/sci/ - Science & Math

Say whatever is necessary to acquire funding
Produce results that confirm financiers hypothesis
Go to step #1

>>15203360

>i-i'm right again!

>>15203360
a dialectic on the topic of empirical observations

>>15203388
>dialectic

>>15203360
Reduction or Filtration of a composition.

>>15203404
Or maybe it was optimizing what you want to see so that you can extract the interaction is analogous to your definition or association.

1)grant proposal
2)spend
3)report/demonstration on the result of your spending

>>15203360
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_regression
next

>>15203360

Highly parallel, asynchronous, symbolic regression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_regression

>>15203360
Just assume a few things, then make a guess. Then try to find evidence that the guess may not be true. If it remains plausible, then you gain confidence in the guess until a better explanation appears.

Notice that it only works if the people involved are actually putting an effort to find conflicting evidence, otherwise your guess is just as shitty as any other random guess.

The scientific method makes philosoplebs seethe because they envy its ability to yield objective knowledge.

>>15203360

I could write a long paragraph with a lot of fancy terminology and needlessly long words. I could also write some cringey philosophy wank in a shitty attempt at poetic prose. But really it's not that complicated at its core.

Science is basically just interacting with the world and thinking about it methodically and then sharing your thoughts with others. That's it. It's basically just prodding stuff with a stick and activating your neurons.

>>15203360
It is a dialectic method of philosophical inquiry that generates a continuous feedback loop between inductive and deductive inspection and scrutinization.

> you observe a natural phenomeon
> you have a dependent variable (the phenomenon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate)
> you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenonon
> you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable, to demonstrate its influence or even cause of the phenomenon
> you conduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent* way
> the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
> either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
> a theory arises
> a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable

*this must be proven by an experiement that it is negligent, by also conducting a experiment with a controll in which you prove that this change is indeed negligent

>>15203360
method is a safe way to walk between the unknowledge universe, only philosophers can do real science, modern scientist are just a pile of faggots believing in things that not matters

>>15203360
memorizing the textbook and chimping out on anyone who contradicts it

>>15206285
Uh.. nobel department?

>>15204163
Extremely cringe take.

>>15203360
More or less this:

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Notice a pattern in the observations
3. Dream up a possible explanation for the pattern
4. Consider logical implications of your explanation that go beyond the original observations
5. Make a prediction based on that
6. Conduct an experiment to test your prediction
7. Refine or discard your explanation depending on how wrong you were

>>15203361
>>15203368
These :-(

>>15206503
>Dream up
just keep dreaming bro!
IM DREAMING!!!!