/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1358585]

If science is true, why is it changing?

[Anonymous No.1358589]

Science is all about bettering itself.

[Anonymous No.1358591]

Science doesn't "prove" things. They merely discover and create evidence that supports the hypothesis, often times these lead to the only source and therefore is considered true

[Anonymous No.1358602]

>>1358591
>>1358589

[Anonymous No.1358608]

because fuck you, op

seriously, though. if you want to get into philosophy, you must know that even as a scientist (lol@chemistry), there is no way of discerning what is 'true' beyond the statement of 'i experience', or further permutations of this statement.

science is just a way of possibly approximating the way the universe works.

[Anonymous No.1358609]

>>1358585
Why do you always post the same, or similar, pictures along with a retarded question all day long on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.1358614]

>>1358609
it thinks it's an artist

[sage No.1358773]

it was true that the sun revolved around the earth because that's what it looked like
it was then true that the earth revolved around the sun because this theory provided more accurate predictions
it was then true that the earth, sun, and other planets revolve around an axis that happens to be near the center of the sun, this provided even more accurate predictions.

now replace 'true' with 'commonly held' because we have no way no 'know Truth'. it's all about making more accurate predictions.
fuck your magical thinking

[Anonymous No.1359129]

Science takes our observations and combines them into fancy constructs called "theories".

None of this implies that reality is actually being described.

Science really is a lie, though scientists are loathe to admit it.

[Anonymous No.1359152]

>>1358773

>it's all about making more accurate predictions
Why is this good?

[Anonymous No.1359150]

Heavy Rain was a good game.

[Anonymous No.1359149]

>>1358591
>Science.... create[s] evidence that supports the hypothesis.

mind = blown

[Anonymous No.1359153]

Not really changing, more like build on previous ground work.
But occasional there will be a paradigm shift and change how we look at the world, but rarer and rarer as time passes.

[Anonymous No.1359157]

>>1359149
Problem?

[Anonymous No.1359158]

>>1359153

>more like build on previous ground work
How do we know the "ground work" is true?

[Anonymous No.1359167]

>>1359158
Observation... what all science is based on. We observe things, record what happened, and attempt to draw conclusions. We never really claim to have "figured it out" because, well, we haven't.
Also, this thread needs to die.

[Anonymous No.1359178]

>>1359167

>Observation
What about optical illusions bro?

[Anonymous No.1359181]

>>1359178
Now you're just trollin'

[Anonymous No.1359186]

>>1359181

He claims appearances convey truth.
I counter with the claim that appearances can be deceiving.

How am I trolling?

[Anonymous No.1359189]

It isn't true; it's an ever-improving approximation to the truth.

[Anonymous No.1359196]

>>1359189

How do we know there is such a thing as "the truth"?
Why can't the universe be ultimately unexplainable?

[Anonymous No.1359203]

>>1359186
How were you confirming your claim?

[Anonymous No.1359208]

>>1359196
I don't think "ultimately unexplainable" is the same as "no truth." I think there are some principles that govern the universe which have no deeper explanation; they just are. But they're still truth. Even if the universe had no order or organizing principles, there would still be such a thing as truth; it would just be a very complicated truth with no relations between the truths.

[Anonymous No.1359213]

>>1359203

I'm not.
The "truth" behind an optical illusion might also be illusory.

[Anonymous No.1359215]

>>1359208
Everything that ever happened is inprinted on the outside of the universre.

There is -alwaya- a source to check.

[Anonymous No.1359222]

>>1359178
>Implying I meant strictly visual observation.
Yes, there are optical illusions, but if you're skeptical about everything your senses tell you then how would you be able to trust anything ever. We could all live in a marble like in Men In Black, it could all just be magnets and rainbows, etc. We go based on what we observe because we really don't have anything else to go on.

[Anonymous No.1359224]

>>1359208
If religion is true, why does it demand the same from everything?

There is -alwaya- a source to check.

[Anonymous No.1359232]

>>1359222

>but if you're skeptical about everything your senses tell you then how would you be able to trust anything ever
You could trust in non-sensible things. Divine revelation for example.

[Anonymous No.1359236]

>>1359222

>We go based on what we observe because we really don't have anything else to go on.

You forgot about metaphysics my friend.

[Anonymous No.1359240]

>>1359232
Trolling, and busted.

-1/10

[Anonymous No.1359241]

>>1359186
This is why we make lots of observations, and use lots of different observational tools, when we find we've been chasing an optical illusion, we have to adjust our stance on what we thought we know, woah, I answered OP's question, too.

[Anonymous No.1359254]

>>1359186
Oh, and I NEVER said anything about truth. We don't claim what we see is "true," just that... ya know what, fuck this thread.

[Anonymous No.1359260]

>>1359232
So, there was this batshit-insane exorcist in the vatican, and the Pope said, "Let him do what he wants, as long as he doesn't hurt anything.", is that a good example of something we can trust?

[Anonymous No.1359265]

>>1359260

>batshit-insane exorcist

I don't follow.....

[Anonymous No.1359278]

>>1358585

so who's that in the pic?

[Anonymous No.1359305]

Science never changes. Our understanding of it does.

[Anonymous No.1359578]

Science... science never changes.