/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15170208
All models are wrong, but some are useful.

>>15170208
The only question Science cannot address is "why". And it's ok desu because we don't care why.

Science is literally just a procedure for coming to conclusions that are NOT deceptive.

For example: If I ask ten dipshits to count how much money is in three boxes, they might give me different answers for various reasons. The dipshits will all discuss among themselves and they think I'm going to steal the box with the most money, so they all agree to lie to me about which box has the most money.

Science is just telling each dipshit to go one at a time and count the boxes individually, and then write down their answer and report back one after the other, so that I know what each dipshit counted. And then I compare what each one counted and if they are different, I know one of them is lying or wrong so I make them count again until they all get the same number.

To summarize the above post:
Science is a method for finding an answer with confidence.
Before science people would make shit up or fool themselves because they weren't smart enough to understand if they were wrong or right. Science is a technique with the goal of proving whether a conclusion is true or not. Usually it involves publishing the steps you took to do something, and then allowing other people to recreate your experiment and hoping they will get the same results as you, verifying that you aren't lying.

Example: The acceleration of gravity.

How fast does something fall off a building?

Without science there are several explanations and answers, people making up fairy tales to explain gravity, and people fooling themselves because they don't know how fast something falls off a building.

The science answer would be equations of gravity that allow you to predict how fast something will fall off a building, and you can use the equations to demonstrate that the speed something falls will be exactly what the equations predicted, proving that the science was not fooled and it was not deceptive.

Example of fairy tale: Somebody tells you that they spoke to the time god and they understand what time "is" and they tell you if you pray to the time god then you will live forever after you die but you have to believe and you won't be able to confirm until after you die of course.

Example of science: Many people from different countries and languages discover that time and space are naturally in a relationship. They tell you that if you take a precise clock on a plane and keep a precise clock on the Earth, the clock on the plane will actually tick slower than the clock on the Earth. If they are synchronized before the flight, they will not be synchronized after the flight. And anybody can do this any time any day from any where and this will always happen every single time.

If you want to recreate the clock experiment then search for Time Dilation on the internet because many people have already explained online how to do the experiment. You need a clock that can measure something smaller than seconds though because the effect is not that great at slow speeds, a plane counts as slow in this context.

>>15170208
>science does not and cannot address what nature is.
Hm. Sure. "But what IS it REALLY?" is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. Scientific knowledge describes things in terms of how they relate to other things.

>>15170208
>Science is human perception of how nature behaves, but science does not and cannot address what nature is.

The implication if true is that nothing can address what nature is, because if science can't then nothing can.

The implications if false are that science can address everything.

>>15170443
>The implication if true is that nothing can address what nature is, because if science can't then nothing can.
Amusingly retarded take rooted in circular reasoning.

>>15170258
>>15170279
Proof?
>>15170387
>>15170400
>>15170410
>>15170424
Kys schizo.
>>15170435
Proof?
>>15170443
Wrong.

Do you think she swallows

>>15170897
>she

>>15170443

lol, lmao even

>>15170208

Of course this is the case. Where would the best possible opportunity for science to say what things are? The experimental step of course.

What do we find there? We compare the [behavior] of a model with the [behavior] of reality. Thus, science is strictly focused on behavior, not what the thing that is behaving is.

>>15171187

Implication - science does not inherently favor materialism, dualism or idealism. Science is metaphysically neutral. It is humans who read in a particular metaphysics.

>>15170208
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon