/sci/ - Science & Math

>assumptions
You don't have to assume anything in pure science. Science uses inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive, thus there is no need for axioms.

>>15089530
>You don't have to assume anything in pure science. Science uses inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive, thus there is no need for axioms.
Please post a citation and a peer reviewed paper for that claim. Additionally, inductive and deductive reasoning don't exist in the material world so where is that from?

Make up definitions, establish an axiom i.e some theology, test the definitions on that religious belief, repeat.

Recursively measure reality up to the best precision we can get

>>15089534
>citation
Take any 100 level course on the philosophy of science and get back to me

>>15089538
>Make up definitions, establish an axiom i.e some theology, test the definitions on that religious belief, repeat.
Sorry but how is this testable? Oh, it's not. Neat. Jesus is God.

>>15089541
>Take any 100 level course on the philosophy of science and get back to me
It was a joke that your statement is a philosophical argument based on pre-conceived axioms that you pretend is hermetically sealed off from them. I watched nobel prize winners discuss science and humanity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LutI8YqJkqM)) and it was so pathetic that I figured it was time to convert /sci/ too.

>Jesus is God
Please cite peer reviewed study published in a respected journal

>>15089547
No.

>>15089526
>the basic assumptions on which the scientific method rests is from the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Which ones?
List them

>>15089550
Thank you for conceding. Have a nice day.

>>15089526
We're aware of that and as such we don't do anything besides make localized predictions. If you hear a scientist talk about the "laws of physics" or whatnot you'll have to forgive him for being philosophically illiterate, but he doesn't mean what he appears to say.

>>15089551
Things which exist are willed by God and thus are unified (do not contradict), eternally valid (expressible in mathematics), and continually present in a way that our minds are not. See Ontology and pyschology for basics http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm

>>15089559
>Have a nice day.
I can only process information as true if it has been peer-reviewed and scrutinized to the rigors of the scientific method; do you have an article to explain "nice day" or will I just need my axioms?

>>15089571
I have only a preprint about that claim, sorry

>>15089572
lol'd - have a good one anon

>>15089568
None of those are assumed in science though and all of them look either wrong or nonsensical.

>>15089582
>None of those are assumed in science though and all of them look either wrong or nonsensical.
Science assumes a non-contradiction of laws and if you say it doesn't you are merely saying that science has different domains that don't "talk" but suffice it to say rockets never break the laws of atoms and DNA never breaks the laws of biology. It might break "known" laws, of course, which then means they are theories, but the abstract best theories that science is oriented towards it will never break.

>>15089587
>it will never break.
Personally I'm cautious about this because "never" is a long time. There's no reason to think the apparent laws holding up bridges today will still be the same x trillion years in the future, but I agree it's unlikely.

>>15089587
>Science assumes a non-contradiction of laws
What do you mean by "a non-contradiction of laws"? Is saying that an electron can be both point-like and at two places at once a contradiction of laws?

>>15089595
Not that anon but I think he may be misapplying a term from logic. Consistency might be a better term, in that we would expect how the world behaves to be consistent across domains of inquiry, as we're looking at the same world. That said, history shows this isn't entirely the case as in your example.

>>15089526
Aquinas just ripped off Aristotle but shoved his jew god on a stick in it. If anything you should credit Aristotle.

>>15089530
There are two sources of knowledge, one is the evident or senses or perceptions where axioms come from, the second is the reason. Science is about the permanents movements, and not for irregular movements. And we always know from general to specific. With inductive method, you never will discover the universal principles or laws about the things

>>15089859
it's seems you dont know nothing about Saint Thomas of Aquinas... Aristotle said that the non-being exist, and this is wrong, because the being can't not being non-being at same time, so the things died not by a non-being like Aristotle said, it's when they stop their movement. And this was descovered by Saint Thomas, not for Aristotle

>>15089526
Aquinas repackaged Aristotle for christcucks.

>>15089612
>Consistency might be a better term, in that we would expect how the world behaves to be consistent across domains of inquiry, as we're looking at the same world.
This belief is only valid in a monotheistic world. Otherwise the gods disagree.

>>15089547
Uhm sweaty, the bible is the most peer reviewed publication in human history.

>>15089530
>Science uses inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive, thus there is no need for axioms.
You're not a scientist, and you have no clue about epistemology.

>>15089530
>You don't have to assume anything in pure science. Science uses inductive reasoning
For starters, you have to assume inductive reasoning is valid in the first place, retard.

>>15090090
I don't need to assume shit. The scientific method is specifically designed to handle those cases where induction fails. You're an uneducated shitbag.

>>15090093
>I don't need to assume shit.
You need to assume inductive reasoning is valid in the first place. I guess this point is lost on you because it implies you are sentient enough to reflect on your own implicit assumptions, which you clearly aren't.

>>15089526
There's nothing to cope with. I find the words of those such as Aquinas and many other wise men of old both enlightening and valuable to consider. It doesn't necessarily make me believe in the metaphysics of their belief system, but if you cannot divorce the value of an idea from the person who spoke it you're not trying very hard to think about the idea itself to begin with. This can be applied to many world religions and political views. I don't see what the point of these threads is other than to either cause a shitposting storm or perform some weird form of 4chan proselytization to the unwashed masses of /sci/.

>>15090097
>if you cannot divorce the value of an idea from the person who spoke it you're not trying very hard to think about the idea itself to begin with.
I understand the reasoning behind your midwit cliche, but the exact opposite is true.

>>15090094
>missing the point that hard
How can you be so illiterate?

>>15089526
Source?

>>15090118
What point, mouth-breathing, dysgenic mongrel? I'm waiting for you to wrap your "mind" around the fact that your whole position relies on the assumption that induction is valid in the first place.

>>15090122
This has already been addressed, refuted and annihilated, dummy. Enjoy entering the new year with an intellectual humiliation.

>>15090118
Just a word of advice: that guy is a psychotic wojak spamming schizo.

>>15090128
You are mentally ill.
>The scientific method is specifically designed to handle those cases where induction fails.
By doing what? Applying induction again? lol. You need to be put out of your misery.

>>15090129
That makes it more fun. You can spot that parasite in any thread and make him endlessly waste his time. Sometimes I let him talk to an AI and he doesn't notice, just keeps replying.

>>15090137
unironically take your meds

>>15090131
You will never understand the scientific method, lmao.

>>15090142
You will never be an intellectual. You will never have an education. You will never be human.

>>15090144
>projecting

>>15090137
Kek, I should try that some time

>>15089526

Maybe you meant Aristotle and Ockham.
Aquinas gave some cool philosophical ideas but he wasn't into science.

>>15089526
>How does /sci/ cope
denial followed by chimpouts

>>15089526
It doesn't you retard. The scientific method as we know it today comes from Roger Bacon and Robert Grotesste, two Catholic clerics in England who realized past the ethical parts and the proofs of God's nature, a lot of Aquinas is random ass sperging.

>>15089530
>Tries to prove the validity of inductive reasoning
>Uses inductive reasoning

>>15089526
>that's interesting
>i'll see what the wikipedia page says about him
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
>Ctrl+f -> Aquinas
>0 results
>hmm, i see

>>15089526
William of Occam was a lifelong, committed christian fundamentalist and activist, if he had been around today, he would have been working with Fred Phelps. Same is true of Jerome van Achen AKA Hieronymous Bosch

>>15090099
>I understand the reasoning behind your midwit cliche, but the exact opposite is true.
Why?

>>15090460
>wikipedia: left wing new atheist cesspool
>no religious persons
makes sense

>>15089534
>citation and a peer reviewed
That's a deduction built on inductions

>>15090875
>That's a deduction built on inductions
It's actually a deduction built on induction of deductions.

>>15090071
Based observation my good sir.

>>15090870
>Roger Bacon
Roger Bacon was inspired by the writings of Grosseteste. In his account of a method, Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

>About 1256 he joined the Franciscan Order and became subject to the Franciscan statute forbidding Friars from publishing books or pamphlets without specific approval. After the accession of Pope Clement IV in 1265, the Pope granted Bacon a special commission to write to him on scientific matters. In eighteen months he completed three large treatises, the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium which he sent to the Pope. William Whewell has called Opus Majus at once the Encyclopaedia and Organon of the 13th century.
Also Robert Gosseteste was the Bishop of Lincolnshire sloghtly before Aquinas' and Bacon's time and he's listed here. Learn to read please.

>>15090870
they're actually fairly pro-religion

>>15090093
>The scientific method is specifically designed to handle those cases where induction fails.
source?

>>15090985
Source: highschool education

>>15090986
source?

>>15089568
>Things which exist are willed by God and thus are unified (do not contradict), eternally valid (expressible in mathematics), and continually present in a way that our minds are not.
Damn bro that's deep.

>>15090081
>You're not a scientist
Can you cite a peer reviewed study published in a respected journal to support this claim? Sounds like you are allowing your personal biases to influence your thinking

>>15089530
>What is a discussion
>What is in-vivo and lab studies
>>15089526
You should state your real problem with the method, it would be easier

>>15089530
>don't have to assume anything
>inductive reasoning
>no need for axioms.

Tell me you're an undergrad without telling me you're an undergrad

Aquinas is Aristotle for crystal healing soccer moms.

What the fuck does ancient greek philosophy have to do with christfaggotry, I will never understand.

>>15093051
Priests were the learned class. Plebs like you didn't know how to read or write, which was for the best, really.