[ 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: 1.30 MB, 1317x741, When CERN busts down your door.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10072415 No.10072415 [Reply] [Original]

>Things we take for scientific "fact" aren't "proven" they're just the explanation that makes the most sense

Fuck me, I'm not sure I can handle this

>> No.10072435

0/10 didn't even try
please do not post again

>> No.10072557

>>10072415
>we take
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>> No.10072783

>>10072435
>>10072557
I don't know what you brainlets are referring to but we have many theories that we base our scientific understanding off of that aren't proven like evolution and string theory.

>> No.10072787

>>10072415
Epistemol0wn3d.

>> No.10072788

>>10072783

You actually might really make someone fall for this bait.

>> No.10072793

>>10072788
I think you are just a brainlet
>Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
>supposition: an uncertain belief
Literally and explicitly defined to be scientifically uncertain.

>> No.10072795

>>10072793
Because evolution isn't a theory you mong. Our genes change, it's a scientific fact. You're mistaking it for the theory of human evolution as a historical timeline. Which we also have evidence to support. Stop being stupid.

>> No.10072815

>>10072795
>the theory of evolution
yea ok kid

>> No.10072822

>>10072793
>>10072795
this is the only reason to come to this board any more. watching brainlet npcs finally realize they're the brainlet npc.

>> No.10072826

>>10072815
So what are you saying evolution doesn't exist? Seriously retard, explain yourself. How do you explain differences in species?

>> No.10072853

>>10072826
the explanation already exists and it is called the theory of evolution. There really is no clearer way to spell this out for you so sorry if you still don't get it.

>> No.10072866

>>10072853
Low tier trolling friend.

>> No.10073135

>>10072826
It's a theory not a law.

>> No.10073506

>>10073135

Even the "Laws", though...

>> No.10074568
File: 1.94 MB, 310x325, 1430102766993.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10074568

>>10072415
what if everything is chaos and just for our lifetime it seems like it makes sense

>> No.10074841

>>10072415
well duh
science is all about what works and until someone can prove otherwise
that is if you follow the scientific method and you should because Feyerabend was a faggot

>> No.10075278

>>10072415
>Babies first philosophy of science
Regardless of what popsci wants you to believe science does not give us 'truth' or 'objective facts', You could weaken the statement and say it gets us as close as possible to truth, but even that isnt correct (I hope, we dont even have a consistent definition that can distinguish science from pseudoscience ffs). In reality science is just a collection of shit that's been found to be useful because it can make relatively accurate predictions. Read 'what is this thing called science' and see how bad out understanding really is.

>> No.10075488
File: 737 KB, 768x1105, How do I rotate text in paint.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10075488

>>10075278
>science does not give us 'truth' or 'objective facts'

>> No.10075492

>>10075488
It doesn't in the naive sense. It, of course, gives us truth, but you have to understand what we mean by truth first, which is to say not an absolute description of objective reality.

All science is creating mental models that accurately model reality, they don't get at reality itself.

>> No.10075536

>>10075492
This is fucking gibberish, what the fuck do you mean "get at reality itself"

>> No.10075548

>>10072415
Yeah, that's why they work idiots.

>> No.10075576

>>10075492
>mental models that accurately model reality
Im most cases, yes, but not necessarily.

>> No.10076067

>>10075576
>Im most cases, yes, but not necessarily.
Explain

>> No.10076099

>>10072415
>explanation that makes the most sense
How can something make "more" sense? You are logical, or you aren't. You can't say something is MORE logical, that doesn't make any sense.

>> No.10076120
File: 5 KB, 250x174, 1502603178950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10076120

>>10076099
>What is the entire history of science?

Christ, I'm starting to hate this board...

>> No.10076132

>>10076099
Jfc why do you even come here? It's clear you have precisely no education in or practical experience with science

>> No.10076138

>>10076120
do you hate what you see when you go outside too? I do.

>> No.10076190
File: 66 KB, 500x533, brainlet11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10076190

>>10073135
extreme low iq post

>> No.10076195

god damn you fucking retards need to at least watch a philosophy lecture on youtube or something

>> No.10076209

>>10072415
>using accurate models to predict is a bad thing

>> No.10076211

>>10072415
Okay you have got the gist, but it's a little more sophisticated than that. The best and supported theories are the ones that have the highest probability of being a true description of reality, and they have to have a very high probability to be accepted as "true", more than 99% accurate.
So while nothing can be proven to be the truth, our model of the universe as we currently see it has almost no chance of being wrong, at least in some areas. That's probably more accurate than we can say our own perception of reality as humans is, we filter the world through our brain, biases and experiences.

>> No.10076347

Kk, imma cop my man Hume. Imagine you are Adam, the first man. No prior experience, no innate understanding. You see one billiard ball roll towards another with a fair amount of speed. What happens? If you had to intuit a guess, what would you predict? Don’t know? His position is that our “knowledge “ comes mainly from applying models to past observation and assuming a similar outcome in the future. In this sense, we have no understanding beyond “I observed that it happened this way in the past so it’s going to happen the same way in the future” all predicated on an assumption.

>> No.10076763

>>10076067
There are a lot of field considered science which makes very shitty predictions, you could argue that science 'should' give accurate models, and these are just due to incompetent/corruption, but we don't have any way to distinguish between the accurate and inaccurate models in an objective way. There are fields considered pseudoscience which give more accurate predictions that some areas of science. You also need to define what you mean by accurately, a lot of times something is considered accurate because it gave accurate results in the past, with no cross validation.

>> No.10076790

>>10074568
>just for our lifetime it seems like it makes sense
Don't be narcissistic; this is what those in the past thought as well.

>> No.10076792

>>10072415
the idea of “proven” is mathematical and has nothing to do with physical reality