/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15092731]

“ most science is highly specialized and at some point you have to trust the specialized scientists because the experiments are too complex to recreate. For an example I don’t have a fancy vacuum chamber, so I have to trust what spacies say, or else throw out everything unless I can test it myself and verify the results.. it’s still a faith based system”

Can someone please refute this so I don’t go insane.

[Anonymous No.15092733]

Anon...

[Anonymous No.15092734]

>>15092731
You didn't already know that was true?

[Anonymous No.15092736]

>>15092731
There's nothing to refute. Did you think science was some sort of placeholder for religion in society? It's an investigative process meant to understand things that we can readily observe on some level. How is this a profound revelation for you?

[Anonymous No.15092743]

>>15092731
>at some point you have to trust the specialized scientists because the experiments are too complex to recreate.
You don't "have" to trust anybody, retard. You don't have to be a scientific expert to have some reasonable heuristics about who you trust and under what circumstances.

[Anonymous No.15092744]

>>15092736
>Did you think science was some sort of placeholder for religion in society?
It is to most "people", as evident in your reaction. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15092748]

>>15092736
Low IQ example but: people say the earth is flat, and people say the earth is round. I’ve never seen a spherical earth from space with my own eyes. What am I believe? Nothing? What is the best way to sift through all this “”science”” to find the best belief system?
How can any logical person not be driven insane by this dilemma?

[Anonymous No.15092751]

>>15092748
Nice strawman. OP already provides an example that illustrates his point, which you clearly have no counter to, forcing you to deflect.

[Anonymous No.15092752]

>>15092731
Quantum mechanics is exactly like that

[Anonymous No.15092766]

>>15092751
I am op..
The post you replied to was me..
My point is that unless you have time/resources to recreate all expirements ever carried out, you are still required to follow in blind faith. That’s not what I signed up for. I am a man of little faith, which is why I got into the sciences to begin with. How is a logical person supposed to determine what is real and what to base his idea of reality off of?
In my round or flat example you could argue it doesn’t matter, because in my life it will never be an essential piece of information, but what about something like pathology? I’ve never taken deadly poison so I have no means to determine what is true about it without suicide. Follow blindly?

[Anonymous No.15092768]

>>15092744
Where did I lie? Just because science is USED as a religious placeholder doesn't mean it is one. You can stab someone in the brain and kill them with a dental drill. It doesn't mean the intended used for dental drills was murder. Application and intended use are not the same, no matter how widespread the alternative use of an invention is.
>>15092748
>How can any logical person not be driven insane by this dilemma?
There's a lot of stuff in life that if you think too hard on you'll go crazy. Our limitations are unfortunately much easier to reach than our minds would have us believe. If it upsets you that much then just accept it and move on.

[Anonymous No.15092771]

>>15092768
>Just because science is USED as a religious placeholder doesn't mean it is one
OP didn't say it's a religion. You treat it as a religion. You are getting bent out of shape over his pointing out that science is a trust-based system, i.e. a faith-based system. It's actually a lot worse than he makes it seem, because it's trust-based even if you're a scientific expert yourself, not only if you're a layman.

[Anonymous No.15092774]

>>15092743
Learning to self calibrate heuristics based on the negative feedback loop is like the gorbino's quest of life.

[Anonymous No.15092775]

>>15092766
>In my round or flat example you could argue it doesn’t matter, because in my life it will never be an essential piece of information
In your round or flat example, you can actually verify for yourself that flat earth doesn't work as a layman, so I have no idea why you decided to undermine your own point with it. There's a ton of stuff you legitimately can't verify independently.

[Anonymous No.15092776]

>>15092771
>You are getting bent out of shape over his pointing out that science is a trust-based system
You can't fathom the difference between an abstract concept (the scientific method) and its real world application (imperfect trust-based systems of advanced research being highly difficult to replicate on a wide scale).

You are a retard. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.15092778]

>>15092776
I'm not commenting on "science" as an "abstract concept". I'm commenting on your religitard behavior.

[Anonymous No.15092779]

>>15092766
>round or flat example
Not the dude but you can reason yourself quite easily with that, why is every object (planets and sun) round but earth is flat
Why is moon always at the same distance from us
Etc. (colours of sunrise and sunsets)

[Anonymous No.15092787]

>>15092779
Have to add for the color thing that if it were flat and sun would go down it would cast a straight line in the sky and not be gradual change

[Anonymous No.15092793]

>>15092775
>>15092779
Yes, in hindsight my round vs flat seems to be superficial and easy to “reason with myself”
But look deeper, you’re saying other planets are spherical? I now have to verify that myself in order to accept it as 100% fact
You’re saying that gasses In our spherical atmosphere reflect light to create colorful sunsets?
I now have to test and verify that myself..
Every single part is faith based unless you have the time/resources to test EVERYTHING. The rest is entirely faith based. And as I stated earlier I’m a man of little faith. This is creating somewhat of a crisis.
Am I to have no solid beliefs about anything until I can verify everything piece by piece?

[Anonymous No.15092801]

>>15092793
And if you could verify everything yourself scientifically, would that change anything? Why draw the line there? Science done properly and in good faith still turns out wrong all the time. Take everything with a grain of salt and to make the best out of the information available to you.

[Anonymous No.15092808]

>>15092793
I dont know what to say but for orbits like moon earth and sun its the most low energy to just start from saying they are all round objects.
Maybe they all are discs.. who knows. That would work atleast for moon since its tidaly locked but then again, round sun +2 disc orbitals. I dont even know how the fuck that would even be possible anyway
Reason is not faith, you keep reasoning and reasoning and getting to lower energy level understanding
For me flat vs round earth is simply.
Haleys comet, shadows and colour of the sky (if the atmosphere would be all visible at the same time to suns light it would instantly illuminate the whole sky since its a gas) or smth

[Anonymous No.15092814]

>>15092766
If you take physics in uni then in experimental physics you recreate many experiments.

[Anonymous No.15092817]

>>15092808
Again, you are drawing large assumptions based on blind faith concepts that you didn’t personally test or verify. Your “reasoning” is about as solid to yourself as spaghetti monster, so you live in a fluid world with no definite truths?
“I exist” is about the only solid truth to start your reasoning, and it doesn’t apply to planets or shapes..

[Anonymous No.15092820]

>>15092808
Also, don’t get caught up in the round vs flat example, it’s the concept in more concerned about. The concept of fact, how it relates to science and the individuals practicing science.

[Anonymous No.15092847]

>>15092817
"I exist" -> ??? -> my senses are trustable -> I observe planets and shapes

[Anonymous No.15092865]

>>15092817
>so you live in a fluid world with no definite truths?
Yes and no. I know electrical systems work because they are in closed circuits, I know that car tires get flat if there is no air pressure.
I would call these things truths.
No. I dont take blind faith in string theory just because someone said so
Im drawing large assumptions exactly as much as i need to make sense, then i reason and that assumption gets smaller and smaller
Or should i already know everything by default?

[Anonymous No.15092866]

>>15092847
>I observe planets and shapes
With your naked eye or with an instrument? Did you yourself test this instrument? Did this instrument possibly have a round and curved lense? How did you go about verifying that the lense is not distorting your perception? Blind faith is your answer and you are just proving it. We could do this all day I’m sure, but it’d be more productive for both of us if you just came out and said “I have blind faith that the scientists before me had correct observations”

[Anonymous No.15092869]

>>15092865
Or should i already know everything by default?
I’m not sure anon. I have no experience other than mine, and I certainly don’t know everything, so logically I would assume you are not, but again these are assumptions based on blind faith.

[Anonymous No.15092870]

>>15092778
You keep accusing others of religious behavior in a manic attempt to not look like a retard. Take your fucking meds.

[Anonymous No.15092875]

>>15092870
You keep lashing out like a spastic but the point stands completely unchallenged. No one cares what "science" is "supposed" to be as an abstract concept. People are talking about the internal dynamics of the scientific establishment and its relationship with the general population, both of which are largely based on faith.

[Anonymous No.15092880]

>>15092869
Im here to talk man, not to streetfight
Its not really faith on something, i dont hold these conclusions so dear that they are like a blind faith for me, there is every spec of space available for me to admit that things were not so as i thought.
Things might be this way or that way, i dont care, i just learn

[Anonymous No.15092897]

>>15092870
You are responding to a bot.

[Anonymous No.15092906]

>>15092897
You are seething and the point still stands.

[Anonymous No.15092908]

>>15092731
It can be true, but only in the short term. In the longer term, even the best hidden abuses of trust will be spotted when others further down the line apply the conclusions from such and notice that they aren't getting the expected results (unless those conclusions were right by sheer happenstance, of course).

Even in the shorter term, it's very rare that there is a single small group that is at the cutting edge; there are almost always other groups at or near their level that will be quick to point out any inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.15092912]

>>15092908
>It can be true, but only in the short term. In the longer term, even the best hidden abuses of trust will be spotted
What he said would be true in the short term, in the long term, and forevermore, even if all of your "experts" were perfectly honest and producing impeccable results instead of being grifters and useful idiots.

[Anonymous No.15092935]

>>15092731
Faith is believing without evidence. i.e. religion. take me for example. I'm Christian, and I accept that there is no evidence for my God to exist. but, I still believe.
Science is completely different. You are trusting the scientists to have correct results, because they provide evidence. That is the huge difference between believing in science versus a religion.
My faith entails that I believe in God without any evidence. I believe in science only because they can provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.15092942]

>>15092866
>but it’d be more productive for both of us if you just came out and said “I have blind faith that the scientists before me had correct observations”
It's called a working hypothesis.
If it breaks something along the way I'd trace back my steps.

[Anonymous No.15092947]

>>15092912
Yes, in the sense you need a bit of trust for literally everything.

[Anonymous No.15092949]

>>15092935
>You are trusting the scientists to have correct results, because they provide evidence
Evidence you can independently evaluate to determine that it is accurate and implies what they tell you? Really? You're dumb even for a christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15092951]

>>15092947
>you need a bit of trust
You need a LOT of trust to believe in the shit being peddled as science now. Luckily, golems are bred and trained to trust anything branded as science.

[Anonymous No.15092952]

>>15092731
>>15092744
>>15092771
>>15092778
>>15092875
>>15092906
meds

[Anonymous No.15092960]

>>15092951
I have some great healing crystals that I think you might like. Interested?

[Anonymous No.15092961]

>>15092731
This exact thing keeps me up at night, but not for the reasons listed ITT.
It’s because of AI, there is no way that a sufficiently intelligent AI would view us or our scientific progress as “valid”

[Anonymous No.15092962]

>>15092960
Notice how you're forced to deflect.

[Anonymous No.15092967]

>>15092942
>If it breaks something along the way I'd trace back my steps.
Right, you’d go back and make a different set of assumptions based on unverifiable data that you probably didn’t collect. It’s faith whether you have the stomach to say it or not.

[Anonymous No.15092977]

>>15092951
Science is not braindead, its just that some scientists has some random burn in them and also life situation to get to uter massive bullshit to public. Just dont buy everything and treat these stuffs just as an ideas. I know i bought everything when i was a kid growing up just to learn 15years later that 4/5 of shit was waste of time

[Anonymous No.15092987]

>>15092962
The point was that blind distrust of science *as a whole* is utterly retarded.

[Anonymous No.15092991]

>>15092987
You are fundamentally incapable of making any points. What does trusting science "as a whole" have to do with anything I said?

[Anonymous No.15092992]

>>15092977
Like i dont get whats the urge to teach about stuff thats not even remotely understood, and treat it by saying "this is OUR current understanding about it" when in reality, you dont know a fucking 1% about it but still you need to have a word about it.. would be better to just shit out ideas at that point and say that blackholes are fucking black moons but they are so fucking big that they turn black, instead creating 400 new concepts about virtual decay particles that can inverse fuck some radiation when they pop to existence from multiverse tunneling

[Anonymous No.15093001]

>>15092991
>You need a LOT of trust to believe in the shit being peddled as science now.
If you meant a specific piece of research, you should have said it there.

[Anonymous No.15093010]

>>15093001
It applies to 99% of what the scientific establishment pumps out. It doesn't become any less true if you consider each supposed finding individually, you spastic.

[Anonymous No.15093021]

>Expert X on subject A says R
>Expert Y on Subject A says !R
>Media and the government, made up of people who are not experts on Subject A, say believe R or else!
>Expert Y attacked and silenced by media and government
>Get suspicious that R might not be the whole truth about Subject A
>Get attacked by the media, government and their followers for not "trusting the experts"
>Conclude that Expert X, the government, and media are hiding something and shouldn't be trusted
Which doesn't necessarily mean that !R is completely or even partially correct but it does mean that in such a situation, trusting "the experts" blessed by the media and government isn't logical.

[Anonymous No.15093022]

>>15092949
they present the evidence in a way I can understand, and if it makes sense then yeah, I'll believe it. what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.15093027]

>>15093022

[Anonymous No.15093037]

>>15093022
>they present the evidence in a way I can understand
Which would give you a pause if you were remotely intelligent. I know this point will be lost on you.

[Anonymous No.15093151]

>>15093037
This. If someone is taking the time to dumb down scientific findings for midwits it’s because they really REALLY want retards to believe it.

[Anonymous No.15093194]

>>15092731
The universe often requires very exact sets of circumstances to cause something to exist or function. Scientific testing and research is based on assumed conditions, parameters and states.
>TL;DR science is a glorified guesstimate.