Is "science" really a thing?

[Anonymous No.15361501]

Everyone everywhere is always coming up with some theory and then testing it out against reality to see if it's true. Ultimately, that's all that science does. Sure, some theories may turn out to be more reliable and useful than others, but what of it? Also, since reality is instantiated in nature, all theories say *something* about nature.

Is there ultimately any difference between the words "science", "theory", "explanation", or "claim"?

>Trust the theory
>Trust the explanation
>Trust the claim

If not, describing something as "science" is - and always was - simply propaganda. Necessary during the Scientific Revolution, perhaps but now outdated and potentially self-destructive.

Should the word "science" be retired?

>picrel asbestos laced cigarettes

[Anonymous No.15361512]

I have a 8 plug power strip for my aquarium and they're all occupied. I spilled some water back there and the labels on the plugs became illegible, so i just started flipping switches until i figured out which plug was for which accessory and then I relabeled them using a sharpie.
Was that doing science? Which journal do I submit my tale of investigation to in order to gain maximum clout from the experience?

[Anonymous No.15361536]

>>15361512
OP here. Perhaps you're joking, but being able to submit a theory (or test result) to an authoritative journal does not make or break whether it's "science". Invent you're own journal for aquarium power plug research and go get funding from whoever. All you're really saying is that an uninteresting theory is uninteresting. There's plenty of uninteresting science. Some probably even more uninteresting than your example

[Anonymous No.15361612]

>>15361501
Science is cognition by the scientific method. For example you can scientifically prove that a plant will do better if it gets more sunlight. This is something you can verify by an experiment. What science cannot prove is e.g. the curvature of spacetime. That's just an abstract model making predictions. The predictions can be correct, but that just means the model is good, not that curved spacetime is a real thing. A lot of scientists don't see this.

[Anonymous No.15361643]

>>15361612
What. We can image black holes and measure changes in space and time consistent with GR... spacetime is definitely curved, if anything. But nothing gets ultimately "proved" or "verified", it just survives being disproved. And that's what the "scientific" "method" is all about. But there's nothing special about that. Evolution seems to function on a similar basis and definitely can't be construed as cognition

[Anonymous No.15361659]

>>15361643
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

[Anonymous No.15361675]

>>15361659
Gravitational waves can be detected. Gravitational lensing can be detected. Time dilation can be detected. Length contraction can be detected. Mass and motion are better understood. Etc.
Spacetime. black holes, and cosmology are interesting because they're at the limits of our knowledge. Are you really that daft?

[Anonymous No.15361734]

>>15361643
"Spacetime" itself is an abstract concept that cannot have physical properties. It's nothing more than a mathematical model. You can scientifically prove that the predictions made by that model are correct. But you cannot prove by the scientific method that spacetime "exists" and that it is curved.

[Anonymous No.15361747]

>>15361643
Evolution is another thing that cannot be proved by scientific method. Ultimately it's just a believe. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's jsut that it would be nice if scientists were honest about it.

[Anonymous No.15361771]

>>15361501
Just use the term to refer to the topics as they're organized in academia. The scientific method is an attempt to standardize basic critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous No.15365740]

>>15361771
>The scientific method is an attempt to standardize basic critical thinking skills.
So that means that the people who operate outside of the scientific method; such as the dark matter dorks, the safe & effective covidiots, the global warming hysterics and the evolutionists; all lack critical thinking ability and that they rely on lesser methods, such as confirmation bias, in order to reach their invariably self serving conclusions.

[Anonymouse No.15365748]

science isn't real, it's purely descriptive. meaning that, in this sense it isn't telling us anything of worthy. if the territory of smth specific is to be laid out, in purely reductionist terms, what you've is the information of this place that was drawn - the explanation therefore isn't useful, for what difference could've this done to taking a mere look? of course there's utility in the extension, as in the storing slices in methodical systems.by the replication that this allows for, but if replication was so useful, then the Systems of thought would never be torn to pieces from time to time by true Genius. in a rather simplistic view, the modelling of 'Reality' should never be the focus, for that is self-system blindness, rather the manipulation of this 'Reality.' - the useful manipulation of matter however is done by engineering, and this engineering the reshape of already existing elements and material, most of which composed of said Magic 'matter.'

[Anonymous No.15365836]

>>15361501
in the 1950s most scientists and educators took ill from asbestos micronite filters in their cigs.
Changed the game forever

[Anonymous No.15365844]

>>15365740
no, it means nothing more than they didn't use the scientific method. like I said, it's an attempt to standardize critical thinking skills. it doesn't mean you can't critically think without it.

[Anonymous No.15366494]

>>15361501
science ideally is about making predictive models that work, ideally far before the evidence is even discovered.
>>15365740
>and the evolutionists
dover lost.

[Anonymous No.15366637]

>>15366494
Dunno about that. Physics is the gold standard science and seems to me more motivated by understanding than prediction, per say (even quantum stuff). Of course, prediction and "utility" are convenient side hustles of any decent theory. For example, a music producer has a theory about music which allows them to (loosely) predict that an album or group will do well in the market. Prediction is nothing special to science. Any company is in the business of prediction (albeit poorly)