/sci/ - Science & Math

Scientific theories don't change, either. New ones are adopted, much like different basis axioms are adopted, various syntaxes are preferred at various times, and so on.

We still haven't even proved math to be consistent.

>>3829403

>>3829404
> the geocentric theory isn't the geocentric theory, it changed into something else
Nope, I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it.

>>3829396
smells mad

>>3829403
>scientific theories don't change, either.
And the sun travels around the earth. And life appears from nothing. And there are only 4 elements. And alchemy is possible. And the heart is the center of thoughts and emotions.

that feel when physicists are better than mathemagicians at the non-trivial parts of math.

Face it, all your Gods of mathematics were physicists, Descartes, Fourier, Newton, Gauss, Euler, Archimedes, Lagrange, the list goes on...

Enjoy your number theory and prepositional calculus while /sci/ goes to work on your anus.

>>3829423
> implying changing a theory destroys the old one instead of just making a new one
How cute.

>>3829435
>idiot

So I guess Creationism is still a valid theory of human origins? Did we just "revise Creationism"? No, we threw it out. It's shit. It got debunked.

This does not happen in mathematics.

>>3829435
>implying you haven't failed every science class you've ever taken

>>3829444
I'll do more than imply it. I haven't.

>>3829451
Yes, we threw it out. But it didn't change. It's still there. You can still go examine it, and see why it was thrown out.

Hence:
> scientific theories don't change, either. New ones are adopted

Welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.

I'm not even a mathfag, I love science. But this fucktard needs to be beaten with something heavy.

>>3829458
Are you implying that a scientific theory's presence in a history book amounts to it being valid?

Are you retarded or just grasping at straws?

Hi. Heard about Godel's incompleteness theorem? No? Come back when your balls actually drop.

>>3829451
> the infintesimals of Newton and Leibniz replaced with epsilon-delta shit
> never changes
inb4 "hurr making something more rigorous isn't changing it"
> infintesimals re-emerge in non-standard analysis
inb4 "derp see it really didn't change!!!1"

>>3829486
>mfw you probably consider that an argument worthwhile enough to type

>>3829475
> valid
What? What the fuck has validity of a theory have to do with anything? And anyway, even false theories are generally valid, which a "mathfag" should know.

OP suggested scientific theories change. Scientific theories don't change. Our favor of those theories change, just like the favor of which axioms to use, the syntax to use, the level of rigor change in math.

>>3829396
You didn't know mathematics are based on axioms, right?