[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 226 KB, 1024x683, bring.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6474590 No.6474590 [Reply] [Original]

I know the demographic of this board is young, for the most part.
I won't speculate on your exact age or an average, I don't know.
But I would assume that the age you are has a mental state, much like childhood and puberty, the brain witnesses many concepts and forms many opinions that guide your decision making process daily.
In the later age that you and I are, by comparison of our new and old ideas, we admit many faults we had made in youth and attribute them to youth itself. Our ego submits eventually to the fact that we are young, characterized by folly and capable of making mistakes for the sake of adapting a better, more grown up perception of life.

We manage to continue to 'believe' in newer concepts dogmatically, our understanding grows, and in the context of science, mathematics gives us a new foothold in the ideologies we adopt by their quantifiable significance (the application of a formula to acquire a result is more valuable than an opinion or idea not quantifiable)

And through the application of these theories, we are more firm in our contemporary conceptualization of science, while we skip through a myriad of incongruities, phenomena, and falsehoods in search of new application for old sciences. Theoretical scientists expand and expand (and expand) endlessly on how broader imperceivable realms like space and time work, so that they can fit in with our 'applicable and locally provable' sciences.

But are we not making the same mistakes we made in youth?
50 billion dollars, and ten years, to make One fusion reaction?
dark matter?
gravity, still a phenomena (and it shall continue to be until we know how to dictate and influence by invention).

Do you believe everything the scientific community has agreed upon to be true, is in fact true?

>> No.6474607

Nah mang but yeah mang. Science says something is true. 10 years pass, science is now smarter. Science says that the fact from 10 years ago is stupidly wrong, but this new theory science made might explain it better and offer a better view and what not. Now repeat indefinitely until we have diamond hard proof.
Nothing is real anyway so might as well accept and disregard everything we may or may not know.

>> No.6474620

>>6474590
tl;dr

I only bothered to read these lines
> I won't speculate on your exact age
I'm 39

> I would assume that the age you are has a mental state, much like childhood and puberty
well that's stupid

> Do you believe everything the scientific community has agreed upon to be true, is in fact true?
No one intelligent does because "true" is subjective. We have hypotheses, theories, proofs, etc... Some theories are useful so we use them. Later, they are replaced by a better theory. The first theory wasn't necessarily "wrong," it's just less useful than the new one.

Earth is the center of the universe
No, Sun is the center of the universe
No, Moon goes around Earth, Earth goes around Sun, Sun goes around galaxy, galaxy is part of universe
Gravity makes it all work... Newtonian gravity
General relativity
Quantum mechanics

>> No.6474627

Where do you stupid fucks get the idea that science is constantly proving itself wrong? It's just a bunch of repeatable experiments. An experiment doesn't stop working just because someone did a different experiment, dumbasses.

Is Newton now wrong because of Einstein? If you throw some billiard balls around they're not gonna follow F=ma? No the only thing that changed is that people found out they couldnt generalize the results to some of the crazier things they were hoping to.

God you dumbfags are annoying.

>> No.6474630

>>6474590
I'd guess our stuff is getting relatively more and more sound. I've always wondered if our curren ways of thought are going to look as stupid to future generations as, say, trepanning looks to us now.

>> No.6474689

Anybody intelligent realizes that we're just continuously refining theoretical models.

>> No.6474732
File: 1.08 MB, 3072x2304, 1387497501120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6474732

>>6474689

this is a vacant answer to my question, but out of everything typed thus far, it's at least relevant to what I asked

>>6474627
>stupid fucks dumbasses god you dumbfags are annoying
I don't know how your post is relevant to the question I'm asking, but you might be confusing yourself by the subjective definition of affirmation. Some are affirmed in the belief of a truth, others are affirmed in the belief of a system that determines the most viable truth, whether it can ever be entirely 'true' or not is dependent on our perception alone.

If you're frustrated because you believe some people are affirmative in believing whatever a science text/community dictates, I can't say your frustration isn't valid, but to whom in this thread you're directing your frustration I'm unsure.

>>6474620
> I would assume that the age you are has a mental state, much like childhood and puberty
>well that's stupid
so you don't have a mental state that forms opinions that guide your decision making process?
either you are:
enlightened
robotic
illiterate

>>6474607
this sums it up well enough in layman's
I'm trying to determine who sits on the side of the fence
side 1:
>We have determined truths through scientific means, they are true, all further sciences must be part of the model
side 2:
>We have determined applicable concepts, they are as true as long as they can be utilised, but it is possible for these concepts to be either false, or less accurate, than latter scientific determinations

Now when I ask this question, what side of the fence you stand on, please consider how heavy the implications are. They could undermine Einstein, Newton, Tesla, and so on. Not because these men were 'wrong' but because there are more accurate systems we have yet to discover to explain how the universe works.

>> No.6474748

>>6474732
It isn't vacant, its exactly to the point. People who do science, who aren't overstepping their bounds, know that science doesn't "agree upon truth" in the way that you seem to be assuming. Science is a continuity of in-progress hypotheses and models under continuous refinement based on data and observation, none of which can said in any honesty to be Truth, but hopefully lurching towards it.

>> No.6474838

>>6474590
>Do you believe everything the scientific community has agreed upon to be true, is in fact true?
Nothing is true in the absolute, because in order to prove that something is true you have to derive it as a logical consequence of other statements that you postulate to be true. There is no such thing as a true scientific law or theory, there is only a measure of how accurate a law or theory is in making predictions.

There are many alternate theories in all fields of science, it's just you do not hear about them because news articles never mention them. If a new alternate theory turns out to be compelling in explaining and predicting some phenomena then eventually it would become accepted by the scientific community.

>gravity, still a phenomena (and it shall continue to be until we know how to dictate and influence by invention)
Everything is a phenomenon.