[ 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: 12 KB, 356x496, 54354352345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3668217 [Reply] [Original]

Go to second intro to psych lecture today, professor starts with
>At this University Psychology is a science
lol
>What is true to today may not be true next year
lol

>> No.3668229

he's saying in terms of the DSM-IV-TR probably

>> No.3668228

>taking psych classes
Faggot detected.

>> No.3668236

OP knows nothing of science.

>> No.3668233

Go to /sci/, first thread starts with
>hey atheists
lol
>how can u believe in evilution if its just a theory (a geuss)?
okay, now he got me

>> No.3668358

>What is true to today may not be true next year

What's wrong with this statement? He pretty obviously means what is believed to be true. If that statement ceases to be true in a field, then it immediately ceases to be a science.

>> No.3668380

>>3668358

It's a fallacy.

A more correct statement would be "What we believe to be true might not be what we believe to be true next year."

>> No.3668386

laughingirls.jpg

he things science is immutable

>> No.3668398

>>3668380
semantic butthurt
it's ecclesiastical

>> No.3668404

>>3668380

So your complaint is his phrasing? It's pretty fucking clear that he meant that. He used stronger language for emphasis, because what is believed by the scientific mainstream is generally held as fact by the public. I have no idea why you think this is inappropriate hyperbole for an introductory course, where he is trying to impart the most basic idea of science: that nothing is 100% certain.

>> No.3668425

>>3668422

Correct. Science is empirical, mathematics is analytic.

>> No.3668422

>>3668404

Well I guess Mathematics isn't a science cause everything is 100% certain

>> No.3668447

>>3668425

Then what about proofs? Aren't those empirical evidence that a theorem is true? I call bullshit on your useless classifications.

>> No.3668461
File: 55 KB, 300x470, stock-photo-laughing-black-man-28433914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3668425

Oh shit nigga, he dun got u.

>> No.3668474

>>3668422

... Yes?

Who was claiming math is a science?

It's not empirical. It is all deduced from a set of principles which are based on reality, but it's not experimentally based. It's absolutely fundamental to all the sciences, but it is not itself one.

>> No.3668477

>>3668447
>proofs
>empirical

Nigga...

>> No.3668483

>>3668447
Nothing empirical about them. Empirical means we test things. Nothing is tested in a proof. It's not like they looked at a bunch of circles and tested that pi was the circumference. They defined circles mathematically and logically deduced that pi had to be the circumference. Not the best example I guess, but you get what I mean.

>> No.3668484

>>3668217
True was the wrong word, but his point was valid.

>> No.3668492

>>3668447

Equivocation fallacy. If we call a proof empirical evidence, we might as well call opinion empirical evidence. So if I think you're an assfag, there you have it. Scientifically demonstrated, not much left to say.

A correct proof is immutable. An empirical judgment is always contingent on future observations.

>> No.3668514

>>3668447

Well, no, proofs aren't empirical evidence, they are logical deductions. All science inherently involves a step of induction by taking in evidence from observations and experiments (which is a BIG part of why nothing in them is 100% true). Such reasoning is not valid in mathematics. Nor is it in philosophy or logic, because induction allows for the introduction of errors in logic because you can't assume that because something happened once that it will always happen. This is why we have to repeat things in science ad nauseum.

>> No.3668524

>>3668483
>>3668492
>>3668514
>>3668477
Trolled.

>> No.3668531

>What we know today might not be what we know next year.

There, FTFY.

>> No.3668560
File: 87 KB, 755x1255, LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3668524

>> No.3668564

>>3668524

Even if it is a troll in this case, there isn't even a consensus amongst mathematicians on that point. I think most people in the natural sciences would say that it isn't for the reasons we mentioned, but it is a somewhat interesting discussion.

>> No.3668600

>>3668564

It's not interesting at all. There are small subsets of empirical mathematics, but everyone will agree that the vast majority of mathematics is qualitatively different from empirical science. The problem is that some faggots want to thus call mathematics a "formal science" to distinguish it from "empirical science", and the rational among us want to call mathematics "mathematics" and science "science".

It's an aspie fest. Not an intelligent debate.

>> No.3668606

Psych IS a science... its the study of human behavior

the people on /sci/ really dont get the difference between clinical psy and like, the research based aspect.

Its sad that the trade and the science of it share the same name

>> No.3668611

>>3668483
>>3668492

I still don't see how separating the two really makes any sense. Empirical evidence is still derived from analytical reasoning. If I set up an experiment under the same conditions I will always get the same result. I don't see how the evidence produced by that experiment is contingent upon future evidence.

Although, I can see how empirical evidence gets disproved when extra variables are recognized. For example people thought wood became lighter after it was burned, but this was only because they did not recognize that gasses were being released that conserved the object's mass. So if you're able to observe all of the variables of a system, I don't see how experimentation becomes any less analytical than mathematics.I see mathematical theorems as a kind of setup for logical experimentation, and when the logic checks out that theorem is proved. But if we were to understand something deeper about how numbers work, current theorems would no longer hold up and we would have to adjust certain variables to make them true in this new context. I honestly don't see the need for separating the two concepts when they're both based on basic logic, reasoning, and observation.

>> No.3668627

>>3668611

>If I set up an experiment under the same conditions I will always get the same result.

How do you know? It may seem obvious to you, but I see no reason to assume that premise.

>> No.3668622

Oh god, math and science.....

MATH IS A PRIORI. All of it. ITs a system of ideas, concepts, and their relationships that exist independent of the physical word, in an idealized world of ideas.

Science is empirical. It is based on intelligent experimentation in the real world.

Math is NOT science. Math is a tool often USED in science.

/argument

>> No.3668642

>>3668524

Fucking moron. I wasn't trolling, I was trying to incite and interesting conversation. If you really think it's so ridiculous to form connections and wonder if they hold up through reason I don't think you belong on /sci/.

>> No.3668649

>>3668627

the problem of induction. gave hume hell but he realized we just have to accept it. There is no reason to assume it will be the same, there is no reason to assume the sun will rise every day, but it does and for all practical purposes reality SEEMS to work that way so might as well go from that basic unproven axiom.

>> No.3668654

>>3668380
>A more correct statement would be "What we believe to be true might not be what we believe to be true next year."

Obviously that's what he meant, aspie.

>> No.3668679

>>3668649

So how do you go from "We don't know that it's true, but it's useful to accept it" to "This is exactly the same as mathematics, where we don't need such an assumption".

>> No.3668701

>>3668679

What? I dont know what you're saying.....

Science NEEDS experiments to validate it. Its an empirical science. Things need to playout in the real world. NOTHING is accepted as true without observational or experimental evidence.

Math is a priori. Meaning it exists PRIOR to experience. That is to say you can figure out EVERYTHING EVERYTHING EVERYTHING involved with math by sitting down and thinking a lot. If two people think a lot and think correctly they will always reach the same conclusions. Because math is the relationship between concepts that MAY exist in the physical word but have no real relationship to it.

If you dont see the distinction or it seems arbitrary..... ok. But it is definitely there.

>> No.3668717

>>3668627

Well then why does math always function in the same way? Why do calculators work so well? My point wasn't that what we assume is always correct. It was that under the same exact conditions the same thing will always happen. Say what you want about quantum probability and uncertainty, I just don't think the universe is as indertiministic as people seem to think.

>> No.3668736

>>3668717

>quantum mechanics
>invalidate your point in your own post
>dismiss EMPIRICAL evidence against your position

you're like those evolution deniers, lololol

Do you think the earth is flat two? half pint bitch ass nigga

>> No.3668831

>>3668717

What?

Uncertainty is pretty well established for quantum mechanics. It may turn out to be false, but for right now our data supports the idea. As far as the broader statement, science is built upon the supposition that things will behave in the same way everywhere under the same conditions, but this is a SUPPOSITION. As was mentioned earlier, Hume failed to resolve the problem of induction because it's inherent to science, and why science cannot ever produce 100% certainty about anything. We can only have reasonable certainty, and anyone claiming more is a charlatan.

The issue is that if you take any upper division undergraduate courses in mathematics, you will learn very quickly that induction is unacceptable in mathematics as evidence for anything. It is reasonable grounds for suspicions, but it is not admissible as evidence of a claim.