/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6163532
The grandfather of trolling.

>the belief that science has the answer to all meaningful questions, is also a target

Next I will tell you what is wrong iwith the Chinese Room thought experiment.

>>6163551

You are such a flaming faggot, It amuses me to no end.

>>6163559
>mfw this is what philosotards consider an argument

>>6163551
That's not philosophy, that's "first year philosophy student" nonsense. For fuck's sake, the scientific method is applied philosophy, and without philosophy modern science and math could not exist.

If you need some solid thinking, check out Kant. He pioneered deontological ethics and was one of the primary reasons for the copernican revolution of philosophy, and his magnum opus is A Critique of Pure Reason.

>another cool guy: Descartes
>a cool but very antiquated guy: Plato

>>6163569

You haven't offered an arguement. You 've just told us you like to suck cocks.

he tears down logical empiricism's view of scientific theories(which is retarded) so he's cool in my book

see:consistency criterion

>>6163590
>the scientific method is applied philosophy, and without philosophy modern science and math could not exist.
Science and math made philosophy obsolete. After the invention of the scientific method and the formalization of logic all that's left to philosophy is "cannot know nuthin" epistemology and "hurr durr consciousness" metaphysics topics on which every child can voice his opinion.

>If you need some solid thinking, check out Kant. He pioneered deontological ethics and was one of the primary reasons for the copernican revolution of philosophy, and his magnum opus is A Critique of Pure Reason.
I am not denying the importance of Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" in prescientific times but you can hardly use it as an argument in favor of philosophy still being relevant in the 21st century. Kant's "sapere aude" directly contradicts and invalidates the modern philosophical "cannot know nuffin" by the way.

>The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.

>>6163532
that nutjob illustrates why tenure is so fucking bad for universities.

epistemological anarchism works

>>6163675
You cannot say that with certainty because you cannot even know that you cannot know nuthin.

>said that the Catholic church was completely reasonable in the prosecution of Galileo

In this he is right, anyone care to tell me the arguments Galileo put forward to prove his thesis, o wait, they were wrong, he just happened to hit jackpot and got lucky

>>6163680
>lacks counterarguments and resorts to ridicule

>>6163701
>what is reductio ad absurdum

>>6163705
something that isn't in >>6163680

>>6163711
You didn't understand it?

>>6163649
funny, because he was also guilty of not understanding someone else's field. hmmm...

and yeah, I kind of agree, although saying things against Feynman is a bit odd. he had his own epistemology, even if he didn't call it that.

>>6163649
I do think faith is an important part of being a scientist.

I work at a place with bioreactors and I had an idea to help improve our serum, and the principal did an little investigation which came back inconclusive, and he pressed me to abandon the idea and come up with something else. 6 months later i went back to it and it's improved production quite a bit on most of our clones.

point is, I think there's probably too many scientists out there that discard ideas too quickly because a little bit of data shows it might not be promising. I'm not saying investigate everything five times over, I'm just saying if you get one of those ideas you're thrilled you came up with, don't discard it RIGHT away if things don't come back perfectly.

>>6163720
no

i didn't understand the point of insulting the only historically valid and dogma-free way of doing science

>>6163733
>accusing scientist of being dogmatic

Crackpot pls go back to /x/.

>>6163590
Kant is shit

He is a paraconsistent fuck face and epistemology was flawed (he could never ultimately define space and time and could never actually demonstrate what are noumenons and how do we acually get to know they are in fact noumenons).

>>6163636
>that's left to philosophy is "cannot know nuthin" epistemology and "hurr durr consciousness" metaphysics topics on which every child can voice his opinion.

This is what sophomores believe

>>6163750
>trying to use your philosophical fads and preconceptions to dictate a priori how science should behave
>not understanding that scientific research doesn't follow philosophical constraints and that if it did it would be extremely counterproductive
>dismissing theoretical physics as not science

crackpot only applies to you

>>6163770
Science is DEFINED by the scientific method.

>For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist.

Among scientists it is easy to oppose the Established Political Institution of the American Right Wing©, I think the real test of whether a scientist actually cares about the truth or not is whether they oppose the Established Political Institution of the American Left Wing©. So I don't have any respect for this person whoever he is.

He will not dissuade me from my petrochemical engineering degree and desire to obtain enormous sums of hard cash for myself and the few people I consider intelligent good people worthy of power over plebs, which are my most core and heartfelt ideals.

>power over plebs

You'll find your place - on a lamppost

Feyerabend was also critical of falsificationism. He argued that no interesting theory is ever consistent with all the relevant facts. This would rule out using a naïve falsificationist rule which says that scientific theories should be rejected if they do not agree with known facts. Feyerabend uses several examples, but "renormalization" in quantum mechanics provides an example of his intentionally provocative style: "This procedure consists in crossing out the results of certain calculations and replacing them by a description of what is actually observed. Thus one admits, implicitly, that the theory is in trouble while formulating it in a manner suggesting that a new principle has been discovered"Against Method. p. 61. Such jokes are not intended as a criticism of the practice of scientists. Feyerabend is not advocating that scientists do not make use of renormalization or other ad hoc methods. Instead, he is arguing that such methods are essential to the progress of science for several reasons. One of these reasons is that progress in science is uneven. For instance, in the time of Galileo, optical theory could not account for phenomena that were observed by means of telescopes. So, astronomers who used telescopic observation had to use ad hoc rules until they could justify their assumptions by means of optical theory.

Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been "left behind". Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, "ad hoc" hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories.

ITT:

>hurr durr this guy has ideas and conclusions I don't like
>hurr durr what an idiot

How non-dogmatic.

>>6163949
The guy's an idiot.

Colloquially, we can define insanity as:
>Doing the same thing over and over again, getting the same result each time, and expecting a different result the next time.

We can define "science" as not being insane. Simply:
>Science: Doing the same thing over and over again, getting the same result each time, and expecting the same result the next time.

Science is just inductive reasoning. That's the common overriding principle. E.G. science is "what works".