[ 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: 98 KB, 974x878, 1658729683877459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14853928 No.14853928 [Reply] [Original]

What really is the Methodology of Science?

>> No.14853935

>>14853928
You dream up a potential explanation for some observations, deduce the implications of your explanation and then check if they occur in reality. If they do, you have some evidence for your hypothesis and you probably want some more. If they don't, you correct your hypothesis and do it all over again. That's all.

>> No.14853942
File: 38 KB, 320x422, 1638673357171.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14853942

>>14853928
Make up stuff, brainwash people since they were young so they believe your theories are reality, make up more stuff to cover up a broken science full of lies, rinse and repeat.

>> No.14855083

Whatever works. That's it

>> No.14855128
File: 447 KB, 512x512, 95720B78-E20A-43B8-8468-809342740073.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14855128

>>14853942
That picture is retarded on multiple levels. For one, the concept of dark matter predates the idea of dark energy by more than a century. Its fine to question mainstream scientific ideas, but you should at least understand what the mainstream idea is first, and why it is mainstream. If you can't even get basic timeline stuff right, no one will take you seriously.

>> No.14855254

Situation 1

>have problem or unknown
>problem or unknown is consensus. based, everyone agrees on what the problem is or what isnt known
>speculate how u would solve or understand if needed to
>if idea occurs then formulate a hypothesis, to formalize the exact questio you intend to answer, check that there would be consensus on the question being valid in that were it answered it would solve problem
>research previous methods to establish limitations of prior attempts or methods
>keep going and try to figure it out

>> No.14855975

>>14855128
Dude, you are responding either to a troll or a schizo. Not worth it in both cases.

>> No.14855981

>>14853928
That image should have 3 methods, it's missing the "Free thinker method" which basically is the "Trust the science" retards' method but specular, for they'll stick with whichever hypothesis would disprove the disliked mainstream one

>> No.14856025

>>14853928
guys on the right look so happy, life's an adventure for them, they enjoy sci-fi marvel movies and read pop-sci news articles, because science means fun

dude on the left looks depressed, his choice of hair and clothes is outdated and lame, he's posssibly a virgin, science brings grief to him

i think i know which side i'm on

>> No.14856072

>>14856025
the side that will get rekt and raped the moment any conflict flares up, and can't for the life of them grow any food or device/maintain any mechanical device?

>> No.14856094
File: 95 KB, 1280x1242, a scientific method.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14856094

fuck around an find out

>> No.14856113

>>14856072
>a chud can dream
you wet yourself

>> No.14856120

>>14853928
>What really is the Methodology of Science?
In academic: Milking others while pretending to know anything while liking the ass of people who fund you with others peoples money for reasons outside science.

>> No.14856126

>>14856025
>guys on the right look so happy, life's an adventure for them, they enjoy sci-fi marvel movies and read pop-sci news articles, because science means fun
It's the smile of the hoaxer who tricks you in his realm of god- empty- and loneliness.

>>14856025
>dude on the left looks depressed, his choice of hair and clothes is outdated and lame, he's posssibly a virgin, science brings grief to him
t. modern idiot not capable to grasp the concept of serious- and holyness

>> No.14856175

>>14856126
Cope. Guy on the right is happy. Guy on the left's existence is characterized by void, solitude and desperation.
>>14856072
>When your life is so miserable that you have to resort to imaginary scenarios to make it better
I am sure the conflict is gonna happen soon, anon. Keep on.

>> No.14856188

Very first step is to notice some shit without being prompted, that aspect is often overlooked. Extremely specific noticing of something

>> No.14856192

>>14856175
>Cope. Guy on the right is happy. Guy on the left's existence is characterized by void, solitude and desperation.
Basedence of face reading?

>> No.14856265

>>14856192
Indeed the basedence.

>> No.14856531

>>14855975
True, I am unlikely to change that poster's mind. I am posting for the benefit of any lurkers who are genuinely ignorant of the subject, so they know not to take that poster seriously. Sometimes you need to say something is nonsense, otherwise the crazies start changing some people's minds by screaming louder than everyone else.

>> No.14858210

>>14853928
>schopenhauer wojack
>represents scientific method
Schopenhauer, in alignment with Kant, understood that the noumena cannot be known through the senses and demonstrated that empiricism and the scientific method as a path to true knowledge and understanding of the universe is not possible

>> No.14858225

>>14858210
And now that we're smashing atoms and finding particles that cause mass and gravity, we know that was all primitive bullshit.

>> No.14858341
File: 52 KB, 600x400, Heisenberg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14858341

>>14858225
on the contrary
if people had actually understood what schopenhauer articulated 200 years ago then the revelations of quantum mechanics of the past 100 years would not be in the least bit surprising

>> No.14858626

>>14856175
>the conflict
>the
conflict happens every day in every society and is a regular part of human life. yes in your country too. yes in your city/town too. maybe you refuse to acknowledge it and hope it goes away, but that aversion to conflict only leads you to further squalor.

>> No.14858629

>>14858341
wordcels telling us we can't know reality vs experiments showing us we can. 100 years ago some people were shocked by quantum mechanics, today we are building computers out of that shit.

>> No.14858644

>>14858210
>and demonstrated
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
>>14858626
>the side that will get rekt and raped the moment any conflict flares up
>they haven't been rekt
>it implies the conflict has not flared up yet
>>14858626
>hurr durr but it happens every day

>> No.14858751
File: 66 KB, 953x210, demonstrate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14858751

>>14858644
This is an English speaking board. Go to >>>/int/ or a different site because you do not understand the language.

>> No.14858764

>fuck around

>find out

>> No.14858773
File: 360 KB, 2042x1082, 1658937032266254b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14858773

>>14853928

>> No.14858798 [DELETED] 
File: 419 KB, 906x740, 1614808440172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14858798

>>14858773
Why are scientists such soi boys, again?

>> No.14858804

>>14858751
I reiterate, that doesn't mean what you think it means from an epistemic standpoint

>> No.14858823

>>14858798
Because they follow the money,
>>14858773
Pariahs like this only help them achieve that.

>> No.14858836

>>14858773
Copey McCope is coping

>> No.14858849

>>14853928
There is no unified methodology to justifying knowledge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html

Midwits like >>14853935 who talk about the one true "Scientific Method" invariably shift the topic to the specific, experimental part of natural science then declare it the universally relevant sum of all truths.

>> No.14858864

>>14858849
>Source is a journalists opinion
It's a tool to help find "proofs" or strong theories
Like the boiling point of water equals the sea levels atmospheric pressure. You find that and you can approximate the temperature the water will need to be before it turns into a gaseous state.

It took rigorous testing to get to this point it's a big strawman the scienctism capitalists say that other people claim the "scientific method" is used for ultimate truths when it's a tool to weed out peddlers like your "source"

>> No.14859253

>>14858849
t. Midwit

>> No.14859275

>>14858864
>>Source is a journalists opinion
nta but the author of that article is a professor of philosophy

>> No.14859787

>>14859275
And philosophy is not a science, I can even find another NYT opinion piece that invalidates it kek

>> No.14859842

>>14858773
Why are leftie memes always so wordy? Can't you follow a belief that's self-evidently true?

>> No.14860021

>>14859253
>>14858864
>>14859787
>didn't read it
>just call it stoopid wrong
I bet the big words made your delicate smooth brain hurt.

https://bigthink.com/articles/there-is-no-scientific-method/
"Science works because scientists form communities and traditions based not on a common set of methods, but a common set of ethical principles."

>> No.14860066

>>14860021
I can understand why philosophy midwits would have a horse in the race over the scientific method lmao
Again philosophy is not science

>> No.14860093

>>14860066
Science is applied philosophy retard.

>> No.14860217

>>14860093
Science is the empirical investigation of the natural world. Philosophy is inquiry which is usually non-empirical & not necessarily about the natural world. My god philosophy majors sure are dimwits
I get your philosophy teacher hated Kant so just philosophize my cock and balls in your mouth

>> No.14860222

>>14860093
Go ahead and cite more uneducated opinion pieces while you're at it undergrad

>> No.14860340

>>14860217
>Science is the empirical investigation of the natural world. Philosophy is inquiry which is usually non-empirical & not necessarily about the natural world.
>Science is applied philosophy
These statements are equivalent.

>> No.14861471

>>14860021
Midwith

>> No.14862906

>>14858773
based

>> No.14862933

>>14853928
If you don't agree with the experts, you are going to be shunned.
Titles & publications > knowledge and integrity is the mantra now
Fraudulent behavior has been normalized, even among the most prestigious universities. They will claim they care about ethics, but it is all an illusion. These people rely on their perceived image, not their actual knowledge or ethical principles. They will tell you how good they are, but actual good people don't feel the need to stroke their ego.

>> No.14863143

>>14862933
Exactly this. It's a farce with no substance to be found. The shell of something once good is hollow.

>> No.14863153

>>14853928
It's whatever scientists think it's science.

>> No.14864988
File: 134 KB, 1124x1500, 71uhECLWV9L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14864988

>>14853928
picrel, or logical positivism if you are retarded

>> No.14865011

Depends on what you are doing. For example I can do science and not really even have a hypothesis! For example let's say I wanted to find out what bluetooth chip uses the least amount of power or something. I create the experiment control for stuff do it and record data then create a conclusion. I just did science. Science can also just be observations. Let's say I am a astronomer and want to study if a certain star has a planet or not or some shit I am not an astronomer. Well I can go make some observation and say X star has a planet. Both are science and good science while not following the traditional formula.

>> No.14865169

>>14853928
Yeah but can a researcher really afford to spend all that time and money on an experiment just to obtain results that don't align with his hypothesis? Especially when his entire career depends on him being able to publish new information (especially true for researchers in academia)?

>> No.14865179

>>14853928
Because you can basically fuck it all up debating the scientific method or anything really there's only one thing that makes science right and everything else wrong. The Central Limit Theorem.

>> No.14865347

>>14865169
Ask Michelson about that.