/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9464488

>>9464488
Define "science"
Define "pseudoscience"

>>9464527
Define "define"

>>9464488
>>9464527
>>9464541

>mfw he gets on sci and sees how much the community hates him for the endless "pseudoscience" posting

Well then. Is it so hard to see. Science is just an art. If you can land on the moon with it, then it is real, it's a factum. If it dosen't it's not. It should be easy to see that. Hope i didn't blow your mind right now. Prove that wrong and im gonna stop doing drugs.

>>9464488
t. read 10 pages of Popper and views itself as enlightened

>>9464568
>iq lovers
>race lovers
Good to know you still can't prove it.

>>9464488
Science: following the scientific method of critically testing your hypotheses to develop your theories

Pseudoscience: going through the motions without the proper rigor.

Proved you wrong faggot

>>9464918
No such thing as "the scientific method".

>>9465086
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>>9465086
Anon... do you need help? I get that elementary education isn't that great, but you still should have learned what the scientific method is...

>>9464918
I guess then /sci/ - Science and Math should be renamed to /psi/ - Pseudoscience and Mathjokes

>>9464918
Sorry. You don't understand that I believe that phenotype inplies genotype and therefore science is a pseudoscience.

>>9464912
See above.

>>9464918
>scientific method
>last stage is getting a group of kikes to agree that your research is valid

>>9464884
>thinking we landed on the moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

>>9464884
>scientists think that it was them who got men to the moon and not engineers

>>9466001
>engineers weren't told how to take the already calculated interplanetary environment into account, they just figured that out on their own

>>9466013
Rekt

>>9465156
>>9465173
There's no such thing as a single method that leads to the obtainment of knowledge about reality. Actual, relevant discoveries in science (think something that radically changes our understanding of reality, not the shit done by PhDs with fund money) are rarely made by following your stale "methods", but usually quite the contrary: by going against the dominant views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions#Basic_approach
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

Of course, given your evident and utter ignorance understanding of philosophy of science and your belief that what you're taught in elementary school is all there is to it (!!!), I don't believe either of you would've thought of this.

>>9465959
See>>9464912

>>9466368
Define "lover", define "IQ," define "race." Checkmate. Also, phenotype implies genotype, so race isn't science. It's pseudoscience.

>>9466410
See>>9464912

>>9465959
>You don't understand that I believe that .........
Believing belongs on >>>/his/

>all these posts wanking over definitions when >>9464488 can be directly refuted by the law of non-contradiction
Is applying basic logic really that hard?

>>9464488
What? In that we can't affirm facts on a quantum level because it would require a perceptable device recording constantly and be of high sensibility?

I need to cum...RIGHT NOW

Engineers and scientists are literal shit eating brainlets when compared to mathematicians and philosophers.
"science" isn't a "pseudoscience" but scientists are pseudo-intellectuals.