/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4368203
Because things are vigorously tested, and depend on physical evidence.
If a specific event occurs every single time based on a specific input, it is logical to assume that it will always happen every time that specific situation occurs.

It's not really, it's just the best method we have.
Imagine we have a chicken that is destined to be Christmas dinner. Each day we feed it and take its eggs. If the chicken was using science it would assume that it will be fed and have its eggs taken every day forever. But come Christmas day it doesn't get fed...

>>4368210
So would you agree that the intent of science is not to obtain true knowledge, but to instead make an accurate claim as to how something occurs to the point of near certainty but not absolute certainty. If you do agree with that, how would one going about actually obtaining true knowledge as opposed to accurate but not absolute knowledge? Basically I'm wondering if there is an even better fundamental approach to understanding than the highly rational and logical but incomplete scientific method or are we as humans constrained to never gaining true understanding of the universe?

Short answer:
Because it works.

common sense

>>4368237
Is there some means that the chicken could use to find out that it is going to be eaten on Christmas?

Sorry if it seems like I'm not thinking for myself and just asking questions, but I have yet to find my own answer to these questions and I'd like to know what others think.

>>4368254
Appeal to common sense.


The scientific method is built around the things we define as knowledge.
It doesn't have to be true, it just needs to give us the results we want.

>>4368240
Well, as far as we know it is not possible to gain "absolute knowledge". So, for all intents and purposes, we test as far as we can, never complete but close enough.

No one knows. Or rather, no one understands why, because no one understands the conditions under which induction holds. But until now it has worked.

>>4368240
There is not 'absolute fact' in science. I once read a richard dawkins book that pertains to this, in it he told how there are two types of theories in science: 1) using only observation and some tests, example would be a lot of behavioral theories. 2) using the scientific method (im paraphrasing it, he said it much better) to show that it is 99% true example would be evolution. Later he described that you can only get actual fact in math where in science you cannot prove that the earth revolves around the sun, sure you can get all the proof you want but its not a theorem per say.

>>4368203
The scientific method is designed so it corresponds to reality as much as possible. It is valid for that very reason.

\thread

>>4368203

It utilizes logic, observation, inquiry and measurement. I won't go into metaphysics or any of that ethereal shenanigans because quite frankly there are no grounds for it.

/thread

>Why is the scientific method a valid means of obtaining knowledge?

Why is religion a valid means of fulfilling a need to believe?

Your question is almost tautological.

The scientific method is underpinned mathematically. I can update on my expectation of outcome X given motivation Y by weighing the sufficiency of Y as an explanation and the a priori likelihood of X against the generality of Y, all in accordance with Bayes' theorem.

Good science is good statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

>>4368203
> I hope this thread is not regarded as a troll thread, I'm curious as to what other scientists think.

Liar. Of course this is a troll thread. How the FUCK can you not know about the validity of the scientific method?

> Why is the scientific method a valid means of obtaining knowledge?

BECAUSE IT GETS US FUCKING REPEATABLE RESULTS! Now say that over and fucking OVER to yourself until you break through that STUPIDITY built up in your fucking "brain".

>>4368573

see >>4368237

>>4368598
Guess what : We will all die

So, till that time we life, and comprehend stuff we encounter.

>>Basically I'm wondering if there is an even better fundamental approach to understanding than the highly rational and logical but incomplete scientific method or are we as humans constrained to never gaining true understanding of the universe?

I have the theory that, although we, humanity, would love to have it the other way around, are utterly deemed to -suck- at prediction. Our lives depend on our ability to predict things, but humanity has to understand yet that this ability is far more limited than we believe it is.

So, while I state this theory of mine, I still dare to predict that we will not find a method or means to see a "true" (lol) understanding of the universe.

I use five types of knowledge I use. Warning mixes create paradoxes, some of which are functional.
Old knowledge = old ideas I get from everywhere, this is considered outdated or wrong by most. i.e. sun orbits earth. Some of these are interesting and can be used as springboards or resurrected.
Current knowledge = this is what you learn in school and is generally accepted fact. Scientific method is argued in its defence, but people screw up. I think the photoelectric effect needs to be re-evaluated.
Further knowledge = this is theory and some fringe science
Reason knowledge = this is what I reason to be true, with in the limits of my mind. I got a bad ass recursive physics thought out, had to change some fundamentals of Math but it is awesome. I just need to prove volume equals energy and then my proof will be complete.
True knowledge = I like to think my mind can handle this but , it likely can not as it would require me to be god and I am fairly sure I am not.
To answer your question, it not perfectly valid, it is just the best we got so we declare it true. Then stone non-believers of the scientific method, well not physically. In the end it all just opinions, no true truths.