/sci/ - Science & Math

nothing, but we will assume it's valid until it's proven invalid. It's the best we can do, dammit.

>>6021074
Sounds fair.
Do you think that even if scientific method would be proven incapable of acquiring objective truth, would it still be used if nothing better could be invented?

>>6021082
nothing is capable of acquiring objective proof. that would be God. .

>>6021073
>What makes scientific method valid?

Well whats the alternative? The next best thing to a definitive fact is an educated guess.

>>6021082
yes because objective truth is impossible to obtain by any subjective beings, hence is not useful. For example, is 1+1=2, objectively true assuming our axioms of logic and basic math?, not necessarily, we can't say because we are human and humans are not ojbective.

>>6021082
you're basically asking if we would use the best tool at our disposal

the answer is obviously yes

It follows pretty trivially from the assumption that there is an objective reality and we can make observations of it.

>>6021107
I agree that it is a tool, a good one at that. But this tool is used to inspect and explain its creator, its user. I don’t doubt the creative potential in science I doubt the scope and rightfulness of explanations it provide. Like neuroscience for instance whose objective is to explain our consciousness and inner pure subjective experience by the use of this scientific tool. It assumes from the get go that subjective experience can be explained by inductive scientific method. Can a neuroscientist really with all seriousness announce that certain aspects of our being cannot be explained by empirical observations? It would be in a sense “unscientific” and thus unacceptable. What I mean is that it seems that the method has certain metaphysical assumptions that are not being noticed and thus affect the way it is being used as an objective explanation.

I might be a bit off with this but I think the real value of scientific method is in its philosophy.
1) The world has a structure and follows a set of rules, it's behaviour is not random nor chaotic (well, in general).
2) We as human beings are capable of learning all the secrets of the universe, there's no sacred, hidden, "not-ment for mortals" knowledge out there by default.

Apart from that, we have nothing better at our disposal.
It's the same thing as democracy (just an analogy, not meaning to go political) - it's far from perfect, has a number of flaws, but we don't have anything that suits our current state of civilazation better.

However, I do think that the scientific method in itself, as a tool, is "flawless". Being empirical, measurable and repeatable is as objective as you can get.
We as the users, on the other hand, are not flawless. Our minds and our technology can not use the scientific method to its full potential.

At least that's how I see it.

>>6021128
Yes science can't explain how i got my soul, G-d #1!!

>>6021128
>Can a neuroscientist really with all seriousness announce that certain aspects of our being cannot be explained by empirical observations?
Nope, and for a good reason, namely that right now the scientific world thinks everything can be observed and explained that way. Anything that's out of reach is down to our state of technology rather than the validity of the method.

The subjective experience of the human mind remains subjective, but as to what induced that experience can be researched and patterns can be made, which over time can lead to a better understanding.

>>6021074
Hold there a minute cowboy, it didn't just fall from the sky.

>>6021082
No need, we already know science is incapable of acquiring objective truth.
There are two types of statement in formal logic: those starting with "there exists X such that..." and those starting with "for every X...".
The first type is provable, but isn't the kind science is interested in proving. For example "there is a white dove" can be proven by finding a white dove."
The other kind, however, is unprovable. See "all doves are white": you can observer a thousand of a million dove, that doesn't prove all doves are white. On the other hand, you can show it's wrong by finding a black one.

Since we have no direct access to the laws of the universe, we are like a person trying to find his way in a thick fog.
He can not know when he's going in the right direction. However he can know when he's NOT going in the right direction if he bumps into a wall.

This is the reason for the scientific method. Since you can't prove anything right by observation, you try to consider an exhaustive list of possible theories explaining a phenomenon, and falsify every one of them but one.

>>6021132

>1) The world has a structure and follows a set of rules, it's behaviour is not random nor chaotic (well, in general).
I see it as a dangerous assumption to have. If we assume ourselves capable of acquiring knowledge of said rules and using them, than we can manipulate universe as we see fit or interpret certain events in this light of this knowledge. But we do „assume“that there are such rules and we do „assume“that we do know or are capable of knowing these rules and it follows that we will use this knowledge in ways we will see fit. Yet what if we are wrong? I mean scientism aims to envelopes and explain every aspect of our existence and if we can explain we can change or at least we have a certain power over things that we understand, but what if its only an appearance of understanding?
>2) We as human beings are capable of learning all the secrets of the universe, there's no sacred, hidden, "not-ment for mortals" knowledge out there by default.
Again seems like a dangerous assumption especially if we take into account that science is being used as a tool and aim for actively changing man - his body and mind, his society and his understanding of the universe.
A metaphor for this would be:
like a fool with courage and a beating stick - he can and he will do things his own way because he knows only “can” and forgets his “should or not”

Too bad you can't do anything to stop it.
Too bad your kind will probably be the ones starting the war.
Too bad it will be ridiculously short and one-sided.

>>6021151
>However he can know when he's NOT going in the right direction if he bumps into a wall.

But what if he bumps into a wall only becouse he is going in a certain way?

>This is the reason for the scientific method. Since you can't prove anything right by observation, you try to consider an exhaustive list of possible theories explaining a phenomenon, and falsify every one of them but one.
Yes but before that you do have some criteria or „expectations“ for what constitutes a plausible theory and as a result you have preferences for a certain world views and not the others.

>>6021155
That's morality you bring in.
There's no should or should not in raw science. The scientific method aims to aquire knowledge and knowledge is neither good nor bad.
How we use this knowledge is an entirely different matter, but that does not add ort ake away anything from the validity of the scientific method.

>>6021165
>you do have some criteria or „expectations“ for what constitutes a plausible theory
To be falsifiable. Das it.

>>6021167
Good point. But I meant something different from what I said. I meant that knowledge that we gain by scientific investigation might be unreliable or not quite true and it follows that we might draw wrong conclusions from this knowledge and by making wrong conclusions and applying them in practice can bring... well unforeseen consequences that we might not be able to change.
So as I see it, knowledge that is gained from scientific method should be used only when the utmost necessity requires it or other explanation don’t seem to fit. In essence one method of gaining knowledge should not be a top priority by default (But I doubt it’s possible) and every possibility should be accounted for.

Nothing, but the constant feedback loop helps make it the best way to approach validity.

It predicts what our senses tell us and what our senses tell us is the closest thing we have to objective truth.
This is a troll question though.

>>6021165
>Yes but before that you do have some criteria or „expectations“ for what constitutes a plausible theory and as a result you have preferences for a certain world views and not the others.

In a sense yes but preferring a world view over the other is not the result of the mood-swings of scientists. Those certain world views come from previous assumptions that were either proven wrong or right. It's a long, ever changing process. It won't lead to the favoritism of one or another world view on the long run.

It's trial and error, that's how science works.

Ice melts when spring comes.
It could be either the doing of small invisible woodland fairies that awake from their hybernation or might have to do something with warmth.
Over time we learned that there are no invisible woodland fairies, or at least they don't play a part in melting the ice since we can do it ourselves anywhere, anytime.
Which leads to a mindset that when meeting a new phenomen or discovery, we assume it follows certain rules of physics.

>>6021177
It's difficult for me to grasp your idea since I don't see an alternative. What other knowledge is there that we can safely rely on as an alternative to the one we gained through scientific method? In fact, scientific method is as close to human nature as possible. We have learned by observation, trial and error since the dawn of time.

You have to make decisions. Everybody has to make decisions on a daily basis. You can't sit pondering over "what ifs" all the time, otherwise you will never make a step forward.

Applying our newly gained knowledge might bring unforseen consequences? Could happen, in the environment, in society, yes. Could be. Then we will adapt and go on. That's how it works.

Alternatively we can sit in a cave, carve very neat, advanced theories about the fundamental principles of the universe and refuse to step out of the cave until we have fully mapped and observed every possibile consequence of your actions.

>>6021073
calibrations and controls

If you can't accept testable and repeatable results as truth, then you're hopeless. Worse: You're a Violent Simian.

>>6021457
>implying you can't test reproducible lies.
This guy probably still believes in the humorism and the four elements.

>>6021073
it comes from us observing nature and taking our experiences and comparing them.

from testing from many others leads to it's credibility.

and that's it really. it's basically many tests done by many people to prove somthing is correct or incorrect. it stems from the philosophy of science. Philosophy is part of the back bone of science.

that is why math is master everything.

>>6023085
implying you don't get your yearly bleeding from the barber anymore

>>6021102
There is no such thing as subjective, there is only imperfect.

>>6021132
Something people tend to forget is that science is not about discovery, it's about practicality. Any information that can't be tested is useless to us.

It gets results.

Regardless if you vocalize the fact that you're going through all the steps, people just use the scientific method for problem solving without thinking

>notice problem
>try to figure out why the problem is happening
>attempt to fix problem
>try again

also >>6021097

1/3

2/3

3/3

>>6025260
>>6025261
>>6025263

> Children implying Philosophy isn't a prerequisite of the scientific mind, it has consistently preceded science throughout history and it is still an element of a good scientist.

I'm not saying you are an Einstein if you are Philosopher, but if you are a good scientist, you were also a philosopher for a little bit.

>>6025265
Exactly.

>>6025260
>>6025261
>>6025263

>>6025291
>not burdened by human cravings and constructs
And how, exactly, are sets and categories not merely an abstraction of properties of- and object in- nature? Why would there be any a priori reason to introduce the notion of discrete objects which do or don't fit into categories which do or don't overlap or nest?

>>6021073

I Am Silly: the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88

>>6025353

http://youtu.be/v34QjYPuiEA

>>6025353
Dawkins was young?

>>6025353
Look at that handsome motherfucker. Time did some bad things to him

>>6025413
Look up in google or youtube "Growing up in the universe". He's handsome and he was 50 at that. No homo.

>>6025261
Delightful oversimplification. It's more a case of if there's no evidence to suggest its existence, it isn't there. However, if you want to feel super special for telling me there's a soup dragon under my carpet, go ahead.

>>6021073

ist success. a method that fails repeatedly stops being a scientific method.

>>6021128
I don't think you understand the work that neuroscientists do.