/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14814611]

what are the limits of science?. can you believe in science seeing it as intrinsically limited?... its everybody just moved by faith?. i just hate this

[Anonymous No.14814624]

>>14814611
That's exactly why you can 'believe' or rather, trust science, because it's limited and it acknowledges its limitation. And when we discover something new, even if it goes against what was previously accepted, scientists will follow the new data and will not cling to their previous understanding.
Science knowledge is constantly evolving in parallel with constantly evolving means of studying reality. So of course it'll be limited, that's what makes science something you can trust.
You are trusting things that have been confirmed through experiments and observations, you are not trusting dogmas here.

There's nothing wrong with holding unscientific beliefs but believing in dogmas or in things you want to be true because it seems right or comfy to you, or because it fuels your conspiracitard mind is obviously not the right thing to do. Choosing to live in delusions or clinging to totally unverifiable beliefs because it feels good isn't a good alternative to science.

[Anonymous No.14814637]

>>14814624
>it acknowledges its limitation.
where it is?. what exactly is the limitation?. you are saying it can be infinitely evolving. (thats not exactly a limitation.)
my question is, there is something science know they cant know?.

[Anonymous No.14814647]

>>14814611
Read pic related

[Anonymous No.14814651]

>>14814624
This is the myth of how science works. We actually know that science works on paradigms. These are influenced by politics within the scientific field and outside. As such science is limited by human group behavior and psychology essentially.

This is why there's no point in treating science as some divine truth.

[Anonymous No.14814828]

>>14814611
The funny thing is that most scientists will appeal to consciousness being some kind of illusion or just the result of deterministic chemical reactions of the brain. And they are also usually empiricists. This means that knowledge comes from only sense data received in consciousness. This means that their conclusions about 'the outside world' are based on an illusion, and their hypothesis and theories and conclusions are also based on illusions and chemical reactions. And a scientific consensus is just a set of illusorily gained information which is resultant of dumb and predetermined processes. There is then no such thing as picking the best explanation from multiple possibilities. 'Picking" implies free will that the choice could have been different. There is no inference in this model. No induction. No reasoning. So non-illusory consciousness and free will are both axiomatic of the scientific method.

[frenanon No.14815718]

>>14814624
That's all well and good, until some fanatical religious zealots hijack ""Science"" and literally turn it into a Crazy Cult that systematically oppresses legitimate, non-meme Science.

[Anonymous No.14815732]

>>14814611
Science only works on repeatable phenomena. Shit that happens exactly once can't be investigated using the scientific method.

[frenanon No.14815751]

>>14814647
I don't get it.
Schizo-Word-Salad?

[Anonymous No.14815765]

>>14814637
halting problem
incompleteness
uncertainty
Münchhausen trilemma

[Gwaihir No.14815776]

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/31864316

Science is not incompatible with Christianity, in fact, Christianity is supported by Science. You just have to see past contemporary sciences obviously misleading failures

Captcha 8ton hh

[frenanon No.14815783]

>>14814828
I re-read your post over 5x, and I still don't really get what exactly you're trying to say.
Something about "What if the colors that I see as green look orange to your eyes", or whatever?

Idk, I honestly don't understand the obsession with metaphysics and trying to write a book of """Scientific Proofs""" which proves that the Author's favorite color is in fact, Blue.

[frenanon No.14815813]

>>14814651
>This is why there's no point in treating science as some divine truth.
No yeah, I guess Science is completely bullshit, and that's why computers don't exist.
Oh, wait.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that Science has been corrupted beyond belief, but that's because of disingenuous, grifting, sociopaths.

If you're out shopping for groceries, and someone randomly comes up and repeatedly stabs you, leaving you to bleed out while you're left squeezing Frozen Bags of Tendies against your stab wounds, are you just going to say:
>Ahhh geez, that's what I get for existing.
>There's no honor left in anyone in Society,
>and if you don't expect to casually get shanked while grocery shopping,
>then that's your own fault for following false prophets who led you to believe you wouldn't randomly get stabbed while buying a loaf of bread.

[Anonymous No.14815837]

>>14815783
>I re-read your post over 5x, and I still don't really get what exactly you're trying to say
Point to a statement that you find ambigous and we will start there.
>Something about "What if the colors that I see as green look orange to your eyes", or whatever?
No.
>Idk, I honestly don't understand the obsession with metaphysics and trying to write a book of """Scientific Proofs"""
Not sure what you are talking about here. At any rate, proof would not matter to a consciousness who's conclusions are determined by the unfolding of chemical reactions anyways. You are not making conclusions based on weighing the evidence and deciding between the best option. Your conclusions are determined by chemical reactions, not reasoning. And you can't appeal to the matters being decided by scientific consensus, as this would just be a larger set of similar predetermined opinions.

[Gwaihir No.14815857]

>>14815813
Computers exist because language is translatable to mathematics and mathematics is translatable into physics and physics is translatable back into language. It's all "mind"

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/31864316

[Anonymous No.14815869]

>>14815813
>No yeah, I guess Science is completely bullshit, and that's why computers don't exist.
Like other popular examples, "planes do fly", that's engineering, you don't really need science for engineering. The theory of aerodynamics, for example, was mostly developed after the invention of "heavier then air"-flight (likewise thermodynamics after steam engines, etc.)