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

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 282 KB, 352x372, 1574714150472.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11186004 No.11186004 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

I actually don't believe anything other than mathematics. Yeah, physics and chemistry might due cute little experiments but mathematics is rock solid and bullet proof. Biology is literally fake news though.

>> No.11186006
File: 5 KB, 225x225, BASED.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11186017

>doki chad

>> No.11186021

Math is pretty general and dissociated from material world. Even this board is called Science*.
*and math

>> No.11186026

Don't physicists admit to themselves that they can only observe 13% of all matter? Even if their explanations were rock solid, its only 13% of the universe.

>> No.11186029
File: 641 KB, 1079x1103, 1573872536685.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I unironically think this, but I'm not as harsh as you for the sub sciences

>> No.11186032

you can bet your sweet behind transitivity works in the other 87%

>> No.11186058

Science is bulletproof too.

>> No.11186061

it could work. im not a physicist but there is doubt unlike in mathematics where there is no doubt. personally, its strange for me to image this. think about goldbach's theorem. we've tested it to be true for billions and billions of numbers (400 trillion according to google) and thats not good enough. Yet physicists claim to be able to explain 100% of the universe while only being able to observe 13%.

>> No.11186064

Agree, especially number theory

>> No.11186067

>physicists claim to be able to explain 100% of the universe
you have never in your life actually talked to a physicist, have you

>> No.11186071
File: 148 KB, 988x1059, 1516004397439.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11186679


>> No.11186700

That’s a good one, you didn’t make it though

>> No.11186704

anything other then apriori truth is retarded imagine actually thinking you can put concepts and sens experience in bijection lmao

>> No.11187090
File: 115 KB, 738x630, 323ce071a67d10bb46dc1c0614e68047.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Layman here.
I literally consider you math nerds to be wizards.
LITERAL wizards.
As in you're practicing magic.
A charge you can only dispute using semantics.

>> No.11187107

Biology is fake news. You literally are biology you autist

>> No.11187164

can you reproduce that statement?

>> No.11187290

Sure. People have done that for centuries. If used correctly, results stand the test of time within the frame they were conceived in.

>> No.11188276

Actual idiot Tbh.

>> No.11188370

It isn't, though. Anything in science can be disproven through new discoveries, that's one of the central ideas of science. There is no way to disprove anything in math as long as the original person didn't mess up.

>> No.11188404

Lol no

>> No.11188834

Can you give an example?
That's not the central idea of science. The central idea is to firm hypotheses, then trying to falsify them. Repeated failure shows a valid model, which is good for the given boundary conditions. It will only be wrong outside of them

>> No.11188839

lol yes

>> No.11188856

He should have said superseded.
We casually say a hypothesis is "disproven" to mean it's not worth adopting. "Disproven" is wrong in the sense that we never prove something right beyond the practical value of it for modeling (predicting and consistently describing)

A good example of a superceided theory is
and Kuhn gives a lot of examples for all the electricity theories in history.
Some concepts (temperature, force) are superseded but the old theory are still more practical not to be replaced in all applications.
Indeed, there's no reason to believe any of the word we use (time, frequency, points in space and density) will stand the test of time and not end up becoming coarse vocabulary like temperature, force or the heat-material (phlogiston) became. E.g. points in space (like R^3 or R^4 or some pseudo-Riemannian manifold) don't exist in physics theories of non-commutative geometry

I suppose time has a good chance of not being better understood soon. We won't if we keep using sets with rich classes of uncomputable predicates, I think.

>> No.11188866
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.11189436

>He actually believes in the peano axioms
oh I am laffin

>> No.11189443

>mathematics is rock solid and bullet proof

i've been trying to disprove a basic mathematical theorem, which would rewrite mathematics, for 14 years. with no success. still convinced it's wrong...

>> No.11189453
File: 13 KB, 207x120, TIMESAND___11hh5mjref46r11f4ymummmkdk6701rt58793ynf4ekyjjf3tf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Biology is literally fake news though.
Behavioral psychology is the worst. The PhD behavioral psychologist says, "To demonstrate the predictive power of behavioral psychology, I am able predict based on subject A's setting his alarm for 5am that he will rise from slumber between 5:00 and 5:05 tomorrow.
"AHA! Behold the power of behavioral psychology!!!!!"

>> No.11189483

people that say this without formal mathematical training are intellectual bumpkins, very deeply spooked and far more so than most christfags

>> No.11189575

This is a public service announcement to warn against a pervasive and incorrect attitude I encounter on this board as well as in person.

There seems to be , especially in (but embarrassingly not limited to) younger people who are new to STEM, a belief that mathematics and other forms of pure sciences are superior to applied sciences because they have a "closer relationship with the truth". To all those who believe this, you would benefit from reading "Advice to a young scientist" by Peter Medawar. His advice is helpful generally buy I would like to quote his perspective on the distinction between pure and applied sciences:

"One of the most damaging forms of snobbism in science is that which draws a class distinction between pure and applied science. It is perhaps at its worst in England, where the genteel have a long history of repugnance to trade or any activity that might promote it. Such a class distinction is particularly offensive because it is based upon a complete misconception of the original meaning of the word pure—the meaning that was thought to confer a loftier status upon pure than upon applied science." - Peter Medawar

The term pure is simply a category for science whose axioms are derived from intuition or things that appear self evident in contrast to axioms derived from observation or experiment. Although pure and applied sciences use different epistemological approaches towards seeking the truth (rationalism and empiricism, respectively) neither of these two approaches can truly claim superiority over the other and both have contributed significantly to our understanding of the world and our quality of life.

Thinking math holds a more solid claim to the truth than less "pure" sciences puts you at the intellectual level of rick and morty fanboys talking about how deep and cool nihilism is.

Thanks that is the end of my rant.

>> No.11189593

Which thm?

>> No.11189598

>Behavioral psychology is the worst.
False. It's the most solid field in psychology.

>> No.11189600

Mathematics doesn't exist either. Just like us.

>> No.11189603

the cleanest dirty shirt then?

>> No.11189615

No offense, but I don't feel like arguing with anybody tonight. Thus I shouldn't have posted that, so I am willing to admit that since you actually made an initial argument and I merely said I disagree, then you have won this argument. Have a good night :)

>> No.11189627

>rock solid and bullet proof
what about godel's incompleteness theorems then faggot

>> No.11189677

Sure, that's cool and all, but that just proves my point correct. Superseding something doesn't invalidate it.

>> No.11189697

Yeah, I'm thinking BASED

>> No.11189879

If you think they contradict what OP said in ant way, youre a brainlet

>> No.11189886

Mathematics is rock solid because it is logically equivalent to 1=1.

>> No.11190155

>every sufficiently complex axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent
>vs bulletproof

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.