/sci/ - Science & Math

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2206220]

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed events
SCIENCE

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed event
RELIGION

whats the differece again?

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206226]

ones evaluative and the other is descriptive

[Anonymous No.2206225]

>mfw i'm smart enough to major in math

[Anonymous No.2206227]

>>2206220
Science's explanation is based on facts.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206232]

>>2206227
Evaluative facts that do not consider the beauty and awe of the object in question. In short, kill yourself.

[THESE GOGGLES THEY DO NOTHNG No.2206233]

Science allows itself to be wrong.

Religion for the most part does not.

Thus, Science is always up to date and religion is laughed at for being old-school.

[Anonymous No.2206234]

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed events
>uses that explanation to predict more behaviour
>sees if it's true
>if it's wrong, correct it
>if it's right, submit the whole thing to peer review
>people rip the shit out of it, point out mistakes you might have made. If so, start over.
>if it's fine, it gets PUBLISHED
>still might get proven wrong though
SCIENCE

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed event
>someone disagrees: LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU
>someone proves you're talking bullshit: OMG UR NOT RESPECTING MAH BELEEFS, SOCIAL TABOO, SLANDER, INTOLERANCE
RELIGION

Captcha: infidels, pindice

[Anonymous No.2206235]

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down possible explanation for observed events
SCIENCE

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down explanation for observed event and claims it as fact
RELIGION

[Anonymous No.2206238]

Science takes into account proofs against it, works with it, and changes its account.
Religion just tells you you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.2206239]

Is this the philosophy fag again?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2206241]

>>2206226
There is no difference between descriptive and evaluative assertions.

>>2206227
There are no such things as facts.

[Anonymous No.2206243]

>SCIENCE

Someone suggests alternative theory, tests are done to determine what best fits reality

>RELIGION

Someone suggests alternate theory, something ranging from "BURN HIM!" to "stop saying things offensive to my beliefs" happens.

[Anonymous No.2206246]

>>2206241
Science is based on Fallibilism.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206253]

>>2206241
Of course there is, Sir. When an scientist observes an object they come to a nihilistic conclusion that does not take into account the beauty and awe of creation -- instead they opt for a more evaluative explanation, is it hot? is it burning? does it contain fluoride? (rather than) is it shining? is it a beautiful sight? am I thankful? etc.

[Anonymous No.2206252]

>>2206241

Yeahyeahyeah, quit with the postmodern bullshit already. Although we can't prove there's an objective reality, we have no choice but to act as if it exists.

Otherwise the next time you order a quarter pounder with cheese the clerk might as well say, "i'm sorry, theres no such thing as reality, as far as I know you're already eating one. Also you are a salamander."

[Anonymous No.2206250]

>>2206234
>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed events
>uses that explanation to predict more behaviour
>sees if it's true
>if it's wrong, falsify the evidence
>if it's right, submit the whole thing to peer review
>people rip the shit out of it, point out mistakes you might have made. If so, get someone famous to co-sign the article
>if it's fine, it gets PUBLISHED

Fixed for how it works in life science.

[Anonymous No.2206248]

How and why are not the same. Neither is who, what, where, and when.

That's at least 6 ways to explain an event.

[Anonymous No.2206254]

is science finds itself is wrong it will go back an re-evaluate the situation in light of new information..

religion will just look at you and say your wrong and what they came up with has to be right because it was first

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2206255]

>>2206246

so what

[Naggarothian No.2206256]

Saging in a troll thread

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206266]

Think of everything as word-classes... OP, I like your threads and stuff, but you're like, on the edge of reason, you've almost obtained the Theistic mindset.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2206276]

>>2206233
>>2206238
>>2206254

itt: People who are applying the rules of the language game of Science to the language game of Religion

fuckin chimps

[Naggarothian No.2206278]

[Anonymous No.2206288]

>>2206241
HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Naggarothian No.2206292]

>>2206241
>There are no such things as facts.
And this is why we all hate your guts.

Go back to /lit/

[Anonymous No.2206293]

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>writes down suggested explanation for observed events
SCIENCE

>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night
>suddenly, bears out of fucking nowhere
BEAR CAVALRY

[Naggarothian No.2206297]

>>2206276
>language game
>won't ever shut the fuck up about language games
>LAY-ENG-GOO-EDGE GAY-MS
And that's the other reason we hate you.

saging with Carl Sagan!

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2206303]

So guys when do you think we'll transcend the pitiful modes of dialectical thought that give birth to epistemological crutches like Science?

I am thinking maybe the next 100 to 200 years

[Anonymous No.2206358]

>>2206234
in flow-chart form.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206357]

I expected a glorious battle in this thread, am disapoint, so bumping selflessly.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206375]

>>2206358
That's based on rationality, which is a belief in itself; your rational belief is biased towards the evaluative human nature, where as the religious rational belief is meaning full, that everything is already 'defined' and requires no evaluation in an 'evaluative' sense.

-Is it comforting?
-Is it beautiful?
-Should I respect it?

Rather than

-Can it be used as resource?
-Does it emit heat?

Your picture is correct, because Religion doesn't require evaluation, it's more relaxed and allows freedom of imagination, leaving more room for the finer things in life like love, creativity, etc.

However, specifically taking into account Christianity, it describes in an metaphorical fashion cubic creation -- so no, it's not just "God did it" it is rather "God did this first... God did this second..."; therefore, your whole argument is invalid, if you were targeting The Bible.

[Anonymous No.2206384]

>>2206220
>events
SCIENCE
>event
RELIGION

apparently you think a plural is the difference

[Anonymous No.2206390]

>>2206232
implying that one cannot find beauty in things while seeking to understand or even improve them

[Anonymous No.2206397]

Science has many view points. That's why we only have theories. Religion has one. But I think
>>2206384 >M-M-M-MONSTER KILL
said it best.

[Anonymous No.2206404]

dear /sci/
as long as you reply to these pretentious faggots who accomplish nothing in life /sci/ will be shitty
kind regards
a nigger

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206413]

>>2206384
You're acting as if the bible says "God did it" then finishes, it most definitely does not. It is a series of events.

Evidence:
"First God created the Heaven and Earth"
-Event 1
"The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving across the face of the waters,"
-Event 2
"And God said "Let there be Light" and there was Light"
-Event 3

Again, your point is invalid.

[Anonymous No.2206426]

>>2206375
rational thought is the basis of spoken language. if you cannot express something that has a rational basis you will run into circular reasoning or paradoxes.

In other words it wouldn't make sense.


"Is it beautiful" can be broken down to rational arguments. The concept of beauty is a subconscious heuristic to assess things. The easiest of them being the beauty of a mate. It's simply the assessment of indicators for fertility and reproductive success.
Others are more complicated, but they still have rational grounds.


Even religion does make sense. It's just that it's not it claims that make sense, it is the existence of religion itself. Namely it exists as a way to codify a moral framework without analyzing the reasons behind it. It also provides superficially satisfying "explanations" through clever use of fallacies to provide peace of mind in harsh times.


In other words "i have to explain nothing, it's magic" is not a valid defense. It never was.

[Anonymous No.2206432]

>>2206413

0/10, shit troll is shit.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206453]

>>2206426
What you've said is correct. What you've missed is vital to your post being relative to actuality rather than adult post-education reality. Would a child consider something such as a flower beautiful, 'naturally', without the concept of beauty? In a pre-educated sense, the beauty of the world is already secured, people already try to exist without academic education, they are more interested in primitive activities [insert: caveman]. At no point have I claimed education to be bad, I personally and selflessly see it as a good thing, yet it's completely evaluative, and most of it describes life in such a normal and colourless light -- which is nothing compared to what it could be.

Not all Religions are based upon spirituality, they were actually tools of creating a peaceful working civilization -- which obviously separated some Religions from each other, for their ways of life did not compute. The way in which Religion explained the universe was based on the primitive human mindset, not the educated expert or adult mindset. An uneducated child at age 20 would be able to live easily in the natural world if degrees of intelligence were not required.

We do not need to explain the universe, for it was already explained for us, if it wasn't self-explanatory, it wouldn't be here. Learning about the universe is respectful to creation, learning about it atheistically is dull, boring and disrespectful, to humanity and all that exist alongside us.

[Anonymous No.2206456]

aether likes to suck cocks
so does deep and edgy

[sage No.2206459]

sage

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206480]

>>2206456
>>2206459

[Anonymous No.2206481]

>>2206303
Boy have I come to lament your existence. Fuck off with your "philosophy r teh gratest" shit. Deep and Edgy, more like Gay and Faggy

[Anonymous No.2206489]

>>2206453
>most of it describes life in such a normal and colourless light

That is just like your opinion man, people will always be fascinated and absorbed by the joy of understanding.

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2206492]

>>2206489
How selfless of you.

[Anonymous No.2206548]

It's funny how OP answers those posts made by retards, rather that replying the posts of those that made a valid point.
You're just proving yourself as a troll, people keep falling for this.

[Anonymous No.2206561]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most retarded people on this board are always tripfags.

That leaves the question: does the tripcode cause the retardation, or does the retardation cause the tripcode? Or are they both consequences of some greater faggotry?

Philosophy is phun!

[Anonymous No.2206572]

Ah you know what. Fuck this, the believers are right. If you have faith in something you don't have to explain shit and can make decisions based on it.


The next time you'll set foot into a hospital the head surgeon will cut you open with a chainsaw because he'll have faith in the divine ways of Saint Chainsaw.

And do not question him, because faith cannot be explained, it can only be experienced. Become one with the chainsaw.


Rational thought and deliberation is for faggots.

[Anonymous No.2206584]

>>2206561

[Anonymous No.2206586]

How can anyone read OP's name and still reply to his thread with anything but sage? /sci/ is full of pretentious fucktards who boast about their overblown standardized test scores. You're not as smart as you think.

[Anonymous No.2206597]

[Anonymous No.2206611]

what is this I don't even

[Anonymous No.2206629]

>>2206241

If there are no facts, then what is the statement "there is no such thing as fact"?

[Anonymous No.2206829]

The difference is in the Null Hypothesis and falsifiability, no?

[Naggarothian No.2206844]

saging in a troll thread....again

[Anonymous No.2206887]

>>2206844
Yes, you're right... saging with no contribution feels good for the ego. Thanks for the pro-tip.

[Anonymous No.2208580]

One changes with new data, the other stays the same forever.