why are you asking a phi question in the sci board?