/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10003588]

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 No.10003615]

>>10003588
>The only reason you trust in science is because how science was introduced to you
The 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 No.10003620]

u r not very smart lmao

[Anonymous No.10003621]

>>10003615
What job?

Are you immortal? Smart? Talented?
Are your dreams and fantasies made reality?

What job? Dying?

what an awful job.

[Anonymous No.10003623]

>>10003621
>waaaah science isn't magic
>therefore it doesn't work

You avoided my question, which mentally ill religion is causing you to lash out at your superiors?

[Anonymous No.10003626]

>>10003588
There are no humans worth considering who do not experience the senses. As an ideology built off empiricism, science thus rules at the top.

[Anonymous No.10003648]

>>10003623
It doesn't work to solve the problems which require solutions to justify your life.

What good is your life if you're dead?

[Anonymous No.10003653]

>>10003588
listen to yourself anon. also suck my peepee dumb science man!1!!!

[Anonymous No.10003656]

>>10003648

My life is in no need of a justification. You not being able to accept immortality isn't a scientific problem.

[Anonymous No.10003658]

>>10003648
Why 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 No.10003666]

>>10003656
Science 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 No.10003669]

Science hasn't resolved any fundamental question of existence.

[Anonymous 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 No.10004377]

>>10003669
You 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 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 No.10004384]

>>10004381
>My arbitrary beliefs are just as valid as empiricism
No.

[Anonymous No.10004388]

>>10003588
if 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 No.10004418]

>>10003588
No. 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 No.10004445]

>>10004377
This is brainlet thinking.

[Anonymous No.10004749]

>>10004384
Rationalism is not an arbitrary belief. Fetishization of Empiricism is the textbook example of a pseud. Get good before you post.

[Anonymous 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 No.10004802]

>>10004384
>what is mathematics?

[Anonymous No.10004804]

>>10003588
my opinion is that you are a complete faggot

[Anonymous No.10004846]

>>10004797
That things fall is not proof they are being pulled down.

[Anonymous No.10004865]

>>10004846
The 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 No.10004901]

>>10004865
...
that things fall is not proof they are being [math]\color{red}{\text{pulled}}[/math] down.

...
. . .

[Anonymous No.10004903]

>>10004901
I 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 No.10004913]

>>10004903
That things fall is not proof they are being pulled down.

...

. . .

Whats the opposite of pulling?

[Anonymous No.10004923]

>>10004913
>Whats the opposite of pulling?
Pushing. Mathematically identical to pulling.

???

[Anonymous No.10004925]

>>10004923
lel. Recursively retarded. Godless poor sonofabitch.

[Anonymous No.10004926]

>>10004925
>Godless
no ;^)
Explain what you're talking about, you incoherent piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.10004971]

>>10004926
You 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 No.10004982]

>>10004971
What is my delusion?

[Anonymous No.10005025]

>>10004982
Idk. 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 No.10005038]

>>10005025
Good thing that doesn't represent my beliefs

[Anonymous No.10005096]

>>10005038
It 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 No.10005101]

>>10005096
Kys

[Anonymous No.10005110]

>>10005096
>>10005025
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10005122]

>>10005101
I can't ;^(

God did though.