/sci/ - Science & Math

nice one OP, but wait here come the assblasted lab drones screeching their crypto-mythological dogma at you because they think having math tricks drilled in by rote makes you actually smart.

>>9939897
I'm stopping by in 15 minutes you better have my food ready.

>>9939912
I'll have my fist ready, ready to plant into your face.

>>9939897
The scientific method brought us modern medicine and computers, therefore it is good.

>>9939982
Philosophy brought us the scientific method

>>9939984
>Philosophy-is-worthless schills btfo

>>9939982
Prove that scientifically.

>>9939984
This meme needs to stop.

>>9940890
It's not a meme, though. You need to stop believing in scientism and start with the Greeks.

>>9940890
Where do you think the scientific method came from?

>>9940896
Scientific method is a meme taught in high school. Just like how they taught that Christopher Columbus proved the world was round, and al gore makes credible movies.

>>9939982
>using inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning

>>9939897
scientific method doesn't need to be proven because it isn't isn't a hypothesis or theorem, it's a set of instructions

>>9940922
that dont need justification?

>>9940922
If it's just a set of instructions that don't need justification, then any set of instructions would be just as good

>>9939982
i'm not sure if it's good, sure it brought us medicine and computers, but it also brought us nukes

in any case, the fact that the nuke went off meant that the scientific method is empirically effective. so it just werks

>>9940989
>>9941028
Philosophy is too difficult for the average STEM fact regurgitator.

>>9941133
>>9941028
>>9940989
Justification is different from proof. You want to throw philosophy around? Philosophy loves the semantics of language. To try and invalidate scientific method because it can't be proven doesn't make sense logically because you can't prove instructions, you can make a case for justifying that it is or isn't a good method to follow, but you can't prove it true or false because it fundamentally is not trying to ascertain a specific truth

@9939897
>What are axioms?

>>9941196
What do you think this is? Twitter?

@9941220
Why would I give you (You)s when your baits are so weak?

>>9941223
Sure bait, meanwhile you're the one who claims to not understand scientific method

>>9940890
It should be illegal to be this retarded.

>>9940922
>it’s a set of instructions and not a hypothesis or theorem
What is Curry-Howard Isomorphism?

>a set of instructions don’t need to be proved
What is algorithm correctness?

>>9941191
No one's trying to invalidate the scientific method, retard

>>9941196
Axioms are not chosen blindly

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

>>9940890
>hurr philosophy iz usless guys!! it dosnt do anything

>>9941506
This problem should be against the rules on a science board.

>>9939982
>implying the continuation and encouragement of human beings as we are and in the directions we are moving is good

>>9941515
don't you know that the axioms underlying the scientific method are perfect, untouchable and unquestionable?

>>9939897
>the scientific method

Found the popsci faggot.

>>9941506
>Problem_of_induction
Already solved with Bayesian inductivism.

>>9939897

Uhm of course it can. Does it continually work? Yeah. Can i construct a test for it that would falsify it? Yeah. Has this been done and tested? Sure.Has anything else been verified this way? Nope. Therefore it's the best working way to obtain knowledge we have.

>>9942643

Actually yeah, because we all have to, by necessity, assume them. It's either that or solipsism.

>>9942678
can you tell which one I prefer?

>>9942684

One of both works if you want to continue to exist. The other doesn't.

>>9942660
>>Problem_of_induction
>Already solved with Bayesian inductivism

>>9942676
>no details on the test

>>9939897
Same thing you could say about mathematics.
>prove me that 2+2=4
You can't prove that cause it's an assumption we'll have to make to make sense of our universe.
If we assume (based on reality we observe) that 2+2=4 then everything else follows.

Same thing we do with scientific method. We have to assume that reality can be observed and measured if we want to study it.

>>9942700

Sure, a test e.g. on the consistency of reality : As long as I lived, the sun went up every single day, gravity always worked exact the same, as did electromagnetism and the other forces. Photosynthesis works every year et cetera.

For the reliability of my senses? Other people do mostly agree with my perception, for as long as I lived. People with diverging perspectives on reality on the other hand tend to die rather quickly.

Is it consistent , even if I stop believing in it? Pretty sure it does, even flat earthers tend to continue living in the same way a spherical earth suggests.

Am I able to convey meaning through language to others? Pretty sure. If I e.g. buy cigarettes i tend to consistently reliably get what I asked for, just as if what i wanted to convey was, via language, conveyed to another person who understood it.

And it has been that way for every human in the history of history. How much more reliable could it have been tested?

Anything else i should build a test for?

>>9942697
>t. popperian brainlet

Philosophy is retarded and there’s a reason it’s more or less completely forgotten.

>>9942728

Not all of it. Parts of it are alive and well. Formal logic or ethics for example are kind of important, as is the theory of science. But thats where any possible applicability on our world ends. Noone could ever tell me what the worth is in wailing around completely void , unfalsifiable and unverifiable, concepts about "absolute truth" ( like platonism etc which essentially speculates "We humans can't see what the reality is but I know"). It's sad this is what people think about when they hear "philosophy", and not David Hume burying "this is natural, so it's moral because god", Aristoteley founding logic and finding all valid syllogistic forms, Feuerbach essentially debunking christianity to a level that i can say "no new argument has happened since him or Popper who found a clear way to separate science from pseudoscience. All those heroes of thought get forgotten over the nutjobs...

>>9939982
Some things are unscientific however, such as human behavior. The same circumstance, and the exact same DNA will not produce the same result, and this reproducible is the core of science. You can even take this farther and apply it to existence as a whole, since we assume theres a foundation bedrock to "reality" that is unchanging and this is what we're attempting to base our entire frame of reference off of. This however is untestable, and might not even be true.

>>9942741
Fucking auto correct. Apologies for phoneposting making me sound disjointed. That should be reproducibility and foundational.

>>9942741

Of course the same DNA alone will not produce the same Results. because DNA is not the only variable here. All kinds of environmental influences are important as well.

But why should human behaviour IN PRINCIPLE not be a thing that is accessible to science? It is a.) present in the real world we all share b.) you can observe it c.) it is not random but formed by some factors. Why shouldn't there be a naturalistic theory on this?

>>9942744
Because this assumes multiple things. that we a) understand what consciousness is b) that it operates on a dichotomy of random or non random and c) that every element of it is 'knowable'

>>9942709
>Anything else i should build a test for?
Yes, the scientific method. Let me know when your rambling incoherent personal anecdotes pass peer review in a real journal.
>>9942728
You only think like this because you're a moron. It's really that simple. Metaphysics is inescapable. Pretending it isn't leads to abortions like pic related blindly leading a sick society that is only becoming more depraved no matter how many new gizmos you can throw at it.
>>9942737
You're only slightly better. You brown nose scientists and imply you'd be their dutiful handmaiden if only given the chance but can find no reason why anyone should give a flying fuck about historical curiosities. When the meat of what you might have said is that in short, Hume proved ethics is metaphysical.

>>9942754
Preach.

wheres the equation for love, you pedestrian niggers.

>>9942749

sure. Anything in nature is per definition "knowable", thats how nature is defined. We don't need to understand "consciousness"( whatever that means) to show that if we exhibit input a to the black box it produces result b. and yeah "random" and "not random" are a true dichotomy. There is no third option.

>>9942764
come back in 10 years, once you've matured a little.

>>9942754

I don't need to pass it in a peer reviewed journal. Because thats what literally every human being ever already has agreed on since it is evident beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the whole point.

Nope that's not what hume did prove. He just proved that you can not get from the state of nature to ideals. You can however if you accept pretty little assumptuions that we humans are hard wired to uphold anyway in general, construct ethics from that without appealing to "how it should ultimately be because it was intended this way".

>>9942712
>we've got really good at counting the white swans, so Hume is a big poopy pants

>>9942767
No human beings have not all universally agreed on the modern scientific institution formally codified and professionalized around the mid 20th century. You're conflating obvious common sense that no one sane could disagree with and a massive phenomena at least as complicated in its details as all the results of science combined, in an effort to get people to avoid thinking hard on what it means that monolithic totalitarian states are currently reverse engineering your entire being as we speak.

We use to tell ourselves stories to comfort ourselves. But though our stories explained what we saw, we didn't know if they were true. So we tried to prove them, to ascertain that they were correct, to comfort ourselves. But it was impossible. Nothing can be proven true, Gödel showed us that everything directly or indirectly relies on an assumption. But eventually it was discovered that while nothing can be proven true, our stories could be proven false. We could make a prediction, based on the story, and go out and test that prediction. If the story predicted incorrectly, then it was wrong. The current body of scientific knowledge is simply those ideas that resisted being disproven, no matter how hard we tried, that we might now, tentatively, call "truth"

>>9942741
You're an utter fucking brainlet.

All hierachies and binaries are based on arbitrary social constructions which perpeturates phelogocentric views of the world. Your fetishment of logic and science is a patriarchal viewpoint of reality which is built on the imperalistic and sexist development of "the west". It's built on the sexist masculine knowledge theory which marginalizes female fluid knowledge. The false distinction between emotion and reason is gross and sexist.

>>9942687
ARE YOU TALKIN TO ME!?

>>9942728
Science and math are branches of philosophy

>>9942838
>binaries are social constructs
>men have rigid thinking and women have fluid thinking
Can't I just combat this argument by saying your assertion is a social construction since all binaries don't exist, including this binary classification of thought you present? My PI is woman and as a woman in STEM she is very rigid and logical, I have no idea how you can assert that science is "wrong" because it is rigid? Maybe it's rigid because constants don't change, the electronegativity of carbon is the same as it was a billion years ago. Don't take this reply as inflammatory, I'm legitimately interested understanding what you're trying to say but you lost this brainlet with a lot of (needlessly) complicated language in your post

>>9943144
>implying it's not your responsibility to educate yourself

>>9943231
>Expecting people to care about your "science is patriarchy" arguments when you refuse to have an actual discussion
I tried being nice. I actually think your post is a load of fucking tripe that is hardly even related to the OP but I was interested in getting a better point of view instead of immediately calling you a fuck.
And you people wonder why no one wants to listen.
>>>/lgbt/

>>9939897
>proven scientifically
Science doesn't prove things, grandpa.

>>9943236
>gets butthurt and passive-aggressive when asked to extend to others his own privileges
Never change alt-righties

>>9942822
...go on

>>9942660
I understand the Problem of Induction, but I don't get the Bayesian solution.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Like how do you get around the Uniformity Principle? Can anybody explain it to a brainlet?

>>9939897
No, but we've got a pretty sweet model so far.

>>9942822

Autistic ideas of "truth" are not going to demotivate people to try different models for natural phenomena.

>>9939897
I dont understand what you are trying to say, what do you mean by "proving" the scientific method?
Do you mean prove that it exists? or do you mean find proof of its efficacy? Both are extremely easy to do.

>>9944177
>Like how do you get around the Uniformity Principle
>"The uniformity of nature is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, e.g. if X is the cause Y, then Y will necessarily exist whenever X exists. In particular, the uniformities observed in the past will hold for the present and future as well."
>http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/modern05/Hume_on_empirical_reasoning.pdf

That's just bullshit philosophers pull out of their asses. Say X decays into Y; just because you have X doesn't mean you have any decay products (yet). But if you have X, there is a strong probability that you will have Y that grows with passing time.

>but muh autism demands certainty in all things

You're in the wrong field m8.

>>9944296
This doesn't solve the problem of induction in any way.

>>9944296
> if X is the cause Y

>>9944317
Induction is fine for drawing reasonable conclusions. "The problem of induction" comes from autistically demanding your conclusions be the objective truth of the universe. It's not a problem with induction per se but of your autism and not understanding the scope and limits of your conclusions.

If all the birds that your island has ever seen are black, then it's more than reasonable to conclude that all birds are black. You just have to realize your conclusions are open to revision base on additional information you may later get.

>tfw you realize god-independent proof and objectivity is an unstable concept that can be historicized to the 18th century, when the people who "invented" it did so largely unintentionally and haphazardly so that the subsequent historical development of certainty and self-evidence in logic, math, and science were even more lumpy and uneven
>tfw you realize really only the vienna positivists and a few similar developments in america and britain had "strong" conceptions of science, math, and/or logic as self-sufficient metaphysical worldviews
>tfw postpositivism was already nascent and demolishing vienna positivism in the '20s and '30s, and by the '50s and '60s there was an explosion of fully self-conscious postpostivism from which scientism has never really recovered, so that only the lowest most unreflective workaday dregs of STEM still think they're living in carnap-and-hempeltown
>tfw postmodernist faggots have run rampant bragging about this "victory" and loudly masturbating themselves as having proven total and forever inescapable relativism
>tfw western intellectuals are now split between philosophically illiterate STEMfags who don't realize they need a new postpositivist paradigm, and philosophically narrow-minded POMOfags who think natural science is just some hobby of mankind
>tfw i have to listen to STS faggots endlessly congratulating themselves for having discovered another tranny who happened to own a chemistry set in 1941
>tfw i have to listen to STEM faggots endlessly formalizing their dead episteme and not reaching beyond it to a new and triumphant natural philosophy of the spheres

PRAGMATIC NATURALISM ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH

I WANT A NEW PLATONISM AND I WANT IT NOW, I WANT ARROGANT SCIENTISTS INVENTING PSYCHIC TELESCOPES THAT CAN TUNNEL THROUGH SUBSPACE AND TELL ME WHAT FARAWAY GALAXIES SMELL LIKE

>>9944328
>Induction is fine for drawing reasonable conclusions
Nobody, not even Hume himself, claims this, given a certain definition of 'reasonable '. The problem exists though and remains unsolved. You've created a strawman of it to make yourself feel better, so let me know how that works out for you.

>>9944340
>Nobody, not even Hume himself, claims this
Who gives a shit what philosophers say. I claim it. Stop appealing to authority, especially from the liberal arts.

>The problem exists though and remains unsolved
Only for autists. Normies know you can't prove nuffin but you can become confidentially sure of it if it's well substantiated.