/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3948094]

/sci/, according to the basic principals of science, you can't technically ever PROVE anything to be an absolute truth so much as simply considering certain things to be true to help direct studies. That's why the majority of scientific principals we believe are still 'theorys,' right?

Does that mean that there should be a great universal measurement of truth? A true scientific law that CANNOT even be considered as being broken?

Or does that mean that we should take everything with a grain of rice, and accept that nothing is completely true?

Help me /sci/, I know this isn't your best field, but I really don't want to turn into a nihilist and I'm getting close.

[Anonymous No.3948113]

>>3948094
>Or does that mean that we should take everything with a grain of rice, and accept that nothing is completely true?
Yes. To do otherwise would mean eliminating the principle of falsification. When you conduct an experiment, you try to reject the null hypothesis. If this can be done, you <span class="math">preliminarily[/spoiler] accept the alternative hypothesis as true. That does not mean it can never be falsified. If this is done many times over, with similar hypotheses, a theory emerges which is supported by all cumulative alternative hypotheses which have been accepted preliminarily. That means, by virtue of being a theory, it is approximates the truth the longer it remains un-falsified, but it can never be absolute truth. It is important to keep an open mind to alternative explanations and novel findings, which may shed new light on the old interpretations.

[Anonymous No.3948115]

> u mad bro?

[Anonymous No.3948117]

>nothing is completely true
Something does not have to be 100% certain to be completely true. You just don't know it.

[Anonymous No.3948119]

Nobody will be able to answer if there is a universal truth or not. It starts with math, where there might be an uncountable number of possible axioms you could deal with. It goes over arguments if there is something like a triangle in reality to how you can't use the scientific method to show that the scientific method is the best way to do science.
The last point is related to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism
Also look up Objectivism and its critics.

[Anonymous No.3948126]

I actually think existential and moral nihilism are defensible positions. I don't really care too much whether there is "objective" meaning to existence or morality. As for epistemological nihilism (which you seem to be talking about here), I doubt anyone truly subscribes to that. If you cannot be said to have any knowledge or evidence of the claim that "eating will decrease my hunger", why would you eat? Why would you wait for a quiet moment to cross the road? I don't think true epistemological nihilists live very long.

[Anonymous No.3948127]

>>3948119
>Nobody will be able to answer if there is a universal truth or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that is what OP is asking.

[Anonymous No.3948133]

sup bro

truth isn't something outside yourself. in fact, it's just an individual concept for whatever works for you. it's just a word.

science has nothing to do with truth, so get that through your head. it's neither it's aim nor its function.

the way i avoided nihilism was by turning my ego against me. 'if im so smart, why can't i make myself happy?'. now i have 100s of thousands of dollars and fuck bitches 24/7. word up bro

also ps /sci/ folks, saying things like 'there is no truth' is, in fact, declaring a truth. peace out

[Anonymous No.3948135]

>>3948127
well, OP is asking
>Does that mean that there should be a great universal measurement of truth?
I guess if there is such a measurement, then you can answer the question if there is somthing which is really true.

[Anonymous No.3948146]

>>3948135
>I guess if there is such a measurement, then you can answer the question if there is somthing which is really true.
I see. I interpreted that as 'is there a point at which we accept a theory to be true and no longer try to falsify it'.

[Anonymous No.3948149]

OP here.
The concept that nothing is really true boils over in my head like malignantly hollow space in my brain. Its not that I don't understand, its just that, knowing that it (it being, anything) cannot be proven suggests to me that the chance any given theory is simply wrong is the correct one, no matter how small a sliver of a percentage of likelihood it is.
Now, that makes me think that NOTHING is real. I just want to know if we have some sort of indefinite truth in anything to prove that the universe is real. No matter if the truth is something mundane or simply stupid- its still grounding.

Maybe that's what I want. Grounding.

[Anonymous No.3948154]

>>3948146
The thing about induction is that you never have a guarantee that no future observation will prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.3948163]

>>3948149
The universe doesn't owe you that.

[Anonymous No.3948166]

>>3948154
I agree, which is why I said: >>3948113

[Anonymous No.3948168]

>>3948163
Well maybe I can make it.

[Anonymous No.3948186]

>>3948146
As a physicist, I don't use the word "true" when talking about physics and I generally only make statement within the framework of a theory.
(For example, i don't like to talk about electrons as if they are things in existence. I try only to refer to the corresponding object in the theory, say quantum mechanics. Yesterday there were no point particles and tomorrow there might only be strings. Hence, I gave up on giving realistic meaning to theories long ago. This goes in a Kant'ian direction but saying something will happen or is possible is blind induction.
I guess I didn't interpret this that way since I don't think you can know to be right anyway. I think you can only have ideas for axioms, do mathematical deduction and try having fun with it.

[Anonymous No.3948188]

>>3948149
>Its not that I don't understand, its just that, knowing that it (it being, anything) cannot be proven suggests to me that the chance any given theory is simply wrong is the correct one, no matter how small a sliver of a percentage of likelihood it is.
Every single theory we have is wrong. That is orthogonal to their purpose though. We only need theories to approximate truth so that we can use them for bettering our lives.
>Now, that makes me think that NOTHING is real.
I don't follow.

[Anonymous No.3948189]

>>3948149
You're not being coherent. You're still saying things like "the concept that nothing is really true." That concept implies "this concept itself isn't really true," and nothing but nonsense can come of that.

[Anonymous No.3948282]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/intro/epistemology3.htm
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/i_es/i_es_kunda_mind.htm