/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15857426
Relevant quote from Mythbusters; "remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down."

>>15857426
Is my understanding that construction isn't science. It uses things science provides but it itself isn't a science. Engineering isn't science either, it just uses science. Some academic engineers will be involved with things like materials science and will do experiments and stuff, but they're using math and physics and chemistry etc provided by regular scientists and not really creating any new science.

>>15857480
Technology is literally the application of scientific knowledge. Applied science. The stone wheel, made by a caveman, is a piece of technology. A caveman making a campfire is going about the scientific method whether they acknowledge it or not.

>>15857480
> they're using math and physics and chemistry etc
Okay so science? They are all processes. It works.

Disagreements of this type come down to the ambiguity of casual language. You know the difference in meaning of 'science' in the contexts of 'construction is a science' and 'science and engineering.' You get tired of these pointless arguments with your roommate pretty quick.

>>15857426
>(the argument is still on-going)
On here somewhere? Could use a laugh

>>15857505
>the ambiguity of casual language
It’s the inability to grasp fundamental simplicity. Science is as simple as repeatability/reproducibility itself, with nuances in-between (not everything repeatable is reproducible).

Construction is an art.

>>15857525
Everything built can be considered art by default, you realize. Every computer built has a design to it.

>>15857518
>>>/tg/90921719
>>>/tg/90921801
>>>/tg/90921861
>>>/tg/90922026
>>>/tg:90922109
>>>/tg/90922154
>>>/tg/90922309
>>>/tg/90923162
>>>/tg/90924025
>>>/tg/90924080
>>>/tg/90924192

>>15857483
>applying science is science
thats all we really needed to hear from you

>>15857518
>>>/tg/90921719
>>>/tg/90921801
>>>/tg/90921861
>>>/tg/90922026
>>>/tg/90922109
>>>/tg/90922154
>>>/tg/90922309
>>>/tg/90923162
>>>/tg/90924025
>>>/tg/90924080
>>>/tg/90924192

>>15857546
If it works, it is science. Simple as. There is a process to something always. There is always a background to the foreground.

>>15857547
>science was invented in the 17th century
lol

>>15857551
>If it works, it is science. Simple as.
Bruh, this is literally religious faith.

>>15857561
Bruh, religion does not require truth as a rule, it just requires belief. Science is, in-theory at least, truth. Treating science as a religion comes after the fact. Science is very much a religion now.

And yes, even the smallest shit in the universe works. Everything that exists works. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Fuck. There is only one set of truths out there, transcending itself the further/deeper you go, and everything else is non-existent. Ignorance outnumbers truth in that sense.

>>15857547
Tee gee has always been one of the dumber boards, since getting into fantasy fiction requires you to dumb yourself down. Authors like Jim Butcher have been a disaster on the human psyche. “Hur dur a wizard’s staff is surely not technology hur dur”.

>>15857571
The whole ‘magic vs science’ argument is based on an inability to detect vital nuances. Science is itself a descendent of past, magical thinking. Galileo and Isaac Newton were both more wizard than natural philosopher proper, which is more or less the case with all the past greats/geniuses. The stereotypical wizard is itself, very much so, the fantastical dream reflection of the natural philosopher. Artifice, alchemy, astrology are all traits of the wizard. SpellCRAFT. The sage/wizard is a creature in its own right, akin to the dragon. A being with all the answers, that nonetheless comes across as strange and eccentric, since past greats/geniuses are always lacing their limits with the imagination. Paracelsus literally thought jerking off into a chicken egg would produce a slave creation—the homunculus. Galileo would seriously entertain whether a Leo should date a Gemini. Isaac Newton was obsessed with the Hermetica and the sacred geometry of Solomon’s temple. He also shoved metal needles into his eye to test light.

>>15857569
>Bruh, religion does not require truth as a rule, it just requires belief. Science is, in-theory at least, truth.
lolno. Religious doctrine and scientific methodology both constitute ontologies with respect to which the truth of beliefs is evaluated. Scientific methodology produces beliefs which are more effective at predicting real-world outcomes than religious doctrine does, precisely because scientific methodology doesn't operate on the logic of "if it works, it's science." Religious doctrine does. "If it's true, it's true because God willed it."

>>15857593
Nope. God to a physicist is just a sufficiently advanced/powerful higher dimensional entity. That doesn’t change who He is, to the Christian. He (He) is still God, Jehovah, the Father, Etc, to the Christian. He is simply He. To the Christian physicist, it is more or less both. It is merely a different way of looking at Him. A more honest way, in the case of science, and a less honest, or more artistic way, in the case of magic/religion.

Magic/religion is just a way of looking at things. Full-stop. Truth unrequired. At its simplest, you had the ancients looking to the stars and considering them gods.

I looked over the thread(s). This is all a relative issue, because definitions are misaligning you’re just two walls arguing with one another. You don’t have the same syntax even though you probably agree with one another in spirit. ‘-‘)-p

>>15857596
Please provide your definitions for "truth" and "higher dimensional".

>>15857602
>Truth
Fire is hot. This we know to be true.
>Higher dimensional
God as He is, would need to exist in spacetime in directions we just cannot, to account for his absurd ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end’ status. He would not exist in three dimensions alone. Definitely perceives time non-linearly. He has ‘always been’. The Bible even says to meet/experience God fully is tantamount to death itself—which is what would happen had you stepped into a higher dimension. You would fall inside out. Jesus is his three dimensional incarnation. The Holy Spirit is the messenger in-between. Christian physicists associate angels with higher dimensional being all the time, just going by the way they are described in the Bible.

>>15857599
Nah, the guy saying natural law isn’t synonymous with science is retarded. Construction is a science. Natural laws have processes to them. It is why they are also called scientific laws.

>>15857547
>Science is "the scientific method", and everything outside that is not, technically speaking, science.
Nature has no method…?
>Science is not the facts nor the application, it is the understanding
What the fuck

>>15857426
I like this picture

“Human thought is so primitive it's looked upon as an infectious disease in some of the better galaxies.”

People who don’t understand >>15857437 can neck themselves slowly. People like >>15857480
NEED to be sterilized. They should not be allowed to breed.

They are why aliens refuse to land. Stupidity is infectious we just haven’t truly learned that yet. It only takes ONE dumbass to put out a horrible precedent forever.

>>15857641
It’s too late. We have black Harvard professors telling politicians on national television that men can get pregnant, and thinking otherwise causes suicide. We need a reset, and fast.

>How does one explain the simplicity behind science to retards
Post the picture: it's all there.

>>15857633
... and thus nature isn't science. Hey, you figured half of that out on your own. Good for you champ!

Construction isn't a science because it doesn't use the scientific method. It may or may not be a STEM field due to its connection to engineering/architecture, but it is definitively NOT a science as you do not attempt to discover new facts about the world

>>15857426
It can be an art and a science, but not always. Soulless trash is not art nor science because they don't give a shit about anything but profits..

>>15857615
>Fire is hot.
That's an example, not a definition.
>This we know to be true.
I don't know if you're trying to dance around Tarski or just ignorant, but either way, lol.
>God as He is
So are you saying that God (or the Father, if it helps you to specify) exists within the same metaspace within which our spacetime is embedded, or that He is that metaspace?

>>15857426
Science is the broader support.
It's the study of things.

Building a house is applying what we've learned, but the end goal is a house, not discovery or analysis.
If the building falls down and we try to discover WHY it feel down, or we see it get knocked over and realize "I shouldn't do [THING] to get better results," now we're doing science.

When you say "construction is a science," one would agree that doing things the right way is a series of discoveries that we've made and will continue to improve upon and is a science.
When actually doing construction, you're doing construction, not science. You may be applying scientific principles and discoveries, but you're not doing science.

The broader fields of study are sciences, like mathematics, physics, etc.
I feel like this isn't the only time I've fought with people over the difference between praxis and theory or study.

>>15857426
Science is literally just a body of knowledge.
That is why what is colloquially known as science is technically called natural science.
Engineering is simply applied sciences.

The way it relates is that in order to apply the science, you got to know it.
And when applying it, you could face problems that you could solve, and by solving them, you could contribute to natural science.

It's a feedback loop.
An example would be how computer scientists often use math and discover new algorithms or solve problems that are in math. Math btw is a kind of formal science.

>>15857655
Nature is as much a process as science is. Go fuck yourself.

>>15857714
>>15857683
>science is only science if it’s new science
I want to fucking murder you right now.
You actually typed all of that and thought it sounded good. Incredible. Fucking incredible.

>>15857727
The above retards disagree with your assessment. How do you respond?

>>15857590
>Paracelsus literally thought jerking off into a chicken egg would produce a slave creation—the homunculus. Galileo would seriously entertain whether a Leo should date a Gemini. Isaac Newton was obsessed with the Hermetica and the sacred geometry of Solomon’s temple. He also shoved metal needles into his eye to test light.
None of these were real scientists. Real scientists reject superstition, and see only the objective truth.

>>15857618
Semantic issue. If you can’t see that,
I-(‘-‘)-I

>>15857798
All the past greats were crazy people. Cope more retard.

>>15857798
>Real scientists reject superstition, and see only the objective truth.
What? The average scientist is too chicken shit to say men can’t get pregnant, or that blacks people are dumber than white people. Science is very superstitious, and merely having a different opinion can be deemed heretical.

>>15857830
Didn’t they take away some famous old scientist’s awards for saying black people suffer from lesser genetics? And his son immediately disowned him for it? Lol.

>>15857727
>Math btw is a kind of formal science.
Math is the purest science. 1s and 0s are eternal. 1 + 1 = 2 is the simplest process.

“One plus one equals two”
“Show me your theory for that”
“What?”
“What?”

See what I mean?

construction isn't science.
scientists are do nothing losers who always need to try and take credit for things they never participated in, other peoples' work, because they have nothing worthwhile of their own to use as a means of justifying their existence.

>>15857791
If you're doing a baking soda volcano to learn and observe for yourself, it's science because you're testing someone else's hypothesis about the reaction.
If you keep doing it because you enjoy it and aren't academically studying the process/reaction, you've ceased doing science.

Working construction isn't "testing a hypothesis" any more than you shoving another cool ranch dorito in your fat mouth is testing to see if you still like the flavor.
There's a reason science is a different word.

If you want to call scratching your ass science, go for it.
The rest of the world knows that there is a process and qualifiers that differentiate it from "doing something because you know for certain that it'll work like the past 30 times you've done it."

>>15857874
You are actually a motherfucking retard and it shows.

>>15857874
>Working construction isn't "testing a hypothesis"

You are testing a hypothesis every time you build something. “Will it stand?”. The chances are high that it will stand.

Starting to agree with >>15857641

>>15857426
>i am very upset that someone is defining a word differently from me

>>15857874
>If you keep doing it because you enjoy it and aren't academically studying the process/reaction, you've ceased doing science.
This is what being educated beyond your intelligence looks like.

>>15857883
>I am very upset that someone is too stupid to grasp the simplest of simplicities
You too can die.

>>15857890
>the objective correctness of the way i use the word 'science' is the simplest of simplicities
imagine sperging out this hard about language

Thanks for proving to me once again that /sci/ is a brain dead board OP

>>15857897
>what is repeatability, reproducibility, replicability, etc
Yup. You failed simplicities. Hopefully your don’t breed and taint the rest of the human race with your cognitive block. That argumentative pang.

>>15857897
>If I do Y, then X happens
>If X happens, Y occurs

This isn’t simple for the average dumbass human? I guess it isn’t!

>>15857874
Cooking is a science and people do that purely for the enjoyment factor. So…what you’re saying to me…is that following a recipe to the letter for the thousandth time *isn’t* science? I’m not so sure about that. What about a construction manager following a building plan to the letter? That’s not science? That’s not testing a hypothesis? A recipe/plan is by default that.

You could at least *think* before you post something so blatantly disingenuous, or just so self defeating.

>if you want to call scratching your ass science-
Stopping you right there. Are you saying there *isn’t* a biological reason for *why* you scratch your ass? You scratch your ass because it feels good. I just tested it. If you smell your hands after then it’s because you’re a descendent of apes.

>>15857950
>Cooking is a science
Thank you for classifying yourself as an idiot.

>>15857490
>Okay so science?
No, not at all. Scientists define the science, engineers use the science, as per the definition of engineering

>>15857523
In order for something to be considered a science it must either seek to discover and compile laws and phenomena of the natural world. Or be involved in a occupation where first principle knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology, or biology is relevant.

Occupations that depend only on direct knowledge of secondary or tertiary emergent phenomena from the aforementioned do not count as science.

Think about it, if science was synonymous with "every type of human activity" would there be a point to using the word science?

>>15857426
Constructors and engineers are getting shit done, scientists take credit for it.
A reminder that Daimler, Tesla, Edison, Wright Brothers and Steve Jobs weren't scientists and they didn't study science either. Meanwhile, scientists are babbling about some dark mater and granting Nobel prizes to each other.
Also, farmers were practicing natural selection before it was cool

>>15857960
Cooking is literally an applied science you fucking dimwit.

Oh look, I just had to type ‘Is cooking a science’ in fucking Google and this popped up:
> Summary. The process of cooking, baking, and preparing food is essentially an applied science. Bread baking provides a great example of the importance of having a scientific understanding of cooking and baking.

Fucking bread is science, you absolute fucking faggot.

‘What is the science behind tickling?’
> During a tickle, the skin's nerve endings shoot electrical signals to the somatosensory cortex, a part of the brain that processes touch. Meanwhile, the anterior cingulate cortex analyzes these signals as either harmful or playful. But in the back part of the brain, the cerebellum gives you away.

Science is a process used to understand processes. Processes. Again, the caveman making the stone wheel is practically humanity’s symbol of development, science and technology. Tools.

Now fuck off.

>>15857969
>Think about it, if science was synonymous with "every type of human activity" would there be a point to using the word science?

The point remains. If it exists, there is science to it.

>>15857874
lol, the people trying to say science = everything don't like what you said at all. Listen, the reason you want to say your job = science is quite literally because science is not you job and has more prestige. A prestige it would loose if all of a sudden your job was considered it. There is nothing wrong with being a constitution worker/maneger, and it requires some skills that some scientists don't have. Just be happy with what you are.

>>15858004
You could try a little harder.

>>15857641
>People who don’t understand >>15857437 # can neck themselves slowly. People like >>15857480 (You) #
>NEED to be sterilized
This might be shocking, but that mythbusters quote is not the definition of science. I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a science lab but it's not a construction site. An architect doesn't come into the lab with a set of plans that tell you exactly how to do your experiment. Experiments aren't standardised by the government down to how big your lasers must be and how many atoms you must to use. New science is not created by construction workers, nor are they observing natural phenomena and recording it to be included in science textbooks.

>>15857988
Applications of science aren't science, dumbass, they're techniques. You are very, very obviously an undergrad zoomer. I suggest you take a topology course.

- All your fancy technology will never be able to copy this guitar.

- Using my fancy technology, I can make an exact copy of this guitar.

- Tell me, Dr. Beeler. Will I need to threaten you?

- Not at all. You see, nowadays we can take a unique and beautiful object, and easily reduce it to a formula for mass production. I call the process "science."

>>15858011
The scientific wheel is Fuck Around, Find Out.

Go away.

>>15858028
Don't know what you're talking about

>>15858020
Science destroys everything beautiful in the world. Correct.

>>15858032
Well you ARE stupid.

>>15858017
>Tomato sauce isnt tomatoes?
>No it is APPLIED tomatoes idiot!

>>15858078
Take the topology course, Anon.

>>15858078
Is more like saying a chef is a vegetable for using tomatoes

>>15857856
math is not science. its better, but not science. Please PLEASE OP read a fucking dictionary before going an a tard rage on this board

>>15858091
Do you also think math was invented by humans? That prime numbers aren’t a universal tongue?

>>15858017
>Applications of science aren't science
I want you to re-read this very, very carefully

>>15857426
Do dance. Vary dance moves for new dance floor. You now have 2 dances. Your can now shuffle the dance floor to your dance.

>>15858106
Anon, this isn't complicated. The product of two and three is six, but neither two nor three nor even six are the operation we call multiplication.

>>15858113
Applied fire isn’t fire. Got it. An applied process isn’t a process.

>>15858121
>Applied fire isn’t fire
Correct, spit-roasted meat is not fire.

>>15858121
>fire
>a process
shiggy

>>15858108
>Running late
>say fuck
>door opens
>cool shit
>later...
>stub toe
>say FUCK
>different door opens
>questions
>later...
>say fuck
>first door opens
>say FUCK
>second door opens
>thoughts.jpg
>Say FUck
>new door opens
>wuthappen if say fuCK?

>>15857551
>if it works it is science

Tard detected.

Science is a process used to advance knowledge of the natural world. Engineering and other applications do not aim primarily to do this

>>15857426
Let me answer your question with another question:
Why are you making someone else's stupidity your problem? Does it really need to be??

>>15858129
>Have fuck,FUCK, and FUck
>switch shit up to open doors at convenience
>start peddling and trafficing shit through doors
>fucker don't like comes up to first door
>fuck
>fuckerpissed.png
>fucker tries coming to second door
>nottoday.mov
>FUCK
>shithemighttryfor3.avi
>FUck
>traffic and peddle stop but remain the fuckwit

>>15858126
Fire doesn’t burn? It doesn’t extinguish?

>>15858131
Sorry. Everything that is, has science to it.

>>15858145
By your logic, everything is therefore science.

If everything is science, then the term science has lost its meaning.

>>15858136
>Gunmakesong.webm
>fuck,fuck,fuck,FUCK,fuck,FUck
>gudshit
>wut if map house in fuck
>fuck to the right
>FUCK to the left
>FUck between
>see porn
>butwhatif.m4a
>FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
>FUCK fuck FUCK FUCK
>fuck Fuck fuck FUCK
>cum4dayz.ape

>>15858123
An application of fire isn’t roast meat, it’s the ability to cook it.

>>15858146
So you’re saying there are things without processes to them? Is that it?

Ask them what they don't understand

>>15858148
The ability to cook meat with fire also isn't fire. If you have that ability, if you possess the knowledge of the relevant technique, then you still possess it even if you don't have a fire.

Science is a knowledge-production process. This is not the same thing as a data-production process, which you seem to be describing here >>15857950
. Getting the same result the thousandth time produces data, but it doesn't produce knowledge.

>>15858153
You are a retard

>/sci/ has an infestation of retards that have no idea what science is
This explains... alot actually...

>>15858250
It's just one retard OP spamming this thread.

>everything in the past is science
>only the future is true science

>>15858146
He is saying everything has science to it, which is correct. You learn, and you perform. Even the cavemen had science.

>>15858287
>Even the cavemen had science.
How?

>>15858287
>He is saying everything has science to it,

He said, in his own words,

>if it works it is science

Using your mentioned comment as a response seems to assert that everything would therefore be science, which is a particularly stupid case of definition shuffling (if he is not saying this, then his second comment is really retarded and unrelated).

>>15858253
theres alot more once you probe all the religious/schizo thread makers.

>>15858335
Science is a Christian invention.

>>15858294
If Science is basically about acquiring knowledge (theories, principles, laws = “Knowing”), and Technology is basically about applying that knowledge in creating products, processes, and designs (= “Doing”), then let’s consider what ancient humans (Sapiens and Neanderthals), or “cavemen”, did with stone back in the Stone Age (the Paleolithic period).

The most important tool back then was the handaxe. It was used for multiple purposes including as a scraper and as a weapon. You took a certain type of stone and fractured, flaked, or “knapped” it to make a sharp-edged tool you could hold in your hand.

The SCIENCE was in knowing which stones to use and which not. Some types fractured more easily than others. Some were denser than others. Some were softer and others harder. Want something elaborate? Might want to choose obsidian. Want something really sharp? Consider quartz. Something looser-grained? Try flint.

Noticing and remembering all these differences in various stone qualities was the Science, and it accumulated over tens and even hundreds of thousands of years.

Then you applied the Science to the Technology of knapping stone cores to create the flakes that became the final tools. So the Tech was in the knapping and flaking.

>>15858322
If it works, it is Science. I would agree on that. Even if the information forever eludes our own, there is still hypothetical Science to the information. To everything.

>>15858338
sure, faggot. Don't you have every other post in this thread btfoing your retarded claims to argue with?

>>15858322
Everything is physics. Is physics pointless?

>>15858355
I'm not the OP.

>>15858362
He is also assuming the OP is Christian. I think I know who the real schizophrenic is.

>>15858346
>>15858358

As I said before, you are retarded. kys fag

>>15857426
>explain the simplicity behind science to retards
Waste of time on people who aren't willing to listen.

>>15857994
you are not thinking about the words he wrote

>>15858773
His words are beyond stupid. Who the fuck defines science as "physics, chemistry, biology, geology"? It's so absurd and shows a complete lack of any intelligence whatsoever

>>15858792
Um. Chemistry is applied physics. Biology is applied chemistry. The psyche is applied biology. Everything meets in the end. This is how it is. Everything is a component. Material.

Yes, physics can be summarized as the “largest” of the sciences. The only retard here is you.

What a horrible, horrible thread.

The harsh is like a nanny to me

>>15857426
Building buildings is construction, not science.
Engineering buildings uses science, but is not itself a science.

>>15857483
>Technology is literally the application of scientific knowledge.
Technology predates the scientific method.

>>15857994
>turtles are science because scientists study them
>rocks are science because geologists study them
>water is science because chemists study them
Idiotic. The subject of scientific inquiry is not itself science.

>>15857426
normies unironically think science is some kind of "magic". they dont use those words and they think they have these two things separated out in their mind. but when you really dig into how they think, science is just another kind of magic to them

>>15860223
You need knowledge to make technology, so no. Everything is information.

>>15860228
You people are excruciatingly dumb today.

>>15860422
>all knowledge is derived through science
So cave men knocking rocks together to make pointy rocks were scientists?

No, the other anons are right. When you make the definition of science so expansive as this, you render it meaningless.

>>15860439
>So cave men knocking rocks together to make pointy rocks were scientists?

You can employ the scientific method, AKA replicability, without actually acknowledging it. The stone axe is a very early example of technology, of applied knowledge/information.

Please read >>15858346

>>15860458
Nope. Random people were born and found things by pure chance. Not science. This revisionism is creepy and you do it worse than the mormons.

>>15860439
Okay. So physics is meaningless to you then. Got it. Opinion safely discarded. Into my shit bowl it goes. Flush.
>>15860469
Your inability to grasp the purity of simple processes is astounding. That is what is disturbing here. Do you think math was invented by man? Really? Really?

>>15860458
>literal tree monkeys use science because they try things to see if they work
Your revisionist definition has rendered the term meaningless. Shit nigger, your definition of science would have most of the animal kingdom classified as scientists.

>>15860474
>Okay. So physics is meaningless to you then.
How do you get that from anything I said?

>>15860480
Everything is physics, which is the largest and most fundamental of the sciences. Ergo, you think everything is meaningless. You are a self consuming twat. A danger to education. The world would actually be much better off (just safer) if you died today. You are a disease. Educated beyond your intelligence.

>>15860477
That is the literal application of the scientific method, yes.

It is as simple as >>15857437 >>15858028

>>15860474
Your definitions are weird and meaningless, spooks in their own right. Chemicals were long combining before there was chemistry.

>>15860489
>>Everything is physics
No. A rock is not physics. Physics can explain the rock, but that doesn't mean that the rock is itself physics. Physics is a field of study. A rock is something that field of study can explain, but that doesn't make the rock itself that field of study.

You're OP, correct? You should go apologize to whoever you were arguing with and tell him that 4chan says he's right.

>>15860505
>No. A rock is not physics
Rocks don’t form? There’s no method to rocks? They aren’t comprised of anything? Lol. Science is a process figuring out other processes.

Anon, when someone asks “What’s the science behind getting an erection?”, they will usually be met with the biological function of the penis. Another process.

>>15860505
He told you to kill yourself. Why aren’t you doing it?

>>15860477
>he thinks using the scientific method means you’re a scientist
LOL
/sci/ everyone

>>15857551
>If it works, it is science. Simple as.
By that logic, christianity is a science because it works at identifying and overcoming sin.

>>15857426
>construction (building buildings) is a science
I'm a Civil Engineer and that's retarded. Science is the scientific method; "building buildings" is a result of techniques that follow engineering that follows science(which comes from the scientific method).

Also "science" is not what hollywood thinks; I don't even know if they know what they think; it's just "lol they just wear white gowns and are nerds lol".

>>15857483
>>15857593
>>15857633
>>15857683
>>15860223
>>15860422
>>15860458
>>15860495
>>15860518
>>15860527
I noticed there are a lot of retards in this thread (probably children (unless they are mentally handicapped)), who have the delusion the scientific method only has to be "a method" and they only say "but I have a method too".

No you retard; it's very specific: you follow that set of rules (of formulation and verification and all the rest): and then you still say you may be wrong but that's the best I have (dogmatism is never science); yes some people will say "but it has to be in a formal setting like a peer reviewed process" but in reality those are anti-science too because there's nothing theoretically stopping you becoming literally Albert Einstein before Albert Einstein outside those formal or systemic circles (if you can achieve it).

>>15861405
>like a peer reviewed process"
clarification, I meant the peer reviewed process is good for it, but it doesn't have to happen necessarily inside any specific formal or established circle of people.

>>15861408
>it doesn't have to happen necessarily inside any specific formal or established circle of people.
after all that's why we all love, the mad scientist cliche

>>15860184
True. This is actually the lowest quality discussion I have seen on 4chan

>>15860422
>all information is science

Delete thread and kill yourself

>>15861968
>information
What even is the meaning of this word that everyone regurgitates? If there are less vague words to explain what information means why not use those words? How does information differ from experience? Is information a substance? A pattern? Etc. Fuck that word. Fucking charlatans.

>you better say you like fucking my tranny hole
>and you better like it when I grab you from behind in the store while I'm tormenting you with my disguise bullshit and your other rapist
>or else

>>15857426
Construction is not science. It's not even engineering. It's assembly. You are a factory worker who works outside instead of in a factory.

>>15860518
>He thinks rocks are science

>>15858028
mh, what would hegel's science be then?

>>15862044
>Doesn't know the chicken and egg problem of ontology and epistemology

>be me
>friendly agnostic who is generally more into science than most
>most of my friends are diehard religious people who don't have any interest in believing scientific papers or studies or otherwise
>never debate anything with them because I don't care they're chill when not acting like a schizo
>they make bold claims that certain things I believe (e.g evolution primarily) are incorrect
>they ask a million questions
>answer every question and cite multiple sources per claim
>"ummm well I would rather trust the orthodox church than some nigger scientists! unreliable all of that stuff is fake! wasn't darwin in a secret satanic cult?"
I don't get it. They never come at me with a genuine interest to learn my position, they just want to tell me how I'm wrong and anything I said is inherently incorrect. awesome

>>15858011
>What is experimental and in-situ
>>15857426
Most things in life are science, even cooking easy

>>15862104
>He thinks ontology and epistemology are science

>>15857426
>building a building is science.
Id argue it is the application science in the same way cooking/baking is also technically a science but it is only really noticed if you are someone who is a gourmand interested in the nitty gritty of what makes a good meal into something memorable. The lab would be a kitchen.

>relevant book: Kitchen Mysteries

Or you could also be into science of flavour, mouth feel, scent, texture, etc. In order to create something addictive despite it using added flavourings to achieve this rather than conventional cooking methods.
This is usually done in a proper lab.
>relevant book: Dorito Affect

>>15862117
>>answer every question and cite multiple sources per claim
>I don't get it
Lol. You deserve your friends. How about thinking with them instead of against them? Find out together the basics of ontology and epistemology: what is and how do we know? Church of the eternal Logos held some interesting philosophical debates lately and I'm not even christian.

>>15862131
>He doesn't know that science as a method is an answer to the epistemological question

>>15861371
Christianity doesn’t work. It’s just the imagination. You are thinking of psychology. It works to dominate the psyche. A story that controls the mind.

It is pretty simple.

>>15862138

Everything has a cause and effect
No fucking shit everything is science

>>15862152
You atheists are so cringe

>>15862182
>Abloobloobloo
If everything has cause and effect, then there is cause and effect to ignorance

>science is when you know things

Science is not the laws that bind our universe, but our imperfect observation and description of it. We could very well imagine a world with different physics, chemistry and such, but one can not imagine one where logical laws like causality don't work.
Which gives us a hint why Logic and Math are superior to all sciences.

>>15862928
>Logic and Math are superior
>he doesn't know about garbage in garbage out

>>15862152

>>15862145
>He thinks epistemology is science

>>15862928
>Science is not the laws that bind our universe
No they are not, but there is a reason why we call them natural/scientific laws, since they run, as processes. Science is itself a process figuring out other processes. “What’s the science behind why I get an erecting when wrestling?”There is (hypothetical) science to everything and anything at all, if it exists, regardless if we (humans) cannot reach it. Theoretical physics plays into that, and it’s why people like Einstein (and others) predicted nuclear warfare. Just because it hasn’t been reached/tapped yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t science. Everything meets in the end.

why do you care so much what he thinks. so what if he's wrong about this irrelevant shit, unless it's going to cause problems for anyone then it doesn't matter. You're just addicted to arguing over pointless bullshit online, and that's why you're on this website.

OP is science.

>>15857426
Equating engineering and science is like equating murder and detective work.

>>15864678
Science and technology are two sides of the same coin. Engineers are not scientists, but they are using applied sciences and mathematics. Science is everywhere. Using the scientific method doesn’t make you a scientist. People like Neil aren’t even true scientists.

I love reading /sci/niggers arguing semantics for 200 posts straight

>>15857426
>construction (building buildings) is a science
it's not if it would be a science you would need to wear a talisman (like a mask or other useless mandatory body equipment), need a priest (someone who approves and allows what you're doing) and of course mystical unexplained behavior or movements that have ritualistic nature and don't serve any purpose
so yeah construction is not science

>>15864752
>using the scientific method doesnt make you a scientist
heres your (you) retard

>>15871124
>he thinks neil redditman is a scientist
heres your (you) retard

>Thats not science, THIS is Science!

>>15857426
I get his argument. People that couldn't do math could still build buildings back in the day. The Greeks vs Romans argument and all that. A scientist would have to come up with an appropriate calculus equation to fill in an arbitrarily shaped hole while a wily serf would just whittle a ticking stick. The two comingle nowadays but using measurements and equations rather than approximations and proportions was probably the tipping point. I would call engineering science at this point but not historically

>>15872201
Retard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_science

>if we put blocks this way, they dont fall down and kill everyone
No shit OP
Everyone arguing against you is a brain dead retard
The trick is not wasting time with morons