/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2992690
nobody does that. Nice straw man.

also, fail post.

>>2992699

>implying there is no 2nd law of thermodynamics

>implying science doesn't promote "laws of nature" durrrr

>implying science doesn't take it's laws "as if" they were universal

>he thinks any law of nature will be completely accurate

>>2992706
you are completely right.
Science acts "as if" it's results are universal laws.
As if.
The only claim they make is that it works.

What? It is
It's been fucking proven
10/10 I raged
Go back to the middle school you graduated from fag

>>2992707

>>2992723
>It's been fucking proven
>induction

pick one

>>2992723
You probably shouldn't say "It's been proven" as this excludes any possibility of being altered.
Just say "It works" and you put the burden of disproving it to the skeptic.
It could be wrong but there is no rational basis in not believing it being true if one has no evidence to the contrary.

It's been constucted. But how much of a construction is proof? Proof is a construction too. The person who sets the rules always wins.

>>2992753
>inb4 the logical proof of logic

>>2992753
the person that sets the rules is reality.

The proof of a scientific claim is that it works.

>>2992760
define reality .. construct.

Something that works may not be the truth.

>>2992764
reality: objects related to each other over space and time.

shamanism never produced a functioning car. That implies it is wrong.
If a scientific theory predicts "X should work" and it doesnt, the theory changes. Just like popper said, sciences climbs its way up to the truth by being wrong until it isnt.

>>2992690
>is using the word "basis" in an ambiguous way that is sure to generate a troll discussion

>>2992808
We think it works and we model our concept of reality on it. Does the universe contain unobservable stuff? Yes, lots of it. Does the universe contain unpredictable, unprovable or untestable stuff in it? yeah.

This entire thread is like the championship bout for philosophical illiteracy.

>>2992827
>we think it works
well, a car drives or it doesnt. the prediction of my theory tests positively or negatively. That is what "works" means.

> unobservable stuff
How can you claim that it exits if it is unobservable? This is religion.

>unpredictable
yet.

>unprovable or untestable
again, religion.

If a particle exits that has no interaction with any other particle, has no influence on anything but just is.
Well, it just isnt part of our reality.

>>2992835
the only way not to be wrong is not to say anything.
congrats, you are not wrong.

We are spending more and more energy on obtaining scientific knowledge and getting less knowledge for it. Both mental energy, as scientific workloads mulitply and become more complex, and physical energy for systems such as the LHC. It appears we are reaching a limit of what science can observe, test or prove.

>>2992860
So what happens when it has no interaction with our reality but just is, but also has mass and is hypothesized purely by fiat in order to address enormous discrepancies in a theory (or rather, an enormous system of meta-theories)?

Not that I don't agree with your points, in principle...

> again, religion.
We're backlogged with theories which haven't been tested or are untestable. Untestable theories exist. A lot of them.

Anon 0
Anon 1

Science is founded on logic.
Logic is founded on the illogical belief that logic is automatically correct.
Therefore science is no different to other illogical beliefs, such as religion.

You're right OP, it isn't sufficient. It's a necessity.

>>2992893
So, to rephrase your argument for the layman:
"This statement is valid if this statement is invalid."

Oh, and something Paul K. never quite understood: Contradiction doesn't imply Relativism.

>>2992893
Yes, and? You're misusing the word illogical. Illogical generally means inconsistent, which is not how you're using it. You mean "follows from arbitrary axioms" which is entirely different.

>>2992921
Actually it's simpler than that. I was using logic to argue against logic. But way to get trolled :)

>>2992934
I like hunting relativists, what can I say. Meaning skepticism is SERIOUS BUSINESS, round here.

Why are things the way that they are? This is a question that will never have an answer, regardless of the reality. Because we will never get an answer to this question, science and religion are both ultimately pointless belief systems. Therefore believing in religion is ultimately no worse than believing in science.

>>2992994
There's a term for you. It's called Straw Vulcan.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

Please stop abusing the English language.

>>2992893
>Use logic to try and disprove logic
>MFW

1) "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know."

2) "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know."

3) "But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

- Donald Rumsfeld

While Rumsfeld was criticized for the phrase, it is operationally valid and true in any situation or endeavour. And while science knows this is true, it doesn't acknowledge this logic.

4) There are unknown knowns: things we don't know we know, forgot or refuse to acknowledge we know)

>>2993123
Science DOES fucking acknowledge the unknown unknown.

See the post RIGHT FUCKING ABOVE YOU? The one with the guy who discovered the existence of PERMANENTLY UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS?!

Christ, I hope you're a troll.

>>2993123
I'm not sure what you mean.

>>2993130
I would debate your statement. It isn't an active mode of scientific operation ala the scientific method. And it's just your opinion, man, as this is mine.

>>2993132
>implying the universe has stuff in it that doesn't work
>thus, isn't recognized as real

It's a fault of recognition, oversight, and scientific reductionism.

Americans like hamburgers
But not all americans
Europeans also like hamburgers.
More europeans like hamburgers than the minority of americans who don't like hamburgers do.
Europeans like hamburgers more than americans, that's true.
No, that's not true.
Everything is subjective.
All objective statements are false.
Science isn't subjective.
Science isn't everything.
Science is false.

>>2993248
I still have no clue what you're trying to say, but I'm sure I disagree with some premises or deductions with a conclusion of "science is false".

>>2993263
Science attempts to take a snapshot of the universe, saying that the snapshot is reality. But the universe is made of energy which never rests and always changes and evolves. As it evolves, stuff that worked before may not work now or in the future. Science's snapshot perhaps was true at one time, but is it now or in the future?

>>2993304
If you disagree that we can discover truth through making models that offer falsifiable predictions made from inductive reasoning based upon evidence, then I consider you insane, and we have nothing more to talk about. Also, that is the effective definition of science.

>>2993304
Science investigates natural phenomena by measurement and prediction based on different theories. If the universe have some mystic energetic flow that changes the laws of nature it still is within the domain of science to quantify this flow.

In fact there are measurements that (initially) suggests a varying fine-structure constant and lightspeed.

Of course you want to ignore science in favour for mysticism so you'd never read about any of them and will perpetually make up bullshit reasons why science is wrong.

pic related, you on the right.

>>2993322

The laws of science are fixed, except there's nothing stopping them from changing. They don't need our permission to change either. Even stranger, we may cause them to change.

That's a probability.

>>2993337
I have some bad news for you...

>>2993322
That is not what philosophy is.
This is what philosophy is (pic related).

>>2993346
As I said, science is only true if we think it's true.

In fact, science is becoming false. False science is everywhere. Fraudulent science, theoretical science, unprovable science, hyperbolic science. Science fashioned by society, misconceptions, beliefs and needs. Fashioned by governments, universities, industry and profiteers. From UFOs to placebo medicines to digital manipulation. Science fashioned by statisticians, atheists, theists, nationalists, futurists, aspies and trolls.

Look at science popularizers like Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku. Look at NASA. Lots of fake science. Every day a science story is disputed or retracted. It's because we're surrounded by fake science.

Do you think learning science by rote, or by database searching, or by statistical analysis is doing science? Fuck no, it's contributing to the scientific pollution that's all around us. Fuck you /sci

>>2993466
>hyperbolic science
I admit, that made me chuckle.
1/10

>>2993466
>As I said, science is only true if we think it's true.
Science shouldn't claim to be an absolute truth, it should strive to be the best possible representation of reality(within certain parameters).

It should also be open for testing and being falsible and shouldn't just be accepted as truthful based on one paper supported by no observations.

You seem to have taken a religious quote like
>The word of God is the absolute and final truth.
And substituted God for Science thinking it's just the same shit but with a preacher in labcoat and god as some arbitrary concept yet all being unified under the church of science. Which is preposterous. A lot of research is in fringe fields only relevant to some researchers(even though it may be revolutionary) A lot of research turns up boring dead end results, a lot of scientists do not agree with the official theory held by the guy next door.
I have some small disagreements with relativity, primarily in terminology, this however doesn't mean I dismiss all of science, I see it as a part of scientific thinking and perfectly normal, if my view would be accepted as more right then a few lines of text would change in some books and that's it, an incremental improvement in the spirit of science. If you however universally dismiss science you're detached from reality. If i take a factory made steel rod and put a load on it until it collapses, and repeats it with a hundred more rods, then i've just used the scientific method to establish some estimates of the strength of the steel rod. If you go out and reject that as "nurr it's unreliable because science is magic and can change tomorrow" you're simply put a moron, although I hope you just have a misconception of what science really is.

Climate skeptics/deniers and global warming advocates. Fake science on both sides. And deep down, I think we all know it. And these pompous bloggers like PZ Myers is no better than James Randi, an illusionist who claims to speak truth. What a bunch of crap. Some WoW gamer says he discovered something. Some autisic nerd who writes on windows says he's disproving Einstein. So much bullshit in science it's not funny.

Deductive reasoning is best reasoning.

this is why math > science

even pure mathematicians are discovering shit about reality.

>>2993516

Worst case of verbal diarrhea I've seen in a while.

>>2993466

How do you know if it's fake if all you have is just a theory (a goose?)

>implying it is possible to form a scientific or logical proof that the future will be like the past

this is impossible.
it isn't even a matter of "induction"

the real problem is the consistency of nature, we have no guarantee that what we inductively believe to be true today, will be true in 10million years...all the rules could change