[ 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: 158 KB, 816x880, 1270603863644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1804616 No.1804616 [Reply] [Original]

What constitutes science? Try to give your own definition.

Pic unrelated

>> No.1804630

Making guesses as to whats most likely to cause things, rather than what you wish caused things

>> No.1804636

>>1804630
>guesses
That's a pretty lousy definition

>> No.1804643

but it's just a theory (a geuss)

>> No.1804640

Facts, truths, knowledge, and ideas that can be tested, verified, and proven.

>> No.1804645

>>1804630
>Making guesses
>what you wish caused things
NO SCIENTIST IS BIASED WHEN MAKING A HYPOTHESIS.

>> No.1804648

>>1804640
I'd say no, because there is no absolute proof in science because that would eliminate the possibility of falsification.

>> No.1804653

Any empirical study that if I chose to, I can prove or disprove right now (assuming I have the equipment.)

>> No.1804658

>>1804648
Science can never be wrong or falsified, just outdated or a continuous work in progress.

>> No.1804665

>>1804653
You don't PROVE something, you only provide supporting evidence.
>>1804658
Do you even know what falsification is?

>> No.1804668

>>1804636
Oh ok. I didnt know science was about looking at a chart and then knowing for sure what was happening.

>> No.1804672

>>1804648
you can never falsify science or scientific data. if you did, it's not science but mere fraudulence.

>> No.1804677

>>1804645
>Every scientist practice science purely
No, they don't.

>> No.1804689

>>1804672
Not that kind of falsification you dolt

>> No.1804693

>>1804668
Uncertainty doesn't mean you just guess... There's deduction and induction and statistics for that.
>>1804672
For fuck's sake...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>> No.1804698

>>1804693
That's still proving facts. It's proving that A is false and B as well and why they are false. It's asserting what is right and what is wrong and giving the evidence to why, it's still proving something that can be tested and verified.

>> No.1804708

>>1804698
I actually fear you're not trolling. Jesus fucking christ. Showing a statement is false is not the same thing as showing a statement is true. Disproving a positive (eg: all humans live forever) is possible while proving a negative (eg: no human lives forever) is not. This is one of the fundamentals of science. You can NEVER provide absolute proof for a statement unless you disprove a positive. You should really take some methodology courses, kid...

>> No.1804714

This thread is really turning out as bad as I expected it to. People here on /sci/ don't even know what the fuck science is... Perhaps that's where all the hate for anything that's not physics comes from. Because people are stupid.

>> No.1804723

>>1804708
Well then I'm just afraid you're plain wrong about that. Science is about proving facts and ideas through rigorous testing and attestation, discovering data and evidence to support whatever it is you're trying to prove, use it, make sure it's correct and absolute, thus proving it as a mere fact. Proving something that is wrong, and why it's wrong, is the same as proving something that is right, and why it's right. Otherwise science would be just the same as religion or philosophy. To say otherwise is a delusion of religious/agnostic bias.

>> No.1804753 [DELETED] 

>>1804723
I'm not wrong. I do research, kid.

You try to <span class="math">dis[/spoiler]-prove hypotheses by comparing predictions that follow from them to experimentally obtained observations. If you can't reject your hypothesis that doesn't mean it's proven. We can still disprove the theory of the descent of man today by finding new fossils. Theory <span class="math">{\bf never}[/spoiler] becomes fact. The only thing that counts is how long a theory remains standing after it's postulation. The reason why most people conciser evolution to be a fact is because it hasn't been disproven in 150 years. That doesn't mean that we can't. That is what differentiates science from religion. There are no dogmas in it's foundation. Saying something is proven and no longer up for falsification would be introducing dogmas.

>> No.1804763

>>1804723
I'm not wrong. I do research, kid.

You try to <span class="math">dis[/spoiler]-prove hypotheses by comparing predictions that follow from them to experimentally obtained observations. If you can't reject your hypothesis that doesn't mean it's proven. We can still disprove the theory of the descent of man today by finding new fossils. Theory <span class="math">{\bf never}[/spoiler] becomes fact. The only thing that counts is how long a theory remains standing after it's postulation. The reason why most people conciser evolution to be a fact is because it hasn't been disproven in 150 years. That doesn't mean that we can't. That is what differentiates science from religion. There are no dogmas in its foundation. Saying something is proven and no longer up for falsification would be introducing dogmas.

>> No.1804786

>>1804763
>conciser
consider*

>> No.1804793

Science is the process by which we acquire knowledge.

>> No.1804795

>>1804763
>I do research
Don't care, you're still wrong. Science is about hard, certifiable facts, evidence, and research, solid facts/evidence/research, unlike religion and philosophy; it is used to prove the entire by actually testing and retesting it until you get a certainty and data to back up what you're researching and how. To verify facts as they should be, facts, to define what is wrong and what is right on a solid and practical level, and to prove how, kid.

Evolution would never be proven wrong, that is the dream of religion/agnosticism who falsely believe it, and science, somehow challenges their beliefs incurably.

>> No.1804799

>>1804795
Ok, I'm done debating this with you. Have fun outside of science.

>> No.1804805

>>1804793
Finally, some sense.

>> No.1804810

>>1804799
You weren't even debating, you were just whining about disprovened, and lying about being a scientist.

>> No.1804816

>>1804810
I don't lie. Even on the Internet. I never said I was a scientist either. I'm a research assistant. I do have a BSc. in neuroscience however. I was debating, but sadly you keep on missing the points of my posts. You're not even in college yet are you? (I don't mean that in a condescending way, it's an honest question)

>> No.1804828

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

>> No.1804831

>>1804816
You still claim to be in the field of science with such propagations like a degree in said field, having to ad infinitum the opposing "debater" and oversuspicion of your stance. And now you can't even argue straight or stick to your "I'm done debating" claim, highlighting the possibility you're lying even more.

>> No.1804840

>>1804831
I really don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not here to convince you. I just wanted to point out an inaccuracy in your post. You could learn something, but feel free to be stubborn. I don't give a shit.

Also:
>I'm done debating this with you
Meaning, I'm not arguing over that specific point anymore. Which I'm not. I'm done debating with you altogether now.

>> No.1804843

>>1804828
>over 9000 hours on wikipedia

>> No.1804853

>>1804840
There is nothing inaccurate about it. Science is factuality, empiricism, knowledge, and truth, and being able to say which is with by actual research and data; instead of making crap up like religion, mythology, and philosophy. It's an absolute field of study, as long as something exists it can be understood with science, or will be understood with time as the only real obstacle. To say otherwise is just agnostic propaganda to bridge the gap between science and religion, even though there's no real conflict between other than one just challenges the philosophy of other. And you cannot properly argue otherwise, and have to stick with association fallacies, strikes, excuses, meandering, and dogma.

>> No.1804857
File: 25 KB, 400x399, mfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1804857

>>1804828

>> No.1804863

Science is a method.

>> No.1804864

>>1804863
Care to elaborate?

>> No.1804865

>>1804864
-> >>1804828

>> No.1804871

science is a way of life, like any other religion

>> No.1804876

SCIENCE IS THE EVIL THAT IS RUINING NATURE. WHY YOU FUCKING WITH NATURE FAGGOTS

there is only the 4 corners and nature NEVER FUCK WITH NTAURE

>> No.1804887

>>1804876
Behold: the tremendous winged faggot that fails to troll time and time again.

>> No.1804893

Science: The system by which we come to an understanding of the phenommena, structure and systems observed in the natural world.

>> No.1804896

>>1804893
Science: The method by which we come to an understanding of the phenommena, structure and systems observed in the natural world.

FTFY

>> No.1804897

>>1804893
>>1804896
>natural world
Is there any other kind of world, and if there is, would science not apply?

>> No.1804899

>>1804897
>Is there any other kind of world,
If the multiverse hypothesis is correct.

>> No.1804904

>>1804899
So other universes are not natural? I don't see any way of directly testing that hypothesis anyway.

>> No.1804906

>>1804899
You can replace "natural world" with "universe" if you like. The definition still holds.

>> No.1804910

>>1804906
That would be better I think.

>> No.1804919

>>1804904
>So other universes are not natural?
They can be unnatural.

And I think the hypothesis' math is testable on it's own, though obviously we'd still need more than that.

>> No.1804920

>>1804897
Well, perhaps natural shouldn't be there. Replace it with "Observable"? In some manner or another, everything rooted in actual science is based on observations with quantifiable results.

I believe science also constitutes the process by which we go from an observation or guess (which must be based on a observation of some sort) to scientific law, including hypotheses. Thus goes the scientific method.

>> No.1804928

Science: Doing shitty guesses pretending that its important
Mathematics and Engineering: Doing real job.

>> No.1804946

>>1804920
Replace "law" with theory and we are 100% agreed.

>> No.1804949

>>1804928
Trolling: taking a dump on your keyboard.

>> No.1804963

>>1804897
Science used to be called "natural philosophy" specifically for this reason. Science specifically only pertains to the natural world -- not to the spiritual or metaphysical world or to the realm of mathematics or geometry.

>> No.1804965

>>1804963
>implying there is such a thing as the spiritual world

>> No.1804971

>>1804853
>Science is factuality, empiricism, knowledge, and truth
You're a complete idiot. You will never be a real scientist.

>> No.1804973

>>1804965
>implying there's not

>> No.1804995

>>1804949
Cmon, you know im right :/
Scientist: M-m-maybe our universe is, liek, mmm...EXPANDING?!
Everyone: Whoa nigga! This shit is baNANAS! You awesome invention helps humanity sooo much here's you Nobel prize!!

Engineer: Well, i've built all your cities, plants, roads, cars, PCs, your industry and even your moms Iphone. What about that guys?
Everyone: $25000 yearly, bro

>> No.1805020

1) Make educated guesses about how the world works
2) Test those guesses against experiment
3) See which guesses are the best, based off how accurate they are, how predictable they are, and their simplicity (if two theories are identical, go with the simpler one, but ONLY if they're identical in every other way. Ex: geocentric vs. heliocentric, geocentric has circles moving in circles, while heliocentric is just circles)
4) Refine those ideas based off further experimentation
5) Go back to step 1) with other guesses for other things

at the end of the day we should have a bunch of ideas that hold against experimentation, but can be changed with an even more accurate idea or a simpler one. These ideas are the basis of how we think the world works. That's science in a nutshell.

>> No.1805515

>>1804920
im a fag

>> No.1805830

>>1804995
facedesk.jpg

>> No.1805852

>>1805020
huzzah

>> No.1805897

Science is mysticism, it's the retardation of the human-brain into thinking that one is above nature. If you're a scientist in modern-times, you're also a dumbass, for you literally believe your species/self is above nature -- when clearly your 'species' is a part of nature. It also makes you look at life incorrectly through the logic of science -- occums razor does not apply to many factors of nature, and therefore, to science, these things do not exist. For example, a unitary lifeforce amongst the whole of nature, is invisible and untestable, so it does not exist (according to science).

In other words, science is pseudoscience, it's mysticism, the retardation of the human mind for profits and control of humanity. Fact.

>> No.1805950

>>1805897
try a little harder troll

>> No.1805957
File: 75 KB, 604x453, TrollFacec.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1805957

>>1805897
>occums razor

>> No.1805966

How come the names Popper and Kuhn don't come up here?

>> No.1805974

>>1805897
Seriously kid, why do you visit this board so often?

>> No.1805989
File: 238 KB, 532x405, v1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1805989

>> No.1806006
File: 60 KB, 900x506, c11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1806006

>>1805974
Why would it bother you if it wasn't true?

>> No.1806010

>61 posts
>0 true definitions

>> No.1806019

>>1806006
It doesn't bother me, I just wonder what motivates you. What do you want to achieve? And why chose 4chan to rant about science?

>> No.1806020

>>1806010
There have been some decent ones. Read the thread.

>> No.1806028
File: 80 KB, 846x928, [an] wings 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1806028

>>1804616
Just dropping of the original screencap from /an/ (AKA the best board).

>> No.1806059

>>1806028
yes that nice thank you

>> No.1806076

Science is dildos.

>> No.1806144

>>1806006
Illuminati want my mind, soul and my body. And you aid them in their inflictions.

>> No.1806243

Could scientists be.. the illuminati?

>> No.1806302

NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!
NASA!