/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10503478]

Don’t you think that hypotheses are always underdetermined by data, so that theories can only ever be selected on the basis of usefulness and aesthetics, which are completely subjective metrics? In other words, isn’t science itself subjective?

E.g. What objective metric could possibly be used to justify favouring one theory vs the same theory plus an arbitrary constant like FSM?

Inb4parsimony/Occam’s razor — totally subjective/dependent on priors

[Anonymous No.10503493]

A basic principle of knowledge that's required for you to even be able to get out of your bed in the morning is that we can predict future outcomes based on past experiences. Our past experience is that more simple hypothesis are more often correct than ones made needlessly more complex, and conversely needlessly complex hypothesis often end up wrong thus wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.10503499]

>>10503493
I agree, in general. Unfortunately, complexity is notoriously difficult to quantify, much less quantify “objectively.” How do you propose objectively determining the relative complexity or simplicity of a candidate theory? Concretely, why is Theory A more simple than Theory A + FSM?

[Anonymous No.10503540]

Before you answer that, relabel Theory A + FSB = Theory B, and ask instead, why is Theory B more complex than Theory B - FSB?

[Anonymous No.10503624]

Everything is probabilistic

[Anonymous No.10503749]

>>10503624
OK. Are probabilities not subjective?

[Anonymous No.10503767]

>>10503499
What do you mean? It's self descriptive, Theory A is more simple than Theory A + FSM simply because FSM is not there. There are things in Math called degrees of freedom, or dimensions. Generally hypothesis based on fewer degrees of freedom are more likely to be correct than those based on more.

[Anonymous No.10503779]

>>10503478
>In other words, isn’t science itself subjective?
Yes, Empiricism is a subjective and inferior epistemology, unless completely predicated on a rationalist foundation - that of pure mathematics, logic, and computation. Math/Computation is more fundamental than physics or the sciences.
There are anons (especially this one pseud) who get angry every time I say this, but it changes nothing.

[Anonymous No.10503786]

>>10503767
There is no such thing as a generalized DOF that could characterize a generic scientific theory. No way to parametrize a scientific theory in general this way. Furthermore, the addition of a constant doesn’t introduce a DOF, see >>10503540

>>10503779
In what sense is Euler’s identity not an empirical truth at best? This is where I will begin to get controversial, but I consider thoughts to be an instance of experimentation (albeit experimentation which lacks the need for hardware), such that pure math is continuous with science, and the two can’t be distinguished. In other words, I can’t find any solid rational to epistemologically privilege math compared to physics. If you think can adequately defend that it deserves to be privileged, you are welcome to try.

[Anonymous No.10503797]

>>10503786
No, you could, in theory, parametrize an entire scientific theory, it would just be time consuming. The vectors determine the constants, not the other way around. All Theories by default have a zero intercept.

[Anonymous No.10503835]

>>10503797
Are you saying that a theory of evolution can be characterized by a certain number of DOF? Which has more, phylogenetic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? If this is too time consuming, what would be a toy example? I don’t understand.

Also, if “theories by default have a zero intercept” then what are we saying is the origin? What is the “null theory?”

[Anonymous No.10503839]

>>10503478
>Don’t you think that hypotheses are always underdetermined by data
This why we use confidence intervals. 5sigma is good enough for me

[Anonymous No.10503860]

>>10503839
You might as well just say “that’s the whole point of frequentism.”

[Anonymous No.10503865]

And frequentism, while having the appearance of objectivity, is ultimately a mathematical/scientific theory in its own right (c.f. >>10503786).

[Anonymous No.10503872]

>>10503779
>>10503779
This is the type of person that thinks they can "prove the existence of god using logic"

[Anonymous No.10503878]

>>10503872
You're the type of person who is far less intelligent than he thinks himself to be

[Anonymous No.10503892]

>>10503872
>>10503878
No need to resort to ad hominem fallacies. If someone thinks pure math is epistemologically privileged, I would be interested in hearing why. As I already said, since a thought can be conceptualized as simply a low cost experiment (math departments are cheap), I see no obvious reason for why even pure math can’t rightly be considered an instance of empiricism. Where I could see a counter-argument would be if someone were to say that in math, the datum is indistinguishable from the hypothesis/theory. If we want to agree that this is how math works, that doesn’t make math has special significance, it just means it happens to not be science. It could be just another human activity, like painting or mysticism. There are humans that assign divine importance to many such activities, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. But again, the OP is strictly about science, not whatever objective truth there is to be mined in painting or math. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.10503894]

>>10503878
looks like I hit home lmao

[Anonymous No.10503899]

Basically, >>10503779 might as well have said that “Yes, that’s why painting/music is more fundamental than physics or the sciences. There are anons who get angry every time Ibsay this, but it changes nothing.”

[Anonymous No.10503914]

Basically, >>10503779 might as well have said that “Yes, that’s why painting/music is more fundamental than physics or the sciences. There are anons who get angry every time I say this, but it changes nothing.”

[Anonymous No.10503934]

>>10503892
I'm >>10503892

The "thoughts as experiments" analogy isn't even necessary

All mathematical and logical ideas, even the most basic, require a rationality hypothesis. Modus ponens and modus tollens are true because we observe them to be true. Math is the refinement and ultimately, compression, of rationality, but the possibility that rationality is false in the first place makes all self-contained logic and math epistemologically worthless.

Rationality itself is an empirical hypothesis and this kills the rationalist.

[Anonymous No.10503940]

>>10503934
durr
*I'm >>10503872

[Anonymous No.10503959]

>>10503934
Nice. I agree with that. But I also think there is some merit to recognizing that the way math proceeds is identically the same hypothetico-deductive method as is used in science:
>Think of every possible way the world could be. Label each way an “hypothesis.”
>Look at how the world “actually is.” Call what you see “data” (or “evidence”).
>Where possible, choose the hypothesis that provides the best fit to the data.
N.b. the quotation marks in step 2.

Do you agree that the whole enterprise is subjective then? Or do you think it can be epistemologically salvaged? If not science or math, what hope is there for humans to access truth?

[Anonymous No.10503991]

>>10503493
A more simple reply to this than >>10503499 is the notorious question: where do priors come from?

[Anonymous No.10503992]

>>10503959
I think all truth is inherently subjective, that's just the simple nature of knowledge.

Humans can access truth through faith, and I say that as an atheist. Which is why people like >>10503779
disgust me so much, religion with no faith, the worst of both worlds.

[Anonymous No.10504020]

>>10503992
Doesn’t it make sense that there would be an eternal and unchanging truth that exists regardless of anyone’s ability to possess it? The alternative is that we live in a world of pure chaos. If science suggests anything objective, it’s that the world is not purely chaotic but is basically intelligible.

[Anonymous No.10504058]

>>10504020
>The alternative is that we live in a world of pure chaos
No, the alternative is that truth is exchanged between subjects to create the illusion of an object. Think of truth like money. The scrap of paper is worth nothing, but it's value is based upon a shared understanding. The dollar only works because people have faith in it's value. The stock market only works because people have faith in the economy.

[Anonymous No.10504123]

>>10504058
But gold is always and will always be intrinsically valuable regardless of anyone’s faith in anyone or anything...

[Anonymous No.10504159]

>>10504123
yes, truth is like money, not like gold...

[Anonymous No.10504170]

>>10504159
I think truth is more comparable to gold than to USD or to bitcoin. Rare, intrinsically valuable, unchanging.

[Anonymous No.10504184]

Regardless, I agree that common exchange of value is a much more pragmatic and more accurate view of truth than science ever could be. I’m pleasantly surprised. But I’m not willing to concede so much as to say that truth is so meaningless that it can be infinitely printed or created out of thin air like fiat.

[Anonymous No.10504279]

>>10504170
Certainly a valid opinion.

[Anonymous No.10504314]

>>10504184
>to say that truth is so meaningless that it can be infinitely printed or created out of thin air like fiat.
To say that would be to say faith or belief is similarly meaningless and lawlessly malleable. This is getting into the question of consciousness but I believe that at a very high level, our beliefs are rigidly defined by what our perception is at any given time. Perception being as all-encompassing as could be allowed, qualia might be a better term.

Certainly, in physics, there are quantization conditions that limit how any state views any states it interacts with, and there are laws that do not vary for an observer in any inertial frame of reference. In fact it's from physics that I adopted this (admittedly, not new) idea. A spec of dust appearing as a dragon in a room full of mirrors.

[Anonymous No.10504597]

>>10504314
>To say that would be to say faith or belief is similarly meaningless and lawlessly malleable
Why? What does truth have to do with faith/belief, or what mechanism exists to mediate a causal relationship from the former to the latter?

You’re getting into some pretty heavy stuff here. Regarding quantum, all I remember from my physics degree is our signal processing prof dismissing the whole theory as “quantum mumbo jumbo” (before getting into Fourier). The students thought the old man was a buffoon but looking back I start to see the wisdom in what he said.

[Anonymous No.10504755]

Or from the latter to the former. Any causal relationship whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.10505033]

I would also add that it seems somewhat disappointing that something so crass as money would be elevated to truth status at the expense of something as noble as pure science, but alas. It may be true that top-down debt is the most powerful force in nature after all.