[ 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: 167 KB, 1200x839, w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7725050 No.7725050 [Reply] [Original]

Question regarding the philosophy of science.

Is the scientific method in use today "optimal"? How much of it is arbitrary compromises with practicality?

How much of it will change 100 years from now? 200?

What kind of scientific method would an advance extraterrastrial civilization have and how much would it differ from ours and in what ways?

>> No.7725089

>>7725050
>philosophy of science

>> No.7725102

>>7725050
Scientific method will be a obsolete axiom, we will discover the truth. That truth is "u can't know nuffin".

>> No.7725106

>>7725102
u beter shut up bfore u get smahshed m8

>> No.7725129

>>7725102

we already know that. scientific method says that something is right only according to a certain paradigm

>> No.7725137

>>7725050
>Question regarding the philosophy of science.
turn back now, because I warn you that this is not the place to ask this question. pearls before swine

>> No.7725145
File: 103 KB, 1500x841, jvc-projector-1500x841.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7725145

>>7725137

>> No.7725161

>>7725050
>How much of it is arbitrary compromises with practicality?

Very. Scientists always fall for the logical positivism meme. And they don't even realize it's a philosophical position with philosophical justifications....

They're pretty dumb to be honest. They have massive tunnel vision and because of that they don't realize their epistemic assumptions and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic, they think it's common sense. And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit...

They're simply very bad at thinking outside a scientific framework.

>> No.7725175

>>7725161
>They have massive tunnel vision and because of that they don't realize their epistemic assumptions and treat the scientific methodology as axiomatic, they think it's common sense
Because it is, if you are not a /lit/-tard.

>And when someone approaches a problem with a different epistemological framework they think it's bullshit...
I'm not sure if there exist problems that simultaneously have a solution, are beyond the scope of science in principle, and are interesting.

>> No.7725186
File: 1.00 MB, 2000x2000, u_r_here_sempai.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7725186

>>7725175
>being this jelly of /lit/

>> No.7725190

>>7725186
reddit is above /lit/

>> No.7725934

>>7725102
>That truth is "u can't know nuffin".
its a pretty gross strawman of a position not taken seriously by most philosopher. hey, what do you know? nuffin i suppose.

>> No.7725963

apply the scientific method to science...and what you end up with is the philosophical method

coincidence?

>> No.7725971

I like how people in this thread are bringing up logical positivism as if anyone is a positivist anymore and that they even know what logical positivism is

>> No.7725987

>>7725971
philosophy is useless

>> No.7725990

>>7725987
Philosophy is not useless, it's just not very useful.