/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15509590
they can't in most cases, belief in the textbook is an act of faith.

>>15509590
>hasn't studied particle physics
stay in school kids

>>15509590
>How can physicists and chemists tell what their textbook or professor is telling them is true
The same way you trust the bleach in the stores isn't secretly a cure for cancer, and that jumping in front of a car doesn't actually give you an isekai harem. It isn't "faith" because unlike faith you aren't merely doing it because you're told, but because of the reasons that make sense to you.

Usually where people go nuts and descend on some flat earther crusade is due to some narcissism where they can't understand things but can't mentally handle not understanding it. Therefore, to them, that means it has to be a lie or be wrong.

Thousands of articles, full of data proving the equations with extreme precision.
There is indeed a chance that every single rich person and the government are spending billions with financing these articles, to such a degree that not a single person in the world was able to refute them. All of this gargantuous effort so that people believe that protons are made of quarks. Why? You tell me.
There is also the possibility that all of our physics is actually wrong, and some god was just faking every single thing that happened so that our measures say that there are quarks, when in reality there is no such thing. But if in practice this "fake world" is all we know and will see, why would the "real world" matter, if it's impossible to know anything about it?

>>15509718
>i know everything, anyone who disagrees with me is narcissistic
projection

>>15509747
>Nobody on earth has information worth conveying to me
dethatched from reality

>>15509747
0/10 bait

>>15509747
Atheism is by definition the worship of the self. That's narcissism.

>>15509782
Athiesm is by definition the lack of worship of a god A-theism. If this isn't bait you're retarded.

>>15509783
>i know everything, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong

>>15509785
I mean you can keep saying that but it doesn't cover for the fact you literally are wrong, engaging in bad faith makes your point more justified and better overall :^)

>Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

if you fit the description above of an attention hungry know-it-all masturbator who does not believe in any god higher than himself then you have an unusually narcissistic personality

>>15509822
wrong thread buddy, >>15508638 is that way

>>15509829
You seem distressed.

>>15509718
>can't mentally handle not understanding it.
They also like to feel like they're somehow more aware and intelligent than the average person, which is ironic.

>>15509832
distressed that a fellow anon accidentally posted in the wrong thread yes. This is a thread about the veracity of chem and physics fields in comparison to math fields, I don't know where psychology came from, I assumed you meant to post in the psych thread.

>>15509590
usually you do some experiments yourself as part of your degree
you could easily visit a particle accelerator too if you're doing a physics degree
but yes it's very complicated so it's not like you're gonna be able to verify everything in the accelerator
what can you do? idk lol

>>15509590
For most of these experiments, less so for recent results, it's possible to find well documented experimental replications by 2-3 different institutions. As many as I or you would desire? Probably not; but as long as the methods are documented, you always know someone could EVENTUALLY blow the result out if something is wrong. And every so often another grad student/overfunded institution tests an previously difficult result, almost always with a confirmation.
Is there still results out that have consistently mistaken methodology/computer processing hit by cosmic rays/corrupted by the joos? Quite possibly there is at least one, but you do end up letting results pass without much attention given how rare blowouts are, and with how much attention is paid when there IS a blowout.

>>15509590
Chemistry obviously is testable.
Most of physics is as well.
But quarks and so on aren't really testable because they're unstable outside a proton.
You smash the proton and detect what you think the quarks should decay into, but you don't detect the quark.
So ultimately you can't have direct evidence.

Doesn't mathematics require you to take things on faith as well? Sure you COULD go and prove, or fully understand an existing proof, for every single concept you need in your work from the most elementary mathematics up. But I don't expect that's practical
t. engineer

>>15509590
Strictly speaking, even if you had the equipment to perform the experiment yourself, you couldn't have the same level of confidence and sincerity that mathematicians have for basic mathematical axioms and principles. Observation and logical proof are not remotely similar in grade of confidence.

>>15509962
thats why physics exists in the middleground; mathheads make theory models based on old evidence, physicist test theory models by isolating variables, model is discarded or adjusted

>>15509590
> "Division by 0 is undefined"
Only as long as you have not defined it, dipshit.
All math is made-up.

>>15509590
XKCD is a feminist leftist cuck

>>15509747
Based, you made the subsersives salty lol

>>15509822
Sounds like he's butthurt that chads exist lmao.
>Y-y-your focus on self-improvement and skill development is a disorder!!!

>>15509959
So how do you prove that shit isnt science fiction?

>>15509590
Just like mathematicians, there is vastly too much information being thrown at them in a college course for every statement to be proven rigorously from first principles

A mathematician couldn't even get through an elementary algebra or calculus class, if each and every formula and assertion needed to be proven; math would start with very high level abstract topics and it'd be years of rigorously defining and proving trivial theorems before anything even remotely related to real life was possible. This would be a terrible way to learn math, likely impossible unless you're a genius-tier prodigy as the mind more easily adapts to concepts it can relate to real life.

It's why first calculus is taught, then the theorems are derived in analysis, then the whole thing is done over in measure theory. It's vastly easier to build from a lower level intuitive definition or theorem to a higher level rigorous one than vice versa.

So to learn math by any remotely normal and not extremely autistic pathway, you have to start by accepting a lot of things as true that you can't yet prove. And once you get to the level where you can prove things rigorously you've already mostly learned them.

Science is no different, except that even at this hypothetical mastery level of understanding after finishing a typical course of undergraduate + graduate study, you'll need to read and evaluate papers on experiments conducted by others instead of conducting them yourself because lab capital is a scarce resource.

But when you view trained mathematician brain time as also being a scarce resource, painstakingly proving every theorem you've learned yourself is just as unfeasible as replicating the experimental evidence for every scientific principle.

>>15511018
> prior indoctrination legitimizes "proofs"
True but that supports OP.