/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12063820]

science is a method that could be attempted to be applied to anything. it's not just a specific set of topics but how topics are approached. albeit certain topics are more commonly approached this way than others. likewise these topics can also be approached unscientifically. topics in physics for instance could be approached in an unscientific way, see: quantum quackery for details. conversely you could approach the topic of picking your belly button fluff scientifically. for instance at what rate can you pick said belly button fluff? how does belly button density effect said rate? etc, etc. therefore asking the a question with the criteria that it's meant to be approached and conveyed scientifically aka "scientifically speaking" is science by definition. qed.

[Anonymous No.12063857]

Cool, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.12063874]

>>12063857

[SAGED No.12064194]

>>12063874

"Science" is nothing more then very basic statistics.

Its just a verification step. Creativity however...

[Anonymous No.12064198]

>>12063820
Many topics cannot be approached scientifically by their very nature.

[Anonymous No.12064347]

>>12064198
name one

[Anonymous No.12064358]

>>12063820
I don't understand why you are trying to downplay the role of science, if you really want to attack neckbeards just say that science is uncertain and thus unreliable to explain the origin of creation.

[Anonymous No.12064367]

>>12064358
>trying to downplay the role of science
where did you get this impression?

[Anonymous No.12064371]

>>12064367
In OP's post.

[Anonymous No.12064376]

>>12064371
how does the post downplay the role of science? it's just talking about applicability and saying you can try to apply the method to anything.

[Anonymous No.12064397]

>>12064376
OP's usage of a frog punching the screen implies that he is here to attack, or downplay the role of science as "it can be anything dude haha" which is found in the first sentence, furthermore
>topics in physics for instance could be approached in an unscientific way, see: quantum quackery for details.
quantum physics isn't "unscientific".

[Anonymous No.12064400]

>>12063820
>science is a method
no it's not.

[Anonymous No.12064405]

>>12063820
Science only deals with describing the universe. Purely abstract things like mathematics aren't scientific because they aren't part of the universe, even if things behave mathematically.

[Anonymous No.12064406]

>>12064347
psychology
computer science
engineering
history
sociology
economics
law
medicine
linguistics
anthropology
political science
philosophy
art

By their very nature none of these are compatible with science. Science is the study of the natural world through the construction of mathematically consistent quantitative models which yield high accuracy predictions about the nature of the natural world as verified through careful and methodical experimentation with the data from said experiments subjected to statistical analysis and further interpreted with regard to the existing body of theory and empirical observations. The only sciences that really exist are physics, biology, and chemistry as these cover the sum total of natural phenomena.

[Anonymous No.12064411]

>>12064397
>OP's usage of a frog punching the screen implies that he is here to attack
yes but not science.
>"it can be anything dude haha"
well no, it's specifically a robust method that can be applied to anything.
>quantum physics isn't "unscientific".
quantum quackery is not the science quantum physics, it's deepak chopra shit but the topic is quantum physics .

[Anonymous No.12064422]

>>12064406
>consistent quantitative models which yield high accuracy predictions
heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't science then.
>biology
>yield high accuracy predictions

[Anonymous No.12064434]

>>12064347
the world of imagination

[Anonymous No.12064439]

>>12064434
those thoughts are tied to neurological function. you can study why and how those thought manifest scientifically.

[Anonymous No.12064444]

>>12064422
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is precisely the kind of theory that comes from rigorous quantitative modeling and experimentation. It is in every scientific if not one of the crowning achievements of science given how counterintuitive it should be for someone who fails to follow the kind of procedure I outlined in the previous post.
>biology
Yes, genetics, physiology, and molecular biology make use of rigorous quantitative models that yield high accuracy predictions as verified through careful experimentation. If you don't know quantitative genetics, anything about molecular dynamics, or the history of physiology or have a competing result with the main theory behind physiological science you are free to put it forth here or send your findings to a peer-reviewed journal. Appealing to ignorance and parrotting the words of people who have never set foot in a research lab or read any published research from journals like Cell or PLOS ONE isn't an argument. The current model of heart function is correct, rigorous, verified by empirical observation and can be modeled quite well using physical and mathematical techniques. If you're curious here is an interesting attempt at using differential geometry to model the heart.

https://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/peskin/heartnotes/index.html

[Anonymous No.12064452]

>>12064444
nice quads
>Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is precisely the kind of theory that comes from rigorous quantitative modeling and experimentation.
but it explicitly shows you can't make accurate predictions. it's no different than the uncertainty that can be applied to modelling the things you don't call science.
>>Yes, genetics, physiology, and molecular biology make use of rigorous quantitative models that yield high accuracy predictions as verified through careful experimentation.
>p<0.05
>high accuracy predictions

[Anonymous No.12064453]

>>12064406
you dumb as a rock nigga

it is not that we cannot apply science to those fields... in reality is we don't have developed enough science to study them yet.

also
>computer science
>By their very nature none of these are compatible with science
dumb nigga

[Anonymous No.12064461]

>>12064400
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.12064472]

>>12064452
>p<0.05
>high accuracy predictions
You don't know what you're talking about, the same standards for statistical significance are not used in all fields of biology and the models are not the same in terms of rigor. Our understanding of polygenic traits is not as good as our understanding of single gene disorders or of things like cardiovascular function from a physiological perspective. For the latter two we have as good as near certainty as to generally why things are happening from a mechanistic perspective. The fuzziness shows up when nonlinearity and where difficult questions that are more for statistical physicists need to be asked. See for instance protein conformational states, these are almost impossible to understand without more computing power and statistical mechanics, this is where computational and biophysical theory becomes essential. For behavioral biology, you slowly chip away at the descriptive model replacing it with things like game theory and statistical physics modeling. It's a long and tedious process, that is very similar to the transformation that chemistry underwent prior to the advent of quantum theory.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be verified easily with experimentation, it can be modeled effectively with rigorous mathematics. It is a theory about nature, and it makes testable predictions, it therefore qualifies as science. Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most accurate and testable physical theory we have ever conceived of.
>>12064453
If you mean replace those fields with actual science. Economics with ecology and statistical physics, psychology with neuroscience and chemistry, history with evolutionary biology, then sure you can call them science in the future. Not at present.

If by computer science you mean the physics of computational machinery, the physics of computation, the materials science of computer engineering then sure that is without a doubt science. If you mean the theory, then no.

[Anonymous No.12064481]

>>12064411
>yes but not science.
I agree, he is here to attack, or downplay the role of science.
>well no, it's specifically a robust method that can be applied to anything.
Nice commentary, I suppose.
>quantum quackery is not the science quantum physics, it's deepak chopra shit but the topic is quantum physics .
He was referring to quantum physics instead.

[Anonymous No.12064489]

>>12064472
>history with evolutionary biology
Evolutionary biology is not the physicalist reduction of history.

[Anonymous No.12064518]

>>12064472
>If by computer science you mean the physics of computational machinery, the physics of computation, the materials science of computer engineering then sure that is without a doubt science. If you mean the theory, then no.
What a laughably reductive assessment of the science involved in computer science.
I bet you think CS is limited to the teaching of Java to code monkeys.
Your definition of science is equally laughable.
Science is the acquisition and understanding of knowledge, any knowledge. Facts about Math. Facts about the physical laws of the universe. Facts about human psychology. Facts about History. All facts, and not just those you have a preference for.

[Anonymous No.12064522]

>>12064489
No, that would be physics. But, the level of complexity of such a theory is so far beyond what we can expect in our near developmental horizon that it's not worth mentioning. At least in light of evolutionary biology you can explain many migratory events and differential rates of civilizational development. Everything in the end ought to reduce to physics including biology and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.12064537]

>>12064522
The study of history as a field of science in it's own right is has no reduction. Looking at an ancient people, their garbs, traditions, battles that were fought and who died, political events, etc. is not something that needs to be reduced to the fucking evolution of the wavefunction of the particles that constituted the earth at that point in time (nor could it be, this is literally not possible to do regardless of the level of technological sophistication we will ever get to) and evolutionary biology is not even equipped to be capable of answering and learning about these things in principle. There is nothing about the biology of humans that can be used to understand a specific cultures traditions, this can not be reduced to biological laws in principle nor can it be understood as a physical process as that would be impossible (we will literally never be capable of unraveling the exact position of particles and such of an ancient civilization).
History is already the reduction of itself and is already a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. No, science is not solely physics.

[Anonymous No.12064538]

>>12064472
the point is that you talk about predictive accuracy. biology doesn't do such a good job of that. and heinseberg's uncertainty principle while true explicitly makes accurate predictions impossible. meanwhile cs is largely deterministic so all predictions made on code functionality of these deterministic functions will be accurate if done right. hell even random number generation is pseudo-random. this is where you're failing with your definition.

[Anonymous No.12064545]

>>12064481
>I agree, he is here to attack, or downplay the role of science.
nope. nowhere does he say science isn't the greatest method in human history. nowhere. if you want to look at someone downplaying the role of science look at this faggot who doesn't understand how it can be applied to the topics he doesn't like here: >>12064406
>He was referring to quantum physics instead.
quantum quackery is a specific term.

[Anonymous No.12064550]

>>12064518
this, but a specific set of methodologies to acquire said knowledge. the best one we have.

[Anonymous No.12064619]

>>12064545
>nope. nowhere does he say science isn't the greatest method in human history. nowhere.
But he doesn't affirm that either.
>quantum quackery is a specific term.
>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=quantum+quackery
Lurk moar.

[Anonymous No.12064631]

>>12064619
i am now. i was samefagging this entire time. ;p

[Anonymous No.12064635]

>>12063820
apply the scientific method to the lolocaust.
FREEZE
right there, all those thoughts, that is mental conditioning you have had forced into your brain for your entire life. they are all based on lies. discard everything you know and start from scratch.

All of the european people lost ww2 the winners wrote history afterwards and own 99% of all media. Media that you use, or used to use to create your worldview for things you haven't seen for yourself.

[Anonymous No.12064638]

>>12064518
>Facts about human psychology
psych isn't science it's a con game

[Anonymous No.12064680]

>>12064538
>CS is largely deterministic
so is Ptolemaic physics.

CS isn’t a theory about the natural world. The physical processes that allow one to say they’ve run a program are well described by physics and chemistry, CS has nothing to add to those models because it isn’t a scientific theory it’s a formal framework for manipulating computers. You could design better computer architecture without ever really talking about the theory of computation, they are not bound to one another the way that chemical synthesis and physical chemistry are.

The definition hinges on the fact that firstly the field has to study natural/physical phenomena, this is to deal with the assertion that mathematics is science. Second it should conduct investigations into natural phenomena via constructing consistent mathematical models that lend themselves to empirical observations which confirm the theory. Third it should have the ability to predict phenomena that would not otherwise be possible to intuit through pure description, guess-work, rules of thumb or random chance. This is one of the areas where quantum mechanics outperforms newtonian mechanics.
>it makes accurate predictions impossible
No it makes a very specific kind of prediction impossible which can be predicted and tested rigorously. One cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle, that does not mean that the theory lacks predictive power. We can easily confirm this with simple laboratory experiments and it has been confirmed many thousands of times by undergrads and graduate students even. Quantum mechanics does not seem relevant to mesoscopic and macroscopic phenomena, and as far as we know the rest of nature is deterministic. Predictive power does not necessitate determinism. We use statistical analysis, mathematical statistics being born from probability theory, to ascertain the significance of our findings and this implies we accept uncertainty. No certainty is necessary in science.

[Anonymous No.12064695]

>>12064538
Again, if you have a problem with the current understanding of something like kidney function or the biochemical model of glycolysis or the nature of the fundamental dogma of molecular biology that is mechanistic, testable and provides a better explanation of these things please bring it forth here or submit your ideas to a journal you will win the Nobel prize if you can do this I guarantee it.

Computations run on standard computer hardware are “deterministic” because the machinations of the hardware are well understood from the perspective of electrodynamics, solid state physics, and engineering. We know that the computer will perform x operation in the abstract sense because the machine physically is designed to operate as such. You can undertake a study of these objects from the view of physics without regard for the software at all and you would still find the same level of accuracy with perhaps more insight into what kinds of computations are physically possible or optimal. You cannot do this for many biological structures because they reduce to nonlinear dynamical systems which begin to encroach theoretically into the territory of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, this is a very young and extremely difficult field which we may never make great headway in. Predicting exactly how a transcription factor is recruited and assembled along a DNA molecule is something that is as hard as predicting the movement of every dust particle in your room, N-body problems which are absurdly intractable.

[Anonymous No.12064704]

>>12064680
>You could design better computer architecture without ever really talking about the theory of computation
Ah yes, the way computations are conducted have nothing to do with the properties of said computations.
Just how low is your fucking IQ?
How are you even able to hit keys on your keyboard?

[SAGED No.12064734]

>>12064680
Retard tier, CS is more pure mathematically then "mathematics"

Base 2 +logic gates, = ???

i.e Xor is addition in base 2, no esoteric sleeve pulled/circular axioms nessecary.

You havent even begun to understand the deep implications CS has

[SAGED No.12064745]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNnaEyWxsEI

[Anonymous No.12064814]

>>12064704
You don't really need to know anything about the theoretical model of computation to design better computer hardware, it gives direction and goals to attain to but isn't necessary. The actual process requires better materials science and engineering techniques. Which is separate from the theory of computation.
>>12064734
I don't have anything to say about the mathematical-CS divide. It's not relevant to the topic.

[SAGED No.12064827]

>>12064814
You can build a computer out of fuckin water canals or grains of sand, you do know that right?

Cant built a computer without theoretical CS

[Anonymous No.12064857]

>>12064827
yes you can lol what do you think ancient analog antikythera mechanism is? you don't need TCS to make hardware advances. you need it to develop more sophisticated algorithms and operating systems. the physical underpinnings of computation don't rely on TCS to exist or to be understood. It would just be awkward as you wouldn't have well defined goals in mind. The argument doesn't hinge on any of this though, the TCS itself isn't science its something adjacent to mathematics.

[Anonymous No.12064864]

>>12064814
>it gives direction and goals to attain to but isn't necessary.
Hilarious. Apparently you don't need directions and goals to design computer hardware.

Indeed, why bother with defining clear goals when you can just shit on the floor, smear it around with your bare face, and eventually design an x86.

It's clearly time for you to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.12064885]

>>12064864
You can design any machine you want without understanding the underlying theory that motivates it's existence. This isn't controversial among engineers and shouldn't be controversial for computing. That isn't the fucking point, you don't seem to be capable of proper reading comprehension so I reiterate: TCS is not capable of saying anything physically meaningful about computer hardware, only physics and materials science which is a combination of physics and chemistry can say meaningful things about computers. They are one of many interesting systems studied in these disciplines. TCS has absolutely nothing to say about physical systems, it provides models for thinking about how to manipulate a very small class of physical systems but doesn't elucidate how they actually operate in the real world. The definition of science is a field that studies physical phenomena and describes accurately how they operate in the real world in the most general sense possible. Therefore, CS is not and can never be a physical or natural science. CSE is a step closer to the physical theory of computation but ultimately one only requires the aforementioned sciences to say anything meaningful in the scientific sense about them. You can design more effective biological systems without knowing really anything at all about biology, it would be very hard, and unmotivated but it's entirely possible. You can also design better combustion engines without understanding very well thermodynamics but that would again at some point become difficult or unmotivated.

[Anonymous No.12064915]

>>12064885
>You can design more effective biological systems without knowing really anything at all about biology
>You can also design better combustion engines without understanding very well thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.12064920]

>>12064885

[Anonymous No.12064948]

>>12064680
>CS isn’t a theory about the natural world.
you seem to be conflating natural sciences with science. yes algorithms are abstractions but they can be studied scientifically. pic related, what is science.

>No it makes a very specific kind of prediction impossible
that's the point, i didn't mean to say it invalidates all of physics. just that we can't know the spin and position. i only bought this up because you mentioned accuracy. here is a place where physics makes accuracy impossible. this you have a failing definition.

>if you have a problem with the current understanding of something like kidney function or the biochemical model of glycolysis or the nature of the fundamental dogma of molecular biology
do accurate protein binding and folding. accurately model what a gene will result in a trait that isn't simple mendelian. there is a lot of fuzzy stuff in bio which are mostly correlative but predictive. just like in economics, psychology, etc.

>Computations run on standard computer hardware are “deterministic” because the machinations of the hardware are well understood from the perspective of electrodynamics, solid state physics, and engineering.
well yes but not only because of the hardware, they are deterministic abstractly as well.

[Anonymous No.12064949]

>>12064695
>>12064948

[Anonymous No.12064951]

>>12064885
>Therefore, CS is not and can never be a physical or natural science.
well yes, but it can be a science and is.

[Anonymous No.12064956]

>>12064915
Sure, you could engineer better organelles without fully understanding the chemistry and physics of organelles. Soft matter physics could leap ahead of bio physics and you might see synthetic biological machines perfectly capable of carrying out metabolic processes without a comprehensive biological theory of metabolism. That is more likely than the converse occurring. Combustion engines were well developed over a century before Carnot and later Gibbs, Boltzman and Helmholtz came around lol. I don't know how you could be so ignorant of basic historical developments in science. We had basic pharmacotherapy before there was any understanding at all of cellular biology and we we were able to undertake plant and animal breeding without knowing what genes were. Being able to manipulate a system to do something you want is not knowledge of the system it's knowledge of the efficient process.

[Anonymous No.12064967]

>>12064948
If we use the extended definition then we have to admit that philosophy, art history, philology, psychology, linguistics, economics, engineering, mathematics and logic are all sciences. This is no longer a useful definition, as now we're just discussing formalized disciplines with highly technical procedures for studying various abstract structures. Even theology could under these criteria be considered a science which is to say the least a little disconcerting.
>you mention accuracy
Accuracy issuing from quantitatively grounded, logically and mathematically consistent physical theory. The link between these things is interdependent, the definition is designed to be compact and exclusive of the "exact sciences" as people used to call Logic, Geometry, Algebra.
>do accurate protein binding and folding. accurately model what a gene will result in a trait that isn't simple mendelian
You're repeating what I said back at me. There is already an accurate theory for the mechanism that leads to basic congenital diseases that describes the unfolding of the physical process from gene to polypeptide chain to tissue structure to gross phenotype. That is physical theory manifest and is perfectly accurate for the sake of describing the system. If you want to know the fine details of it then of course you need statistical physics and heavy duty computation but that is literally true of solid state physics and HEP and every fucking scientific field in existence. It's just more frequently a problem in biology because of the funny nonlinear active matter systems and all of that, you understand?
>mostly correlative but predictive like economics and psychology
Economics and psychology don't study real structures and don't have foundational theory, most economics and psychology papers of foundational import do not replicate, and do not have a coherent description to offer of physical systems. The Hodgkin-Huxley model replicates and is coherent.

[Anonymous No.12064969]

The scientific method is not fallible
scientists are

[Anonymous No.12064970]

>>12064948
>they're deterministic abstractly
yes so is Ptolemaic physics, and so is classical economics, and so is Calvinist theology lmao. That doesn't make it a more accurate model of the world than Quantum Mechanics. Why would you think that? Literally any mathematical model is deterministic and absolutely true by its own standards of truth, that doesn't make them descriptions of reality and doesn't allow them to supercede physics. They can literally never say anything about a system as simple as a fucking pendulum.

[Anonymous No.12065640]

/sci/ is literally full of retards.
Here are some things science literally can not answer in principle:
What does pain feel like for the subject experiencing it?
How should society operate?
Any normative statement.
Science is not the be all end all of knowledge nor is it "the greatest method humanity has created" or whatever the fuck you pseudo intellectual morons are claiming. It's one method of many. And it's a good one.
But it is NOT the sole arbiter of knowledge.

[SAGED No.12065867]

>>12064857
DNA says otherwise, the block based on all organic life is a base4 error correcting code.

if ypu fling enough rocks you dont need theoretical physics either, by extension you dont NEED to formalize anything.

but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Weve reached peak autism

[Anonymous No.12066581]

>>12064967
>If we use the extended definition then we have to admit that philosophy, art history, philology, psychology, linguistics, economics, engineering, mathematics and logic are all sciences.
not quite, just that science can be applied to their domains. i'm not saying art is science but you can use predictive models in art. for instance how to elicit emotions from color and form. or building ans training a gan to do art.
>This is no longer a useful definition
well sure if we say that anywhere where science can be applied is therefore science you'd have a point but that's not what i'm saying. rather i'm saying applying the scientific method is what science is.
>Accuracy issuing from quantitatively grounded, logically and mathematically consistent physical theory.
right, how well the model predicts outcomes. that's the thing heisenberg's principle is 100% accurate in that you can't determine exactly both momentum and position. but that's the point i was getting at, uncertainties will arise in models in physics included. so to dismiss models which likewise take into account and clearly state their uncertainties and predict these outcomes meet your criteria for being scientific despite not being from topics you don't consider science.
> There is already an accurate theory for the mechanism that leads to basic congenital diseases that describes the unfolding of the physical process from gene to polypeptide chain to tissue structure to gross phenotype.
yeah the central dogma, but the point i was getting at is that many genes have a complex pleiotropic, polygenic, epigenetic or whatever effect on trait outcome that is merely correlative with a lot of uncertainty.
>That is physical theory manifest and is perfectly accurate for the sake of describing the system.
you do know the central dogma is an incomplete pic, right? it doesn't account for epigenetics for instance. it describes the central mechanism but it is an oversimplification.

[Anonymous No.12066588]

>>12064967
cont
>If you want to know the fine details of it then of course you need statistical physics and heavy duty computation but that is literally true of solid state physics and HEP and every fucking scientific field in existence. It's just more frequently a problem in biology because of the funny nonlinear active matter systems and all of that, you understand?
that's what i was trying to get at.
>Economics and psychology don't study real structures and don't have foundational theory, most economics and psychology papers of foundational import do not replicate, and do not have a coherent description to offer of physical systems.
they are trying. economics is really just an extension of sociobiology and ecology at its core. how organisms interact with each other and resources. that's what economics is trying to model. psychology is trying to model complex brain process outcomes. sometimes it treats the brain as a blackbox but more frequently includes neurology to try and describe what and why you think and feel what you do.

[Anonymous No.12066615]

>>12065640
>What does pain feel like for the subject experiencing it?
subjective experience is a limitation because we still a haven't found a way to convey that adequately. but maybe that will change with bcis. in any event we can peer into subjective experience from an external stand point a bit. see how the brain fires up to stimuli and compare it.
>How should society operate?
this question requires scientific input. if you want a certain outcome you need accurate modelling to insure the decisions you make will result in it.
>Any normative statement.
ok yeah is ought. science doesn't apply to ought. it's unfalsifiable, that is the limit of scientific inquiry. science cannot be applied to unfalsifiable claims. i'll give you this. but science can determine if what one thinks is ought to be can actually be and how to do it.
>Science is not the be all end all of knowledge nor is it "the greatest method humanity has created" or whatever the fuck you pseudo intellectual morons are claiming. It's one method of many. And it's a good one.
the best one.

[Anonymous No.12066620]

>>12066581
Yes and then it’s no longer a useful definition since you’ve replaced a kind of view of the world with a formalized technique. This is not what distinguishes science from other kinds of knowledge like theology and mathematics.
> so to dismiss models which likewise take into account and clearly state their uncertainties and predict these outcomes meet your criteria for being scientific despite not being from topics you don't consider science
That doesn’t follow. If the criteria for science were mere predictive power then only some aspects of physics would be science and nearly all of chemistry and most of biology wouldn’t be science. It would also still exclude most of the fields I stated can’t be science. There isn’t an all or nothing certainty or uncertainty of a system’s state in any field ever. I said they were interdependent conditions, all of them must be true to a sufficient degree. You’re ignoring this.
>many aspects of genetics are not Mendelian
These can also be predicted with absurdly high accuracy by molecular biological analysis. Again, just because you specifically don’t understand how molecular genetics is done or what we know about genotypes causing phenotypes doesn’t mean we have no predictive power or mechanistic model. Pleiotropy can literally be as simple as one protein scavenges resources at the expense of another group of proteins and modulates their expression, this is very easy to predict and observe. It’s difficult to model at high accuracy because anabolic pathways are usually only representable as nonlinear dynamical systems with tons of noise. This also exists in statistical physics which no disputes as science and in reaction kinetics which no one disputes as science.
>the central dogma is incomplete
It is incomplete in the same sense that relativistic quantum mechanics and GR are incomplete, for most purposes it is entirely sufficient. For some interesting phenomena it does not hold.

[Anonymous No.12066629]

>>12066588
You CAN’T model those things with economics or psychology because their fundamental assumptions are not amenable to the way physical systems work. The “economy” IS a nonequilibrium system that IS the sum total of energy flows and stoichiometric flows of the human biome. It is not what they describe it as and can never be defined in terms of pricing or supply-demand models. Psychology is a theort of mind and behavior, mind is the brain and nothing else, behavior is literally the states and movements of an organism which reduces to physiology and genetics. They are superfluous and seek to analyze the world in terms of constructs that CAN NEVER be real. Similarly information and computation are constructs that can never be real except in the trivial case where everything is information and computation. These are not sciences, reread the definition that I offered you ignore the most important point: it must study the natural world in the simplest sense and use quantitative models AND empirical data to confirm itself.

[Anonymous No.12066838]

>>12066620
>Yes and then it’s no longer a useful definition since you’ve replaced a kind of view of the world with a formalized technique.
which is what science is. you're putting the carrot before the stick here. science is a specific methodology that produces this view.
>If the criteria for science were mere predictive power then only some aspects of physics would be science and nearly all of chemistry and most of biology wouldn’t be science.
if we take your definition to their logical conclusion which is my point to why your definition doesn't work.
>It would also still exclude most of the fields I stated can’t be science.
yes in your attempt to exclude the application of science in those domains you excluded the topics you listed as science.
>There isn’t an all or nothing certainty or uncertainty of a system’s state in any field ever. I said they were interdependent conditions,
exactly and why your definition which makes claims about accuracy don' work.
>These can also be predicted with absurdly high accuracy by molecular biological analysis.
can but often aren't. yeah some of the correlations are very high and the mechanisms are being pinned down but a lot of it is still fuzzy with a great deal of uncertainty.
>Again, just because you specifically don’t understand how molecular genetics is done
oy
>this is very easy to predict and observe
no, it can be for some traits but many traits it's difficult. we're getting better at it but to say it's simple is patently wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4040440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104202/
>It’s difficult to model at high accuracy because anabolic pathways are usually only representable as nonlinear dynamical systems with tons of noise.
so once again your high accuracy criteria isn't met. but i wouldn't say this isn't science as i don't ascribe to your definition.

[Anonymous No.12066851]

>>12066620
cont
>It is incomplete in the same sense that relativistic quantum mechanics and GR are incomplete, for most purposes it is entirely sufficient.
ofc it's kinda the newtonian mechanics of biology if you will.
>>12066629
>The “economy” IS a nonequilibrium system that IS the sum total of energy flows and stoichiometric flows of the human biome.
i like this description.
>It is not what they describe it as and can never be defined in terms of pricing or supply-demand models.
ofc it can. trade is a kind of reciprocal altruism. it comes from the demand of the human organisms which are a behavioral result of neurology. economics builds on top of sociobiology like epigenetcs build on top of genetics. the only issue is economists who deny this and haven't Incorporated this thinking into their models. but what they are trying to modelling is a layer of human sociobiology.
>Psychology is a theort of mind and behavior, mind is the brain and nothing else,
mind is the processes of the brain, not the brain itself. they are inextricably tied but not the same thing.like an ann is the brain but its runtime is its mind if you will.
> They are superfluous and seek to analyze the world in terms of constructs that CAN NEVER be real.
what was that about hodgkins huxley model? the mind is what you get when all those aps are firing of in a complex network structure. that is very real.
>Similarly information and computation are constructs that can never be real except in the trivial case where everything is information and computation.
information is just a collection of signals. it's both real and abstract.
>reread the definition that I offered you
that's what we're disputing, fren. i courteously reject your definition. like i get where you're coming from but i don't see why this method is limited to the natural world. the only thing science is limited to is falsifiability. we can experiment on abstraction, computation has demonstrated that.