[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 16 KB, 165x115, 2d4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The only reason you trust in science is because how science was introduced to you, along with the implication that words like "evidence", "fact", and "proof" are uniquely inherent to science alone.

This is no different than homos trying to hijack the rainbow to mean "gaysex and AIDS pride".
Science is trying to hijack qualities of truth, that unless something can be scientifically justified, it must not be true.
Yet it is this truth which punches a hole straight through what proof and evidence mean.

What is your opinion on evidence and proof? Do you believe only one evidence must always point to one only proof? Are you aware that evidence is not indicative of proof, nor proof indicative of evidence?

 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:00:08 2018 No.10003615 >>10003588>The only reason you trust in science is because how science was introduced to youThe only reason anyone trusts science is because it gets the job done. Now tell us which particular brand of mentally ill religion is causing you to lash out at your superiors.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:01:56 2018 No.10003620 u r not very smart lmao
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:04:13 2018 No.10003621 >>10003615What job?Are you immortal? Smart? Talented? Are your dreams and fantasies made reality?What job? Dying?what an awful job.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:07:31 2018 No.10003623 >>10003621>waaaah science isn't magic>therefore it doesn't workYou avoided my question, which mentally ill religion is causing you to lash out at your superiors?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:08:37 2018 No.10003626 >>10003588There are no humans worth considering who do not experience the senses. As an ideology built off empiricism, science thus rules at the top.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:21:56 2018 No.10003648 File: 194 KB, 591x462, 1523871650315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10003623It doesn't work to solve the problems which require solutions to justify your life.What good is your life if you're dead?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:26:34 2018 No.10003653 >>10003588listen to yourself anon. also suck my peepee dumb science man!1!!!
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:28:02 2018 No.10003656 >>10003648My life is in no need of a justification. You not being able to accept immortality isn't a scientific problem.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:30:49 2018 No.10003658 >>10003648Why would I care about your dumb fear of death? Your pathetic intellect is not worth saving anyway.And you're again avoiding the question. What is your alternative?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:37:26 2018 No.10003666 >>10003656Science would say this is stockholm syndrome; trusting and reacclimating yourself to that which threatens your life.This is present in religion too, don't get it wrong. Science is the brood of Religion, a history of mighty beings threatening humanity with destruction under "or else" clauses. But if you admit to not living for a reason, why do you continue to live?Do you assume to find reason in the future? Do you ignore reason from the past? Are you just some farting eating slug too unevolved, and if so why would pretend the rest of humanity is any better? You as an individual total towards the collective mean.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:39:12 2018 No.10003669 Science hasn't resolved any fundamental question of existence.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 01:57:33 2018 No.10003689 >>10003666>Science would say this is stockholm syndrome; trusting and reacclimating yourself to that which threatens your life.Science wouldn't say anything, it's a method.>This is present in religion too, don't get it wrong.Unimportant to the discussion.>Science is the brood of Religion, a history of mighty beings threatening humanity with destruction under "or else" clauses. No? Science is a method of testing and confirming theories.>But if you admit to not living for a reason, why do you continue to live?Do you assume to find reason in the future? Do you ignore reason from the past? Are you just some farting eating slug too unevolved, and if so why would pretend the rest of humanity is any better? You as an individual total towards the collective mean.I said my life doesn't need to be justified, that doesn't mean I didn't construct my own reason for living.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 10:45:35 2018 No.10004377 >>10003669You still don't get that not every question has an answer, not every question is valid, and science isn't magic that has to instantly gratify your every wish in order to work. Now answer the question: What is your mental illness?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 10:47:26 2018 No.10004381 Empiricism is good, but not the only thing. Those who get wrapped up in it aren't as smart as they fancy themselves to be.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 10:50:45 2018 No.10004384 >>10004381>My arbitrary beliefs are just as valid as empiricismNo.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 10:54:37 2018 No.10004388 >>10003588if everybody who ever talks to each other agrees things are one way, then that is the truth. The problem is when some fuck head comes in and starts saying it's another way. Someone from another place, or who just has different ideas. You need to quickly kill people like that who can compromise the truth
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 11:09:15 2018 No.10004418 >>10003588No. Science defined what truth is and use it to define more terms and eventually apply that knowledge to solve practical problems.Homos don't know what they are doing.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 11:26:57 2018 No.10004445 >>10004377This is brainlet thinking.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 13:44:30 2018 No.10004749 >>10004384Rationalism is not an arbitrary belief. Fetishization of Empiricism is the textbook example of a pseud. Get good before you post.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:07:35 2018 No.10004797 Not at all. Do you expect me to believe you've ever taken a course on basic mechanics? The theoretical development of physics starts with really basic assumptions, like Newton's laws, for example. The rest follows through mathematical derivation. I have personally witnessed those such derivations make repeated, highly accurate predictions about our physical world. So that gives the initial assumptions some experimental credibility. Repeat the process and you get a refined and powerful tool.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:10:53 2018 No.10004802 >>10004384>what is mathematics?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:12:11 2018 No.10004804 >>10003588my opinion is that you are a complete faggot
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:30:15 2018 No.10004846 >>10004797That things fall is not proof they are being pulled down.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:37:21 2018 No.10004865 >>10004846The physical definition of "pull" is the time derivative of momentum; i.e. (change in momentum)/(change in time)=pull, by definition. So if I hold an object over the ground, let go of it, and its momentum changes over a period of time (meaning, it falls), then I can absolutely conclude "the object is being pulled," based on the definition of the word. Kys brainlet.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:48:44 2018 No.10004901 File: 5 KB, 250x174, brainlets....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10004865...that things fall is not proof they are being $\color{red}{\text{pulled}}$ down. .... . .
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:50:47 2018 No.10004903 >>10004901I just demonstrated that the definition of "pull" means objects as pulled down. Btw, are you that guy in that other thread talking about fourier transforms?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:53:07 2018 No.10004913 File: 736 KB, 1080x1080, Screenshot_2017-12-30-16-57-48-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10004903That things fall is not proof they are being pulled down..... . .Whats the opposite of pulling?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:56:28 2018 No.10004923 >>10004913>Whats the opposite of pulling?Pushing. Mathematically identical to pulling.???
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 14:58:15 2018 No.10004925 >>10004923lel. Recursively retarded. Godless poor sonofabitch.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 15:00:12 2018 No.10004926 >>10004925>Godlessno ;^)Explain what you're talking about, you incoherent piece of shit.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 15:16:27 2018 No.10004971 File: 1.58 MB, 1432x1080, Screenshot_2018-08-09-02-01-04-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10004926You don't have a God. That ship sailed 8 years ago. Delusions to believe otherwise likely fuel more delusions byproxy, like thinking you're making sense when claiming opposite forces are instead the same singular force.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 15:21:42 2018 No.10004982 >>10004971What is my delusion?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 15:32:44 2018 No.10005025 >>10004982Idk. That you'll win against something God didn't, maybe.God made man in his image and it should be telling enough that man wanted someone else, just as God did, and that Eve too was not content without wanting more. God was flawed. You do yourself good to believe God existed. But how long is long enough when he'd been with you every moment up until disappearing?
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 15:35:34 2018 No.10005038 >>10005025Good thing that doesn't represent my beliefs
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 16:00:17 2018 No.10005096 >>10005038It doesn't matter. Calling it God or justifying scripture, the source of knowledge has left the world nearly a decade ago. All religions are technically invalidated at this point. Some may be quick to rationalize weirdness occurring earlier which they might call a decline, but that's kind of the point. After what happened, nothing genuinely new actually happens, weird or not. Its all been the same shit with a hint of mixing things in ways they weren't before, but no new inventions. The scope of human existence globally relies on information from prehistory to 2010 AD on the gregorian calendar. I can't really say how knowing this may help anyone, but it might be calming to know "everything" that can be known from the source, can be learned without worry of arbitrary changes or ongoing inclusions of unknowns. Well, basically anyway. I'm in the same boat, but I'm technically different. Too different to have been validated by the source, but I get a feeling time will tell, cause I'm still here and the source isn't. That probably means more than it should since humanity is still here too. If you had the capacity to learn and know something, anything, it's because the source offered it. I wonder how absolute that connection is between humanity and the source, though. Like, will conciousness arise in time from awareness of how long it's been since the last new thing? Or is humanity set in stone, programmed to eternally await a command, even if no further commands come.Point of this thread is that the impossible is not.
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 16:02:13 2018 No.10005101 >>10005096Kys
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 16:07:10 2018 No.10005110 >>10005096>>10005025>>>/x/
 >> Anonymous Sat Sep 15 16:14:27 2018 No.10005122 >>10005101I can't ;^(God did though.
>>