/sci/ - Science & Math

Since when did just spouting uninformed opinions---horribly uninformed---constitute intelligent conversation?

You kids these days...

>>4108528
Inform us then, wise genius of the interwebs

So, op, if not the scientific method, then what?

>>4108559
Without the scientific method we're supposed to pretend our assumptions are true without testing them. Kind of like how we communicate concepts over the internet.

>>4108544
Yeah ok. It started being a thing when we started getting awesome shit, like electricity and medicine and the internet.
3/10 for making me respond.
/thread

>>4108563
So we just make shit up?

>tl;dr: Science is what man says about the universe, rather than what the universe is.

Obvious troll thread.

>taking the method to be literal guidelines of producing valid results.
no one actually uses the scientific method like its set in stone

>instead of science being discredited for not producing results to explain it.
it is if there is good evidence for it.

>Take free energy for example
ok, i will. the thing science is, deep down, is internal consistency, you cant say "this works now, but when i move over here, it wont work anymore." free energy is such an example, leaving aside the fact that energy is -defined- as the thing that doesn't change, actually, no. lest go further with this:

>energy is kinetic energy and its conserved
>but if it falls it gets more energy!, ok so kinetic + potential energy is energy
>but we have nukes, ok , so mass + kinetic + potential energy is energy
>but gravitational waves carry energy
>ok, so curvature + mass + kinetic + potential energy is energy
see? if we do find "free energy" we -define- energy to contain it.

ok, back to before all this, free energy isnt consistent, you can with all of those devises ask, "what if i do this?" and then you get some contradiction.

another thing is its never proven, if something is proven, its is science, no matter if they followed the scientific method. but you cant have a ton proof showing A and then one guy saing not A and then expecting that A now isnt correct.

>Those laws aren't perfect, they rest on theories,
yes, and they can be wrong. but they have been correct so far and one guy just saying its wrong doesnt make it wrong

>But it definitely doesn't make it fiction
you do know romance novels are also fiction? fiction meant "not based on true events", not "cannot happen or has never happened"

Are you the one who started the thread about the past not being infinite?

>So when did science become the center of balance?
When that method flew us the the moon, or split the atom or saw the very first light to ever exist.
It's easy to argue semantics but it's impossible to argue with results.

>>4108598
This one time I didn't use a condom and I pulled out and she didn't get knocked up. RESULTS! There aren't better ways of practicing sex!

>So pretty much one day, god knows how long ago, some guy thought up a method. For centuries philosophers and observers thought up methods, but apparently this one is special.

You you DUMB MOTHERFUCKER

Science is merely a social codification of certain processes of human empirical observations tinkered for maximum utility and accuracy.

Your "philosophers" and "observers" resorted to LINGUISTIC SOLIPSISM in order to make retarded grandoise statements about a reality they had no fucking clue about but which their megalomania and class position urged them to create models about.

>So if something violates a law, why is there skepticism and other belief bias displayed via peer review? That sounds more like mob rule than peer review.

BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO COME UP WITH EXTRAORDINARY PROPOSITIONS (GOD EXISTS, THERE IS A UNICORN IN MY YARD) THAN TO COME UP WITH EVIDENCE THAT CONVINCES PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE HAVE NO DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF THE PHENOMENA YOUR PROPOSITION IS TRYING TO DESCRIBE.

YOU FUCKING PSEDUO-INTELLECTUAL TROLLISH FAGGOT I AM SO FUCKING MAD I JUST SPENT TWO HOURS AT THE GYM AND GODAMN IF THIS FUCKING TESTOSTERONE ISN'T ACTIVATING VIOLENT APE INSTINCTS IN ME FUCK.

>>4108581
>scientists don't use the scientific method.
>evidence and proof is subjective. What proves something for one person may not prove it for another.
>not following you here.
>it works both ways, one guy saying it's right doesnt make it right, every person on earth can say something is right. Talk is cheap. Saying murder is right doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
>don't even know where to start here. "Not based on true events"

>>4108614
And on MANY MANY OTHER DATA POINTS, people didn't pull out in time or pulled out but too late and thus engendered a statistical increase in the amount of pregnancies as opposed to prophylactic use.

YOU FUCKING FAGGOT.

>>4108614
Try doing that on a large scale and watch the results.

>>4108581
This guy seems to have everything pretty right, but I guess only time can tell.

>>4108665
>scientists don't use the scientific method.
>they dont use it exactly like its tight in uni

>evidence and proof is subjective. What proves something for one person may not prove it for another.
which is why science doesn't look for absolute truth, and one person isnt in control on science

>not following you here.
where?

>it works both ways, one guy saying it's right doesnt make it right, every person on earth can say something is right. Talk is cheap. Saying murder is right doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
one person saying its right doesn't make it right, correct. but if everyone says it and can show that it is, then it is.

>don't even know where to start here. "Not based on true events"
fiction means the author doesn't know that it happened before or can happen, so he thought it up, it may have happened, but if it did, its not intentional.

look, its not a perfect system (because its limited by humans and our perspectives) but its a whole lot better than everyone running around making claims without any proof and which are assumed to be correct.

>>4108660
So science is shit is basically what you're saying. We both said the same thing differently. I don't understand what problem there is.

There's nothing extraordinary about unicorns, its a mutated horse with a horn on its forehead. It is harder to come up with ideas that can't happen than ones that can.

Pseudointellectual wut?

The scientific method we know now was made from a philosophical proposition. It has its own flaws. If we think that philosophical proposition to be true of the nature of reality, then we delude ourselves.

>>4108689
>its tight in uni
thats what the man who likes to have sex with 19 year old girls said!

>>4108691

No you DUMB MOTHERFUCKER.

Thanks for ignoring the message of the text in order to quibble with a mere lazy thought (that unicorns are extraordinary even though they are in the mythological sense in which they are given magic abilities).

Not to mention that saying something insipid like " It is harder to come up with ideas that can't happen than ones that can." doesn't mean shit when you can create an INFINITY OF PROPOSITIONS FOR EACH POSSIBILITY (that which "can" happen and that which "can't" happen). In fact science, and simple direct observation, is a far more useful tool than analyzing features of languages in determining the possibility of things happening in reality.

>>4108695

We delude ourselves even MORE GRAVELY if we resort to the linguistic solipsism that is the only serious alternative to science (and empirical observation and reasoning).

This notion of "the Absolute Truth" is something imported by the deviousness of the linguistic solipsist method which comes up with problems that after TWO THOUSAND FUCKING YEARS IT STILL HASN'T "SOLVED".

the biggest problem with the scientific method is the people who use it.

the data is generally solid, but the interpretation can easily be misinterpreted, or errors in experimental design overlooked.

>>4108717

SMARTEST FUCKING CRITIQUE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THIS THREAD

NOTICE HOW DIRECT AND CONCISE AND HOW MUCH LESS FAGGOTRY IT CONTAINS THAN YOUR PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL SPECULATIONS.

>>4108723
fuck you. the scientific method is solid, as i said. it's because of people like you polluting the gene pool that we have so much trouble using it properly.

>Why is it if something doesn't fit into science, it's discredited, instead of science being discredited for not producing results to explain it.

>durr heres a ghost
>Where?
>its rite there dude
>I can't see it man, my instruments don't pick up anything strange there either and nobody else can't see anything there.
>DERP SCIENCE IS SHITE CANT EXPLAIN DAT GHOST

>>4108732

HOLY SHIT WHEREIN DID I SAY "AND THIS CRITIQUE DEMOLISHES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD"?

DID YOU EVEN FUCKING READ >>4108705
>>4108714

THAT SIMPLE CRITIQUE IS A NICE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PROBLEMS THAT HAPPEN IN APPLICATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, NOT A FUCKING "OH SHIT FUCK SCIENCE LET'S GO BACK TO AIDS AIDS AIDS AKA ABSOLUTE IDEALISM".

Well placed point sir. Obviously somebody who may know something about the scientific method in general who realizes the good and the bad in it. Not a thick headed dumb fuck.

Fake bologna-psuedoscience-philosopher fags love to ask questions but hate to hear the answer, because in their world they never seen an answer to goddamned anything.

>>4108739
confirmed for btard
get back to the void
>>>/b/

>>4108513
I have one final thing I want you to consider. OP, scifags, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with reliability of science? Nothing. Scifags, it has nothing to do with reliability of science! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a anon defending science, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Scifags, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're on this board deliberatin' and conjugatin' the authority of science, does it make sense? No! OP and anons of this supposed board, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

>>4108581
So then what does science look for, if not the truth? Half truths? Do we really need a system for that?

How do I prove murder is right or wrong outside of morally? Like I said, proof is subjective.

>>4108513

You're all obviously being trolled, but you respond anyway.

inb4 science is a dogmatic cage (Thomas Kuhn)

inb4 falsifiability (Karl Popper)

inb4 inductivistic uncertainty (David Hume)

inb4 LOLOL I'm A FAGGOT (OP)

ITT: people worshipping science instead of practicing rationalism and skepticism

>>4108752
>>4108755
>>4108760
ITT: Samefags

>>4108750
Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!

>>4108762
Nope.

>>4108760
>ITT: people worshipping science instead of practicing rationalism and skepticism

> science
> practicing rationalism and skepticism

Same thing.

> some guy thought up a method

Much of the scientific method has evolved from primitive forms to force more accuracy.

It's a form of problem solving with our scientific theories.

> I have a theory which explains many things!
> there is an observation X
> theory does not explain X though...
> examine observation X, try to reproduce results to confirm it.
> try revising the theory so that it can explain X
> other competing theories can explain X better.
> criticisms of all theories bring the one which explains better to front.
> new theory also predicts Y, (unexpectedly ?)
> Y is observed
> new theory given more credit
> continues, theories become very good at predicting/explaining many observations

It's a lot like an evolutionary system for revising models of the natural world.

Astronomy: Telescope Observations
Physics: Experiments & Math
Chemistry: Experiments, observations (SEM)

Biology: Controlled Experimental Trials, Observations. Use the other Hard Sciences' results

Social Sciences: Observe People, maybe try to do controlled trials.
Psychology: people sort of think about how they think, and try to pick out fundamental elements.

there is also a difference between hard sciences (like physics derived) and soft sciences (often based around psychology, people who are just too puzzled about how people work and try to use scientific method, but people are different and biased so it is really difficult to get anything right.)

>>4108776
>same thing
I disagree.

>>4108762
is that a rational way of looking at things? I told you you are blindly worshipping science to the point that you cannot realize yourself that you're worshiping science.

>>4108791
>A method of problem solving and data collection that had given us the entirety of our technological civilization
>A model of the world whereupon some linguistic entity, "GOD", controls everything
>equivalent

I don't see how you could take the concept of worship, derived from religious establishments, into the simple observation that science has done a lot of shit and most likely will do a lot of shit and explain a lot of shit more accurately than other methods.

>>4108791

> "You are wrong; and you legitimate objections are irrelevant because they're proof that you are wrong themselves."

mfw you're a successful troll for making me post, also for others here who actually bother trying to have a serious argument with what's effectively a bot.

>>4108810

also this is mf.