/sci/ - Science & Math

Scientists don't pretend they know the definite answers to life's questions. As human beings, all we can do is base what we know on probability.

Just because philosophy majors are scientifically inept doesn't mean that science is useless.

>people at school ask what religion I am
>me not being interested or caring for religion say that I am Atheist
>people laugh and say that I can't prove god doesn't exist
>I say you people can't prove he does
>people refer to bible
>I say bible is not a credible, or logical source
>people ask how?
>I say because it said the world was flat, it was made 6000 years ago, and that there was a massive fucking flood that covered the earth and then magically disappeared
>people say that's irrelevant and doesn't imply that the bible isn't true
>I say evolution
>they say bullshit
>I reply with that if evolution isn't true then every basic science isn't true, such as entropy
>people get quiet

>>1896241
i was into science before philosophy but i still new enough common logic to say that you cant prove anything so why are there laws?

>>1896244
................cool story bro

>>1896249
Do you hate learning or something?

>>1896241
I usually raged on this, but now I ask to myself. If Leibniz, Pascal, Descartes or even those most antique but not less important, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Empedocles and Archimedes... had majored on Philosophy, would they have done the shit they did?

I think they probably would be to stoned to care.

>>1896249
Well, Cartesian doubt does not exclude you from actually getting your lasy bum to work. Descartes himself could not care enough about it to stop doing the shit he had to, so why would you? Now you don't tell me you can't prove the existance of Descartes. That's just bullshit.

bitches arent answering mah question >:O

Because science isn't just a good idea. It's the law.

>>1896249
Believe in science or die.

>>1896279
i actually love science more than i love philosophy even though from philosophy comes the scientific method and all of science. why? because of what u just said, u can get of your ass and apply your work and not just speculate that ur right

>philosophy
>proven

too obvious.

>>1896293
i believe in science its just that im aware that not only can we be proven wrong by new evidence but by something more radical like flawed perception (5 senses) that cause us to learn about our world efficiantly but not perfectly

its just a figure of speech. a remnant from classical times when people thought the universe was completely knowable.

>>1896308
Worship the Mantis shrimp then, they can see much more then your shitty philosophy. Plus we humans have something called tools we spent millions of years developing until now and more tomorrow, plus smart medication now to extend our senses beyond our 5. Pull your head out of your ass, the world would smell a lot better and make more sense.

>no matter how many green apples you find you can never be sure that there are only green apples because one day you might find a red apple.

Just because philosophical induction is a load of shit doesn't mean we don't know anything.

>>1896227
because scientific laws in the premise of your examples are things like "there are green apples" or "Green apples are a kind of fruit" science doesn't MAKE assumptions on the existence of things that don't appear to exist because without any measurable evidence it is absolutely worthless as a scientific field.

>You are the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary success
>Fucking act like it
Screw you courage wolf
Have you ever thought about the rest of the wolves of your pack?
You know the ones that don't get laid because your too busy fending them off and have to put up with your bullshit attitude?
how about the ones that left the pack because they decided they rather risk dying than staying in your pack.
I'm not the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary success.
I'm the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary suffering.

But it worked so far. So what if science is not absolute? In the end the true judge is our success.

>>1896350
1. we dont no if green apples exist (now i no how to piss a scientist off hehe)
2. law of conservation of mass says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. im assuming the logic behind this is, i havnt seen it happen, it cant happen

>4 billion years of evolutionary success
>every ancestor I've ever had ever since sex was invented has gotten laid
>my face when I'm just another evolutionary dead end

>>1896414

well any other siblings would still carry on.

> philosophy has already proven that you cannot be sure of anything
> you cannot be sure of anything
> proven

>>1896357
Us demons feed off your suffering, and we were given this world as a playground, we needed a food source, so we created material bodies, and made them feel the weight of the world. Suffering is a given and a product we want.

>>1896445
O_O

>>1896445
that would explain a lot if it were true, demons running the world, making sure we're in our place being miserable, hiding the narcotics, controlling the trade teasing us, cutting off the supply to make us experience withdraw...

>>1896445

>Us [...] feed

Great subject-verb agreement, bro.

Reason Is Irrational

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIuDeAJQ9M&feature=player_profilepage

>ITT: I am at an awe of confusion, what are we talking about anymore?

>>1896485
>changing subjects
imokwiththis.jpg

we aren't the success, we are the process. We just got smart and prepared for our decendants.

>>1896445

every scientific statement is under the assumed to understand that it is true "to the best of our knowledge"

we know that we cant know everything, but to toss out what little we do know knowing that the picture is not complete would be pretty wasteful

>>1896553
> statement is under the assumed to understand
forgive my terrible grammar
>statement is assumed to understand*
*better?

>>1896553
exactly, so why are there laws?

>>1896553
Some would prefer if we never said anything, in a way we do crush beliefs that help people be happy by sharing our information and putting it out in the open. It had this effect on me, but only because I am somewhat masochistic in my search of knowledge. I have spent my life learning everything about the world I can, experiencing everything I could, even the cruel things. I feel empty, my moods flat lined, nothing is new anymore. I must resort to drugs, or light anti-depressants to give me a false sense of happiness. I am hysterical at best and downright waiting for somebody to push a knife through my twisted heart, it would please me to no end.

>>1896575

>>1896445
I would argue if it didn't make so much damn sense

>>1896572

by laws i assume you mean things like the laws of gravity, newtons laws, or generally the laws of nature.

these laws are definite in the fact that they are so undeniably consistent that it is hard to dispute them. They are not laws in that if we oppose them we will be punished.

Newtonian physics is actually questionable in very large and very small scales, it seems its not as consistent as we once thought. but science doesnt have much problem accepting that as long as consistency prevails

>>1896610
well gravity is a theory and i was taking more about the law of the conservation of mass which according to lawrence krauss doesnt fit with new quantum mechanics which prove that universes can spring up out of a vacume(outside of a universe)

>>1896437
mother of god.
we proved that we cant prove anything what the fucking fuck what is this i dont even...

>>1896445
I didn't know they had 4chan in hell
That also explains a lot

>>1896628
I guess all i can say is that "laws" and "theories" in regards to science are very close to synonymous. Laws are more the set of rules that make up the standard of an accepted theory.

I cant say i know much about quantum physics, i just took a phil. of science class a couple semesters ago. it was mostly about the problem of induction. it clarified that science is very susceptible to fallacy, but the moral of the class was that if we had to place bets, science is probably the way to go.

Scientists do not say that they are 100% confident in Laws. In fact, nothing is ever 100%... the best scientists will rate confidence is 99.9999999...% but never 100. The reason is, you may still yet find a red apple

>>1896686
Mathematicians are though

>>1896686
so laws aren't 100% thats an answer. i thought that scientist said that laws were 100% but apparently not

>>1896700
theres another question, how do we no if math is truth and not just truth for us humans or this universe?

>>1896701
There is no universal agreement system. It wouldn't allow for progress.

>>1896707

math is always valid. im not sure if truth can be a applied...

Maths is proven because we invented the system and therefore created the proofs. You could say the entire system is made up, and thats true aswell. Science relating to the universe can always be proved wrong by new discoveries.

"philosophy has...proven"

lol

Godels Theorem.

Learn it, love it.

When laws are shown to not work they are just slightly revised to say they fit the cases that it does work.

>>1896660
well there are a few things we can't prove
Like infinity
It has been shown that infinity applies to the real world.
Like I guess if string theory is true we could divide the strings an infinite amount of times.
Yet we can't grasp infinity.
In a way every single subatomic particle, photon, electron... is made up of infinity

Science isn't about "absolute facts". It's about models of reality that should for all intents and purposes be treated as facts. The sun has been observed to rise and set every day for as long as we can remember. We don't know for 100% certainty that it will always do this, after all, we could just wake up from the matrix one day. But by the process of inductive logic, we conclude the sun will probably rise tomorrow. We have laws to describe things because those laws tell us how to overcome problems and make life easier.