/sci/ - Science & Math

As a group, we're not sure. You're sure as hell not going to find out with science.

according to the Old Testament:

Breath.

Thanks for asking.

>>5765490
>>/x/

The simplest questions are often the most profound.

>>5765497
I don't think there has ever been anyone on /x/ that ever wanted to have a reasonable discussion about anything. All they do on /x/ is circlejerk about the thought of ghosts and tulpas. Thanks for demonstrating that you've never been on /x/ in your life.

>>5765495
Maybe there is a need for a new science, the science of spirit.

>>5765506
>let's make predictive physical models about something which is, by definition, nonphysical, unpredictable, and undetectable
k

>>5765528
You are the one implying that physical and logical understanding of the world is the only thing we can brand as "science".

>>5765506
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSpiritScience

Well look what we have here...

Everything is quantifiable and predictable. 2+2=4 always and everywhere.

You probably wouldn't like the result though.

>>5765535
You should stop implying there's anything besides a logical, physical world.

>>5765624

Greeks and Romans figured out thousands of years ago.

>>5765579
Quantum Mechanics says otherwise

>>5765490

spirit is a conventional term that encompasses mostly human mental life. today it only has traditional or literary value. no spirit in science.

>>5765687
No, it really doesn't. It just invalidates some questions. For example, one could argue that you cannot predict which slit will the electron pass through in double slit experiment, while the truth is that quantum mechanics explains that an electron is not a point with a definite path so the question does not make sense in quantum mechanics because you were using assumptions that are not fulfilled in Nature.

>>5765535
That is the definition of science, dumbass. Any other definition is useless.

>>5765711
Science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So, systematic observation <=> science.

>>5765719
It's a bit more extensive than systemic observation. Science is the process of designing predictive models of physical phenomena. Observation is required, but observation itself is not a scientific process.

>>5765749
>saging
Oh well, I see you're not really looking for a debate. You're just trying to solidify your already so shaky worldviews. So be it. We need not argue.

>>5765751
I'm saging because this is a stupid thread. If you'd like to actually discuss the scientific method and its strengths and limits, I'll stop. Why is my worldview so shaky?

>>5765755
>I'm saging because this is a stupid thread
So you are the judge and the jury of what is stupid? I'm not trying to be witty but that's a pretty funny title. You might want to reconsider.

>f you'd like to actually discuss the scientific method and its strengths and limits, I'll stop.
No, I would like to discuss thoughts that come to me while I'm thinking outside of normal and dull perception of reality. Let's call this spirit. What I wish to know is, what kind of science would be needed to explore, analyse and study it in order to graitfy our need to realize who we are.

>Why is my worldview so shaky?
Because you're just repeating what everyone else has told you. If you were alive in 500 BC, you would try to convince me that the Earth is flat. Today, you're trying to convince me that our way of doing science is the only way of doing science. See there's no difference, only the semantics have changed.

I'm unsaging this thread because:

"Science is what Scientists do."

That's black letter law.

>>5765768
>So you are the judge and the jury of what is stupid? I'm not trying to be witty but that's a pretty funny title. You might want to reconsider.
This is /sci/, not /spirits/. The whole point of spirits is that they are undetectable and unpredictable.
>No, I would like to discuss thoughts that come to me while I'm thinking outside of normal and dull perception of reality.
What does that even mean? Your thoughts are grounded in physical substrate.
>Let's call this spirit.
whatever.
>What I wish to know is, what kind of science would be needed to explore, analyse and study it in order to graitfy our need to realize who we are.
Predictive physical models can't answer that question. You'll need to make up some sort of subjective framework of value within the bounds of your own experience.
>Because you're just repeating what everyone else has told you.
That has no bearing on its relevance or accuracy. Also, you're doing the same thing, so that's hardly a strong argument.
>If you were alive in 500 BC, you would try to convince me that the Earth is flat.
So? So would you.
>Today, you're trying to convince me that our way of doing science is the only way of doing science. See there's no difference, only the semantics have changed.
No, I'm telling you that the way scientists have agreed to do science. There may be other methods out there, but they are not relevant to this board or to physical phenomena in general.

>>5765785
You know you're just playing the devil's advocate, right?