[ 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: 152 KB, 447x535, 1677358267148056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15230445 No.15230445 [Reply] [Original]

>the sun rises and sets
This statement is unscientific.

>> No.15230463

>OP sucks cocks
whats the science behind this

>> No.15230476

what are the mathematical implications of OP sucking dick on a logarithmic scale?

>> No.15230534
File: 191 KB, 600x599, smugnerdpepe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15230534

>>15230445
David Hume told us about this over 200 years ago.

>When you see a billiard ball strike another, what will happen? You will say, the ball in motion will strike the second, and cause the second to move. But you have no real reason to believe this ought to be true. You say, when an object strikes another, it will cause it to move! You are not truly aware of the causal nature of the two correlated events. You are only witnessing correlations, which you become increasingly confident in from having it confirmed over and over from successive experience.

>> No.15230556

>>15230445
Anyone can think they are the centre of the universe, any anyone is equally correct.

>> No.15230559

>>15230445
who dis

>> No.15230565

Brain: >>15230534

Brainlets: >>15230463 >>15230476

>> No.15230582

>>15230445
this is dao

>> No.15230670

>>15230534
By this nigger line of thinking you can't ever be sure of anything

>> No.15230682

>>15230445
Empirically, it checks out from my perspective.

>> No.15230772

>>15230670
u cant know nuffin, das right. Any intellectually honest man will always acknowledge this fact. only niggers , soiboys, and f*males fail to keep this in mind at all times. uncertainty is a sign of intelligence.

>> No.15230811

>>15230772 Socrates was wise, because he knew that he knew nothing.

>> No.15231000

>>15230445
the only thing moving is your mind

>> No.15231009

>>15230445
Good enough for everyday life like Newtonian mechanic

>> No.15231013

>>15231009
Somehow science has lost the simplicity of an observer perspective.

>> No.15231022

>>15231009
Beware the Maya.

>> No.15231065

>>15230534
phil100 tier psued shit
>you can't no nuffin

>> No.15231123

>>15230670
>>15231065
the subtlety of post related is this: you can extrapolate scientific models from experience and these can even have great quantifiable precision. Such as, the precise times each day that the sun rises and sets. But one must be sure not to mistake the intellectual model we have created that MAPS nature for knowledge as to the TRUTH of nature itself.

All scientists need a background in philosophy so their thinking is more sophisticated.

>> No.15232049

>>15230445
some days i think there should be a dedicated philosophy /phi/ board. half of the phil schizos are here and half in /lit/

>> No.15232139
File: 14 KB, 300x259, 1677419992901.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15232139

>the problem of induction tells us that we can never be 100% certain in our understanding of nature
>therefore we need to embrace a methodology that can update its hypotheses upon evidence contradicting the previous hypotheses
Wow, it's almost as if science is the solution, you braindead philosophy worshipping zoomer retards!

>> No.15232738

>>15232139
see >>15231123

>> No.15232772

>>15231123
This is trivial. If that's what you consider a "background in philosophy" then you have none.

>> No.15232776

>>15231123
> But one must be sure not to mistake the intellectual model we have created that MAPS nature for knowledge as to the TRUTH of nature itself.
But after you have that nugget of info what now? Do you go back to creating scientific models that are actually useful?

Why do philosophers then create MENTAL models of nature that map nothing and then argue with each other when most arguments stem from the fact that their models are usually ill-defined and cannot be quantified?

>> No.15232799

>>15232776
At the time this thinking was new, it was odd to say that science and the models it produces were not true insight as to the fundamental reality itself, just models that allow us to predict what will happen, with the understanding that we should refine them when conflicts arise. These days, everyone in science is taught this principle, and it's an important one to internalize, but it's almost dogmatic. Modern scientists do not study the historical evolution of thought that lead to empiricism, nor the thought that came after that picks out what its strengths are, and where its limitations are.

>> No.15232866

>>15232799
(I admit my post was a bit hostile, so thanks for keeping it calm.) I do agree with you here. Studying history and limitations is important. Usually models have some strengths, some weaknesses and regions where they break down. Even scale-invariant models are really rare. But this is known stuff. People often also use words "interpretation" and "view", e.g. "Copenhagen interpretation" or "wave-only view" which to me show that they understand the distinction between model and capital-T Truth.

>> No.15232878

>>15232866
Reading my QM textbook was refreshing. The first chapter had a lot to say about the philosophical implications of this new science, which I think is important to a student of this field. My guess is that the reason why QM motivates lots of philosophical questioning while other fields don't is in part because the physicists in the early 1900s DID have an intimate understanding of philosophy. Academics cared a lot about it back then. But today, 100 years later, it's not even a back seat topic to science, it's practically left out of the discussion altogether.