/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15908277]

>principle of sufficient reason
How important is it to the epistemology of science? Does everything need to have an explanation or is it sometimes legitimate to acknowledge "it just is"?

As an example, let's consider the recent rise in turbo cancer diagnoses in young people since 2021. Despite science's best efforts no cause has been identified. Is it epistemologically justified to say it just is like this without further explanation?

[Anonymous No.15908278]

>>15908277
Yes

Stop asking questions frog

[Anonymous No.15908862]

>>15908277
>Does everything need to have an explanation or is it sometimes legitimate to acknowledge "it just is"?
because that is a contradiction. How could you be able to explain something as "it just is" if you don't have reason to declare it is so? "it just is" requires you not have reason while simultaneously having reason to declare it.
>muh false antivax propaganda
don't care

[Anonymous No.15909022]

>>15908862
Nobody mentioned the vaxx, schizo. Excess mortality is a known issue and has certainly nothing to do with the vaxx.

[Anonymous No.15909035]

>>15909022
>cancer diagnosis
>Excess mortality
here let me help you that goalpost is really heavy

[Anonymous No.15909068]

Epistemologically no, ontologically yes. Epistemology deals with knowledge, so you need to have a cause, ontology on the other hand deals with the nature of being, it is enough to prove it exists, it's study is beyond science though.

[Anonymous No.15909093]

>>15909068
How are epistemological and ontological not the same?

[Anonymous No.15909100]

>>15909093
Does god exist? Can you know that he exists, what about numbers? If you can answer that question then you have understood the difference.

[Anonymous No.15909105]

>>15909100
All these questions are clearly a yes. Now what's your point?

[Anonymous No.15909131]

>>15909068
>it's study is beyond science though.
well worse than that since epistemically the answer is "no". it can't be said to be knowable so it's beyond human knowing by definition allowing for some possibility of anything knowable yet somehow undiscoverable by science. which if you don't that's fine too just covering the possible wider base (one i don't think exists) to nail the point in

[Anonymous No.15909138]

>>15909131
It can be inferred via induction so its not unknowable.

[Anonymous No.15909141]

>>15909138
>It can be inferred via induction
i don't think it can be as it would require a leap from "we simply can't figure it out" to "knowing it can't be figured out because there's nothing to figure". I do not think that could be justified since "can't figure out" is more likely than "can't be figured out"
>so its not unknowable
depends on if you think it can be justified. i don't

[Anonymous No.15909149]

>>15909141
What i'm saying is that as a disease or condition of the body and via previous biological methods and other scientific criteria it would be hubris to conclude that we know it can't be figured out, therefore it can't be unknowable. That's a very absolute statement that has no precedence in science. It works in math but not in science where there are tonnes of statistical outliers to work with.

[Anonymous No.15909156]

>>15909149
well given my clarification then it should be self evident I am not speaking with ontological certainty as i very clearly stated epistemically as well. that's the whole point that you can't bridge that gap and therefore it is functionally unknowable even if you extended the circle to include potential non-science somehow long as we're not talking silly things like magic.

reason why is logic. like consider the "laws of thought" if it is unjustifiable by some fundamental contradiction can you be said to know it? No because you can't justify it in any sense of "justify" in non-retarded epistemic systems when it entails fundamental contradiction. whether or not it is "ontologically true".

so it isn't some ontological statement about truth it's a statement about the premise and entailments of justification. these require logic to work and if logic doesn't work you can't be justified. the hubris thing does not apply here.

[Anonymous No.15909160]

>>15909156
You can't say its unknowable, the correct statement is it's unknown, those are two very different statements with different meanings. Unknowable btw is an ontological statement, it's an absolute condition about the nature of reality, it has nothing to do with science or epistemology.

[Anonymous No.15909162]

>>15909160
>Unknowable btw is an ontological statement
no i am making a statement about the state of knowability in epistemology reliant on logic being applicable, so extending beyond just science to encompass epistemology as a whole including logic. i'm not going to repeat myself further so you can either pay attention or get fucked

[Anonymous No.15909166]

>>15909162
And that statement is itself not part of epistemology because it concerns itself with the nature of being. Why are you getting angry lmao, are the arguments too difficult?

[Anonymous No.15909169]

>>15909166
>And that statement is itself not part of epistemology
ohhhh i see you're just retarded
why didn't you say so? i could've ignored you straight away
>Why are you getting angry lmao
you don't get my anger you get my apathy

[Anonymous No.15909173]

>>15909169
Oh ad hominems are here already. You could have just said you didn't know what you were talking about and that the arguments were way above your level.

[Anonymous No.15909201]

>>15909173
i do which is why i know how fucking dumb you are
>entailed limits on aforedefined epistemology
>lel that's ontology
no hope for you if you're that confidently wrong about something so no i am not going to bother
least of all if you're going to equivocate about the meaning of ontology in this convo badly enough to where that might make sense
so you're stupid and stupid, or dishonest and stupid, either way there's just no point

[Anonymous No.15909204]

>>15909201
Why are you arguing with a stupid person, are you too retarded to see the contradiction or is that as you say the limit of epistemology?

[Anonymous No.15909205]

>>15909204
>explain why i am not going to bother
>lel then y u arguing
the low iq of this bitch

[Anonymous No.15909212]

>>15909205
Why are you arguing, what's the point of going on with a 'low iq bitch'? Is the question too difficult for you? Do you need a wojak picture to explain it?

[Anonymous No.15910379]

Why are /sci/ posters so stupid when it comes to philosophy? Both of you don't understand epistemology and ontology.

[Anonymous No.15910392]

>>15910379
prove it

[Anonymous No.15910826]

>>15908277
Source. For God's sake, post the source. Science board.

[Anonymous No.15910832]

>>15910826
go back to preddit, the claim in OP was warpspeed rebunked by soorce at the speed of soienceLLC

[Anonymous No.15910975]

>>15910379
Explain it to us oh master

[Anonymous No.15911006]

>>15910975
he can't, he was also talking about himself there. it was a self-deprecating joke

[Anonymous No.15911134]

>>15910826
>Source
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/