/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14560086]

>correlation does not mean causation
Has a more midwit phrase ever been uttered?

[Anonymous No.14560094]

>>14560086
someone ITT has dumb unjustified ideas which aren't proven by causation and has used them to construct his personality and worldview I see

[Anonymous No.14560096]

>>14560086
z = f(t)
y = g(t)
It is not a general truth that a mapping exists between z and y
It is a natural law that stems from very basic logic. Applications in real life seem too far away from the prime mathematical exemple I gave, as it is indeed very simplistic. The aim is not to compare it with real life situations. The aim is to ascertain that difference between correlation and causation is existent in mathematical realm, thus existent in any Form In physical reality.
Things you don't understand or don't deeply think off are not by definition for midwits. Be humble.

[Anonymous No.14560110]

"Biological races don't exist"

[Anonymous No.14560112]

>>14560086
>Has a more midwit phrase ever been uttered?
Yes, there are several and all of them revolve around the pseudo idea that
>you can't know nuffin

[Anonymous No.14560115]

>>14560094
I tried to tell someone that co2 and global temperature anomalies were strongly correlated. He told me correlation does not mean causation.

[Anonymous No.14560242]

In general theres no such thing as cause and effect. Such thinking implies theres only 1 cause with only 1 effect. Reality is more complicated with many factors and we treat these with the concept of correlation. Now, when two things are extremely correlated in a time series you can call that cause and effect, but that's just a layman way of saying "near 100% correlation". For every other case the idea of cause and effect fails to describe reality

[Anonymous No.14560257]

>>14560242
>Such thinking implies theres only 1 cause with only 1 effect
This is true. In reality only one immutable fact governs everything. Either something happens or it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14560550]

>the set of all sets not containing themselves
This has to be the biggest midwit idea of all times. Its creator was a dumb philosotard who actually tricked people into believing that this crappy word game would would challenge the foundations of set theory. Actually it is only a dumb non-definition and doesn't refer to any meaningful set. Set theory itself remains untouched by it.

[Anonymous No.14560564]

>>14560112
>be a certified midwit
>hold strong beliefs
>be unable to prove them
>get called out
>feel helpless
>get PTSD from the experience
>"A-A-AND THEN THEY SAID YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN'!!!"

[Anonymous No.14560572]

>>14560564
>unironically defends "u can't know nuffin"

[Anonymous No.14560595]

>>14560572
I don't even know what your strawman is specifically about, but I can easily tell you got called out on something you couldn't prove and that your impotence still eats away at you.

[bodhi No.14560598]

>>14560086
the people on this board are so fucking stupid I have seen repeated numerous times that correlation doesnt even imply causation. Can you imagine how fucking stupid to say something like that? WTF in the world would imply causation more than a correlation?

The correct saying is "correlation may imply causation but does not prove it"

I swear the people on this board are so stupid it is mind boggling

[Anonymous No.14560606]

>>14560595
Yeah, keep telling that to yourself, buddy, if it makes you feel better

[Anonymous No.14560616]

>>14560606
Doesn't make me feel any way. It just boggles my mind how autists will always go out of their way to show everyone where it hurts.

[Anonymous No.14560617]

>>14560598
>Calls other people stupid
>Uses incorrect definition of "imply"
Midwits like you who misunderstand logic and then go out criticizing others.

[Anonymous No.14560618]

>>14560564
That... is a pretty accurate and brief summary of why they say stupid shit like this actually. Huh. I couldn't have put it better. The sheer frustration of mediocre minds being unable to have the patience or ability to figure out even a mildly reasonable epistemology, but have to justify their icky feelings somehow. Makes perfect sense. +1 to you anon

[Anonymous No.14560642]

>>14560112
>You can’t know nuffin
What does this mean

[bodhi No.14560657]

>>14560617
>imply: strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

you are an idiot and a perfect explae of how fucking stupid the people on this board are dont ever (YOU) me again you fucking donkley

[Anonymous No.14560658]

>>14560110
That one is not midwit, but utterly retarded.
But then I think nationalism is much more accurate than racism. Many white nations don't belong to western europe. And I start to suspect that not all niggers are the same (but even the good nogs have nothing to do in Europe)

[Anonymous No.14560660]

>>14560642
It's the fundamental dogma of philosophy. Philosophy is anti-intellectual and aims to destroy all knowledge. This ranges from epistemology over the so called philosophy of science to the philosophy of gender. A constant mantra of philosotards saying "you cannot define knowledge, science doesn't give you definite knowledge, you cannot even know your own gender". The postmodernist culture war is rooted in philosophy departments.

[Anonymous No.14560662]

>>14560242
Ok hume.

[Anonymous No.14560673]

The problem is you only care about science as a tool to control others. So fuck you?

[Anonymous No.14560680]

>>14560086
ah yes. clearly, it's the ice cream sales and outdoor barbecues leading to inner city violence, and not any other factors.

[Anonymous No.14560683]

>>14560660
based philosophers mogging midwit scientists

[Anonymous No.14560686]

>>14560660
>How to let everyone know you know nothing about epistemology or philosophy.
Boy that was a wild read.

[bodhi No.14560689]

>>14560660
philosophy literally means love of knowledge in greek you retarded ape

[Anonymous No.14560691]

>>14560686
>How to let everyone know you know nothing
Exactly the point that was criticized. Very subtle if you're joking. Very ironic if you're serious.

[Anonymous No.14560694]

>>14560691
I'm not helping you satisfy your narcissism. You're an idiot who thinks he knows things he doesn't. I'm mocking you. It is not "ironic".

[Anonymous No.14560698]

>>14560689
>hurr durr I refer only to etymological meaning of words and ignore how the field is practiced today
Sure thing, kid. And "gay" just means happy, right?

[Anonymous No.14560700]

>>14560689
Hey man that's a low blow the apes didn't deserve :c

[Anonymous No.14560703]

>>14560698
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_philosophy

You mean how the field is increasingly incorporating demonstration of claims with predictive modeling? That thing contrary to what you think you know?

[Anonymous No.14560708]

>>14560694
You weren't supposed to answer to my post. I did not ask for your opinion. But of course you cannot resist the urge to twerk your anti-intellectual ass over the corpse of philosophy, celebrating the death of knowledge, morality and truth which have been murdered by malicious, rabulistic word games.

[bodhi No.14560710]

>>14560698
you are stupid stop posting

[Anonymous No.14560711]

>>14560689
chan literally means produce in Chinese. Yet every board on 4chan is just reposts of the same 14ish threads with the same predictable replies.

[bodhi No.14560713]

>>14560711
14 is a plethora of options

[Anonymous No.14560714]

>>14560710
>look every1 I'm projecting

[Anonymous No.14560715]

>>14560713
Thanks for using the word plethora. It means a lot to me.

[Anonymous No.14560719]

>>14560660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
This is also philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Applied evidentialism to resolve the problem of criterion (author is a hostile witness but oh well) https://iep.utm.edu/problem-of-the-criterion/#SSH3aiii

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
>>14560708
Aww I know it burns your poor narcissism that people explain how stupid you are, and don't do what you want them to. I'm not your therapist nor your mother. Fuck you, get back to me when you do some basic fucking reading.

[bodhi No.14560720]

>>14560714
>no you

[Anonymous No.14560722]

>>14560703
>experimental philosophy
So philosotards admit the superiority of science and desperately try to copy the scientific method in order to appear more credible? LMAO

[Anonymous No.14560727]

>>14560708
>You weren't supposed to answer to my post
BAWWWWWWWW

[Anonymous No.14560729]

>>14560727
>literally a furry
That explains a lot.

[Anonymous No.14560730]

>>14560722
Science is philosophy. You're a retard. Just the opposite kind of retard who thinks philosophy without demonstration is still philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14560732]

>>14560729
BAHAHAHAHA oh my fucking god lurk more you fucking newfag how the fuck do you not know what that meme is

[Anonymous No.14560737]

>>14560719
You unironically think you're smart for posting trivial Wikipedia links, don't you? All the concepts there are either redundant/trivial/obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking or unnecessary/unwarranted pseudointellectual subjective opinions. In both cases they are worthless, just like the entire field of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14560741]

>>14560732
>every snippet of some shitty webcomic used as reaction image constitutes a meme now
Zoomer detected

[Anonymous No.14560745]

>>14560730
Science does not need philosophy. The scientific method works irregardless of whether some armchair pseuds fail to describe it.

[Anonymous No.14560746]

>>14560737
>You unironically think you're smart for posting trivial Wikipedia links, don't you
No, I think you're that stupid.
>>14560741
>>14560745

Further case in point.

[Anonymous No.14560753]

>>14560703
>Other experimental philosophers have noted that experimental philosophy often fails to meet basic standards of experimental social science. A great deal of the experiments fail to include enough female participants. Analysis of experimental data is often plagued by improper use of statistics, and reliance on data mining. Others have pointed out that many participants in experimental philosophy studies fail to comprehend the often abstract and complicated materials, and few studies report comprehension checks.[60] Holtzman argues that a number of experimental philosophers are guilty of suppressing evidence...

>...Some research in experimental philosophy is misleading because it examines averaged responses to surveys even though in almost all of the studies in experimental philosophy there have been substantial dissenting minorities. ...

>...A large amount of research also focused on epistemology as Stephen Stich argued early on that findings reported by him and co-authors suggested that long practiced methods in philosophy had to be discarded, famously noting that in light of their findings a "reasonable conclusion is that philosophy's 2400 year long infatuation with Plato's method has been a terrible mistake."...

>...At least one recent study, in which a team attempted to replicate various influential studies in experimental philosophy studies, found that roughly 70%...

[Anonymous No.14560756]

>>14560745
>The scientific method works irregardless of whether some armchair pseuds fail to describe it.
That's what we're saying, that philosophy and its methods is a hard requirement for science. Good that we agree.

[Anonymous No.14560759]

>>14560753
....And? Metascience and natural philosophers have been doing this for a while now. You're going to find things like that in every field if you pick journals bad enough. Your complete ignorance of science is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.14560763]

>>14560756
Minor quibble, I think primarily it is epistemology as a subset of philosophy that is the hard requirement. Although maybe that is a distinction without much difference. eeeeh

[Anonymous No.14560765]

>>14560759
Philosophy is a joke even when it tries to pretend it's a social science.

[Anonymous No.14560770]

>>14560765
>A large amount of research also focused on epistemology as Stephen Stich argued early on that findings reported by him and co-authors suggested that long practiced methods in philosophy had to be discarded, famously noting that in light of their findings a "reasonable conclusion is that philosophy's 2400 year long infatuation with Plato's method has been a terrible mistake."...
So you are upset that people, when taking to experiment, admit they're wrong? Wasn't that the very thing you are proposing with your "I fucking love science" level of understanding? You're either larping as a reddit peon or you are one.

[Anonymous No.14560771]

>>14560756
>ad nauseam
Apparently philosophy has never taught you to produce a convincing argument.

>>14560763
Name one non-trivial insight you gained from studying epistemology.

[Anonymous No.14560779]

>>14560771
>Apparently philosophy has never taught you to produce a convincing argument.
I am not even that guy you have been midwitting with. I was just expressing I am glad that we agree that science exists irregardless of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14560781]

>>14560771
>Name one non-trivial insight you gained from studying epistemology.
That the vast majority of people do not understand how science is constrained by the definitions in a given line of inquiry, and where you draw the boundary of what you're looking at defines the outcome. You can easily get things that are absolutely true... for a set of conditions that do not actually correspond to what you think they do. The whole field of statistical analysis is ultimately a game of axioms, and if you don't understand that or how to evaluate concept validity you don't understand anything.

Epistemology is all about construct validity. And all of science, and all of maths used in science, rely on construct validity.

[Anonymous No.14560783]

>>14560770
Nah, that quote was to illustrate how shit philosophy is (and to upset any Plato fans).
2400 years instantly down the toilet because they finally tried to incorporate science? Hahaha ha!

[Anonymous No.14560788]

>>14560756
>philosophy and its methods
Which methods? There is no "philosophical method" analogous to the scientific method. Philosophy is just midwits publishing their unqualified subjective opinions.

[Anonymous No.14560789]

>>14560783
You got an F on your intro to philosophy course didn't ya?

[Anonymous No.14560797]

>>14560781
There exist various kinds of bias in a lot of studies and their underlying models are inaccurate. This is trivial and has nothing to do with epistemology. It ks already addressed in proper scientific methodology. Please try again. I'll repeat the question.

Name one non-trivial insight you gained from studying epistemology.

[Anonymous No.14560802]

>>14560797
Nothing I said had to do with bias. You don't even know what the fuck "construct validity" means, clearly.

[Anonymous No.14560835]

>>14560086
>They're dumb because I can describe them as such.

>>14560115
Holy shit, that must mean rising tempuratures is what causes the CO2 to rise

[Anonymous No.14560836]

>>14560802
It's just pseudointellectual wording for things which are trivial to any scientist capable of critical thinking. And yes, the models behind a study have a lot to do with bias. Rebranding this trivial point ad "construct validity" doesn't introduce anything new.

Moreover, your only replies regarding epistemology were insignificant remarks about science. Epistemology however is not the same as philosophy of science but rather is (ideally) supposed to study knowledge and truth in an abstract and more general setting. At least that's what they claim. Of course they failed epically.

I'll repeat the question. Name one non-trivial insight you gained from studying epistemology.