/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5537978
>philosophical threads belong to

>>>/lit/

>>5537993
Philosophy of science belongs to /sci/.

>>5537993
YOU CANNOT KNOW NUTHIN

>>5537996
Philosophy is just a bunch collection of literature.
The only "philosophic approach to science" was the first Greek dialogues about knowledge and logic thinking. And if you actually read it, their definition of philosophy differs enormously from the modern definition of philosophy.

Before Socrates: Philosophy was a proto-science.
After Socrates: Philosophy is pure literature.

Religion, Novels, and Philosophy are literature.
Ergo you are posting in the wrong board again.
>>>/lit/

This is a board for science.
Inb4 STEM-master race.

>>5537993
You just jelly because philosophers get all the bitches.

>>5537993
>mfw etymological meaning of philosophy

>>5538008
>what is logic
>what is empiricism
>what is rationalism

Do you even epistemology? You just denied the entirety of science.

>>5538015
I was not even talking about science itself.

Plebs know your place this board is for the STEM-master race only.
>>>/lit/
You are never welcomed.

>>5538020
>dat anti-scientific sentiment

The only reason why science works is because of its philosophical foundations. Lurk more, pleb.

muh qualia

You are so desperate to be related with science students, just a daily reminder that is not our fault if you made your parents paid a pathetic career.

>>5538031
Who are you talking to? Yourself?

>>>/lit/3478585

>done

>>5538041
>post on /sci/, /lit/-hate ensues
>post on /lit/, /sci/-hate ensues

Vsauce confirmed for faggot.

>>5538100
>/lit/-hate ensues
Despite this being false, vsauce is still a faggot

Why wants to be creative and do one for "muh qualia"?

God I am really starting to hate fucking vsauce.

I don't get the hate this recieves?
I mean what he said in the video OP linked is true.
Why all the negativity towards it?

>Posting Philosophical bullshit on /sci/.

Should I report?

>>5538135
>I mean what he said in the video OP linked is true.

hahahahahahahaha 0/10

get the fuck out, dualist scum

>>5538025
>The only reason why science works is because of its philosophical foundations
>only reason why science works is because of its philosophical foundations
>why science works is because of its philosophical foundations
>why science works is because of its philosophical
>why science works is because
>why science works

Bitch please. The only reason why science work is because we have engineers, scientists, mathematicians, physicians who actually try to respond serious questions and solving problems, doing experiments, and being objective and universal. Maybe there was a philosopher serving us coffee but nothing more to mention.

>>5538135

Idiot.

>>>/x/

>>5538146
Well can you ever say with a 100% certainty that we experience the world the same?

>>5538162
fMRI

>>5538159
Without philosophical basis on how to conduct scienctific research we'd never have science.
If we didn't have wonder as to the workings of the world we wouldn't have engineers, scientists, mathematicians or physicians.

>>5538173
coff* that's pre-socratic, "natural laws" *coff*

>>5538171
fMRI doesn't show how living beings experience the world

>>5538128
I unsubscribed after the video in the OP. This guy is a total idiot with no field of expertise. And his video making style is just despicable - the "intriguing" music, and the slow "educational" voice on things he read up on Wikipedia a hour ago. Not to mention his pedo-beard and rapist-glasses.

>>5538178
How would you justify scientific research?

>>5537978
jesus christ this guy is way too enthusiastic

>>5538181
retard

fMRI shows brain activity. How else do you think we experience the world? Unicorns and magic?

>>5538181
Yes it does. The neurons firing in the primary visual cortex f.e. actually produce a scaled version of the real-life image. And this is detectable with fMRI.

Regards,
a Neuroscientist

>>5538205
It doesn't explain HOW you as an individual experience the world.

It explains how your brain percieves information based on impulses.

>>5538193
>fMRI shows brain activity.
Not HOW the world is percieved, note that I do not mean the workings of the brain but the individuals perception of the world.

>>5538205
>you
>a neuroscientist

my sides

>>5538186
That´s your homework. Already give you a hint, "natural laws". You really need to read, I am ME.

Grab a book.

>>5538205
>didn't even understand the video in his own OP

>>5538229
I know how it's justified, I'm asking you.

>>5537978
>>5538162

OP here, I just want to make one thing abundantly clear:

If 2 people have roughly the same quanitity/quality of cone and rod cells in the retina, and roughly the same quantity/quality of neurons in the primary and secondary visual cortex, they WILL perceive colors in roughly THE SAME WAY.

Qualia people are faggots.

>>5538253
How can you be sure?

>>5538256
How can you be sure a NPN transistor fires the same way over and over?

electro(chemical) properties bitches

>>5538253
>trying this hard

You must be new to trolling. Subtlety is the key.

>>5538273
How can you be sure a NPN transistor fires the same way over and over?
That was not my question, how can you be sure that the 2 people experience colour the same?

>>5538273
>our brain is an NPN transistor

There you heard it, guys. Qualified comment by a self-proclaimed "neuroscientist".

>>5538312

>>5538339
A justified Straw man perhaps?

>>5538339
Is that a picture of yourself?

This thread went full retard....
/sci/ has failed once again.

>>5538205
This is beyond moronic. Retonotopy tells you nothing about tells you noting about how a percept is actually experienced, subjectively.

>Regards,
>a Neuroscientist

>>5538193
fMRI does not show brain activity. It shows hemodynamic activity. That's an important distinction to make.

>>5538443
>tells you nothing about tells you noting
Not sure how that happened but you get the point.

HAHAHA science people talking about MEANINGS! MWAHAHAHA... And they think they're smart for doing so! C'mon, you already know it's a philosophical issue and has nothing to do with science. Please go back to talking about things you can measure and relate.

>>5537999
MWAHAHAHA yeah, I'm still waiting to open a lab door and see people trying to 'falsify' things rather than relating measurements better still. Let's see how many 'let's try to falsify' articles are published per year, shall we?

Do you even epistemology?

Pic, sadly, not much related. This stuff is too basic.

>>5538486
>I'm still waiting to open a lab door and see people trying to 'falsify' things rather than relating measurements better still.
That's because you're a /lit/ faggot who's never set foot in a lab before.

>>5538159
homosexual detected.
you remind of the time some dicklicking engineer told me 'you can't have models without numbers', and didn't seem to get it when I corrected him 'no you can't have models without logic, indeed numbers, in a model, indicate an unmodeled aspect.'

If we didn't see the same way, then each person would be seeing an inverted spectrum. There would only be so many different combinations for mixing up red and green, so eventually some people would be seeing the same spectrum. Given a lack of evidence that something in the brain is causing us to have inverted spectra it seems more likely that we just see the same colors. Though we still don't know how we see the specific colors we do, other than that the occipital lobe has an important part to play in it.

>>5538491
I think the same about you, but because I worked on a Lab. You don't have time to falsify things if you are trying to publish papers at a more-than-1-per-year rate.

>>5538533
>but because I worked on a Lab.
I've been working in a lab for over 7 years. If you're not trying to falsify things then you're doing it wrong.

>>5538557
Same here. Who will decide which one is right? We have the same arguments against each other with just a contrary answer to 'are you trying to falsify something with your work?'.

>>5538850
>Who will decide which one is right?

I am right.