/sci/ - Science & Math

These people exist?

People who read horoscopes are the cancer.

Holy fuck, why do those things still exist?

/sci/ - Science & Math

All science and math related topics welcome.
Homework threads will be deleted, and the poster banned.
No "religion vs. science" threads.
0/10. Reported.

>>3064002
does cognitive dissonance exist?

>>3064017
Because something like 45% of Americans still think astrology is a science.

>>3064024

No

>>3064033
astrology is science.
gallileo was an astrologer.

Don't all scientists have faith in science? If they didn't, why would they engage in the process? They must believe that the process will yield useful results. This is faith.

>>3064033
>Because something like 45% of Americans still think astrology is a science.

sauce

>>3064042
0/10

>>3064042

>>3064035

>>3064048
Faith is believing without evidence.

Science has given us lots of evidence to believe in. You don't need faith when the evidence is staring you in the face.

>>3064069

I feel this image will become immensely practice in my future.

>>3064033
56% of people rarely question statistics or can reliably define sampling bias

>>3064049
31 percent, according to this horoscope blog.

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/12/11/31-percent-of-americans-believe-in-astrology/

>>3064035
You are my favorite.

>>3064092
>>3064093
What.

>>3064073
>Faith is believing without evidence.
I don't agree with that definition. It's just a confidence or trust. In this case a trust in a process. The faith in the process of science is not that much different than the faith in the process of prayer. In both cases the person feels like it ought to work. It doesn't always yield anything productive. Sometimes it does. When it does it strengthens their faith.

>>3064092

>>3064002
They exist. The other week I was out drinking with my German class after our exam. I was sitting next to this nerdy motherfucker, the kind you would expect to be taking computer science or chemistry. I was sitting there, trying to mack in the girl next to me, and he suddenly tells me than I have a blue aura. I ask him what the fuck he's talking about. He tells me that people see each other's auras when they've altered their mental state, but that they ignore it. I then told him that I was sitting under a TV on standby, and that it was covering me with blue light. He says 'this is why I don't talk about this stuff, because people are blind to it'.

Fuck that kid.

>>3063998
>How do you feel about people who claim that they have 'faith' in science?
I say that's fine. I have faith in the fundamentals of science, the core axioms of inductive reasoning based on evidence.

>How do you feel about atheists who still read horoscopes and believe in luck?
Ignorant and stupid?

>>3064107
Well, no.

I don't say I have faith in science just cause I feel like it should work. I believe in science because it has proven itself to work time and time again. The evidence for it working is already there.

Prayer, prayer doesn't work and there's no evidence for it. That's why people just have faith in it. It has 100% track record of failure.

>>3064116

Thats crazy.

One time, my parents friends were over. And my mom's friend was talking about how, if you say a negative word, or a lie, or hold something with "negative energy" to your heart, you wont be able to resist her arm when she pushes down on your extended arm.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

I WON.

>>3064092
Thats only because he's a namefag, obviously.

I just want everyone to know

This just happened

>>3064129
Really, so EVERY time someone has prayed for something, it has failed to happen. EVERY time. Wow. You're dumb.

>>3064152
No, because he made a comment about cognitive dissonance.
>Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.
He said yes AND no, and I'm still laughing.

>>3064152
/sci/ has the least obtrusive and cliquy trips on the whole of 4chan. Let's not start this.

>>3064144
You should really swap the names on those files, or keep separate copies around.

>>3064175
The dumber the people, the worse the tripfags are and are made out to be. Try /vp/, where it's just a bunch of kids. Tripfags are like a serious problem there, more so because people hyper generalize us. It really is quite unfortunate. But here people are understanding and don't really care about a line of text in the name field.

>>3064185
>datbook.jpg

>>3064189

You sound as self righteous as any disgusting tripfag I've ever seen. Also why are the religion threads back? I've honestly never believed in Summer 4chan until right now

>>3064170
>implying I don't understand cognitive stupidity.

>>3064185
do you have any idea how much of an idiot you come across as, calling yourself that?

>>3064208

>Summer is coming

>>3064209
I misread, apologies.

The relationship most people have to science is nothing more than faith. Even for simple, easily verifiable scientific laws that everyone knows of and accepts, very few people have actually gone through the actual process of verifying them themselves, unless they were forced to in some high school science class. Instead, people just accept it because the whole world seems to accept it, obviously including every respected scientist who exists and has ever existed. It makes a lot of sense to just accept it based on this authority, because the idea that the whole world is lying to you is ridiculous, and even if they were, it won't change much if you're not a scientist. But it's still just faith, you don't know from personal verification, you just believe in what those scientist guys are saying.

>>3064267
Incorrect. There is a vast distinction between this and the god hypothesis. Allow me to explain.

You see, for the god hypothesis, lots of people would have to be wrong. However, for all of those people to be wrong, there are no particular falsifiable claims which would be affected. That is, the world we live in would not be different with or without a god. (I'm being generous here. I think it would be measurably different.)

However, if modern scientific knowledge was a hoax, that is incompatible with the world as you know it. So many people would have to be in on this, that it would be a vast conspiracy on the scale of The Truman Show. What is more plausible - that everyone who is involved in technology and research is part of the same vast conspiracy? Or that it's true?

That's the difference. We have evidence that modern scientific knowledge is (largely) true. Eye witness testimony.

And yes, there is a difference between the eye witness testimony of scientists, manufacturers, and so on, vs religious people. Religious people make falsifiable claims which have been falsified. Scientists, manufacturers, and so on, generally do not.

>>3064267
I am science, you rang?

>>3064308
What you're saying is just that science requires less faith than religion (which I agree with), but that doesn't change the fact that it does require faith in the context I'm talking about. Let me rephrase my point to 3 simple statements, which I'll hope you'll find to be correct by themselves, so they can be combined into one logical conclusion:
-To know that something is true, you need to verify it yourself, not just hear about a bunch of other people who verified it
-If you accept something you don't know is true, you just have faith in it
-Most people don't verify scientific laws themselves

From which we can conclude that most people only have faith in science.

>>3064378
And no. Trust in humans, and eye witness testimony is not faith. There is no faith there.

>>3064394
I can't at all see how there's any objective measure to this. It's all based on your personal judgement of other people.

>>3064378
Let me rephrase what you're saying:

Science requires faith in the description of words that map a specific view point from which predictions about the world are knowable.

>>3064429
When you know someone, you can predict their behavior. Humans' behavior is predictable to some extent. This is the basis for trust. This is evidence based. It is inductive reasoning on evidence, which makes falsifiable claims. Sounds like science to me.

It's of course probabilistic, but as I said, so many humans are involved that it has become as outlandish as The Truman Show.

>>3064185

Thats a good idea.

>>3064394
>And no. Trust in humans, and eye witness testimony is not faith. There is no faith there.
LMAO. So if I believe the eye-witness accounts of the apostles that they saw the resurrected Jesus suddenly appear before them, that's not faith. Good to know.