[ 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: 46 KB, 990x600, luke-skywalker_star-wars_feature[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11280854 No.11280854 [Reply] [Original]

How can science be said to know anything?
>why*1 because of newton's laws
...
>why*5 because of quantum phenomena
...
>why*9 because of elecromagnatism
>why*10 because of the strong force
>why*11 because of the weak force
>you mean like magic?
>not magic. it's the force

>> No.11280860
File: 377 KB, 400x521, yudkowsky bayes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11280860

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C8nEXTcjZb9oauTCW/where-recursive-justification-hits-bottom

>> No.11280932

Go to bed, Quine

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

>> No.11280938

>>11280932
But this becomes more difficult.

For example flat earth can be refuted easily, but global warming is far more difficult because it is complex.

>> No.11280941

>>11280938
>For example flat earth can be refuted easily, but global warming is far more difficult because it is complex.

You can’t “refute” global warming because it demonstrably exists.

>> No.11280955 [DELETED] 

>>11280941
top-tier circular reason, that there is

>> No.11280957

>>11280941
top-tier circular reasoning, that there is

>> No.11280961

>>11280957
>top-tier circular reasoning

Wrong. There is no circular reasoning.

>> No.11280962

>>11280961
>Wrong. There is no circular reasoning.

no u

>> No.11281353

>>11280957
>>11280962

>>11280941 Can confidently assert that it is true, since the scientific community is versed in mountains of analysed data in support of it.

Fucking faggot

>> No.11281370
File: 1.71 MB, 1500x1200, 288d07d71407ac5ee9e97faf76867419.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11281370

>>11280854
>science can't deal with an infinite sequence of why's
So? That's not what science is for. Science is to make predictions, not answered your dumb infantile "but why" questions.

>> No.11281636

>>11281353
>Can confidently assert that it is true, since the [right entity] is versed in mountains of [rightness] in support of it.
>this isn't circular reasoning, i swear
Conclusions are necessarily inferred from data. Any community or otherwise needs to infer their conclusions from the data, and they are not infallible simply by virtue of being a community of people in pursuit of science, regardless of the amount of data.

If you were intrinsically correct, perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to appeal to emotion with things like "versed in mountains of analysed data." Though the succinct composition of sensationalistic words in such a short phrase warrants a certain rhetorical praise. I'm surprised you didn't throw in random capitalizations to really drive the point home.

>>11281370
What about theoretical science or science with impractical conclusions?
>we study quantum mechanics to make predictions
Your conception of science is that of an infantile man who probably owns a "science don't care about yo fee fees" t-shirt

>> No.11281648 [DELETED] 

>>11281370
It's not about dealing with an infinite sequence of whys, dummy. It's about phenomena "explained" with fundamental forces in the first place. What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer because of "this fundamental force," immediately? What then? Is it to be taken as an explanation at all? What about a conclusion that derives from that "explanation"?

>> No.11281650

>>11281370
> dumb infantile "but why" questions
are exactly the reason why we have 4chan

>> No.11281651

>>11281370
It's not about dealing with an infinite sequence of whys, dummy. It's about phenomena "explained" with fundamental forces in the first place. What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer "because of this [fundamental force]," immediately? What then? Is it to be taken as an explanation at all? What about a conclusion that derives from that "explanation"?

>> No.11281711

>>11281651
>What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer "because of this [fundamental force]," immediately? What then?
Nothing more. Scientific models need only be accurate predictors according to evidence. For the last 100 years physicists have largely taken an anti-realist stance, if it accurately predicts nature, who cares if it genuinely corresponds to some kind of 'reality'. Shut up and calculate