[ 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: 15 KB, 325x396, Data,_2366[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4175449 No.4175449 [Reply] [Original]

Would you say that science is inductive, deductive? (i.e. Bacon or Descartes).

I've recently had an argument with a [history] professor over the nature of science, and he attributes the foundations of science to Descartes and Aristotle. I took that stance that Bacon and Galileo are to be credited.

Your views?

>> No.4175462

Good science (the process of aquiring new knowledge) is both inductive and deductive, although the maths, and to a lesser extent, the physics would have you believe induction is unimportant.

>> No.4175471

Empiricism is inductive. Rationalism is deductive.

>> No.4175480

>>4175462
Indeed, deduction, without induction, is merely mental masturbation, and has no basis in reality. Induction, without deduction leaves you unable to form new testable hypotheses, relying entirely on the data (making it impossible to draw conculsions that aren't directly indicated).

>> No.4175486

>>4175471
To expand, science can be both rational and empirical. The difficulty is knowing what applies and when. But science is more heavily empirical than other philosophy. Science is a philosophical tradition that uses empiricism.

Some rationalist philosophers argue empiricism is unnecessary.

>> No.4175499

Every argument (mainly science vs religion) can be boiled down to a disagreement between empiricists and rationalists, but most contributors on both sides are too stupid to engage in the debate at the fundamental level (empiricism vs rational) and so there can be to reconciliation, consensus or compromise.

>> No.4175517

Induction provides the facts.
Deduction provides the predictions.
Creativity provides everything in between.

>> No.4175518

>>4175499
That's stupid and false.

>> No.4175531

>>4175499
No, most people are just stupid. I might have agreed with "Many intelligent arguments..."

>> No.4175542

>>4175499
religion is neither inductive nor deductive.

>> No.4175545

>>4175517
Induction does not provide the facts. Inductive logic is drawing a conclusion based on facts (data, measurable characteristics of the universe, the scientific method). Deduction is accepting a "truth" as such without data, then saying "if this IS true, then what else is also true."

>> No.4175546

>>4175531
If you're going to even admit that most arguments have some very basic thing at their root in common, I'd argue that the root disagreements regard the ontological status of universals before I'd argue that the root disagreements regard how knowledge statements are necessarily justified.

>> No.4175549

>>4175542
Religion is entirely deductive. God exists, therefore XYZ....

>> No.4175556

>>4175549
But the premise of religion is unsound. I suppose that religion attempts to be deductive but fails.

>> No.4175559

>>4175542
All human claims are both inductive and deductive. The perspective which you approach them changes the outcome entirely based on the axioms you hold.

There are no exceptions. As much as I appreciate science, I am forced to recognize that it is no difference. While it allows for a much higher degree of scrutiny than religion, it STILL is only being scrutinized by humans. And frankly, no matter how precisely you run a test, you will never achieve %100 accuracy without completely abandoning contextualization entirely.

>> No.4175562

>>4175556
That is the problem with deduction (used alone, by itself) in general, hence my "mental masturbation" comment :)

>> No.4175572

>>4175545
Yeah, technically you're correct. But I was using facts in a sort of... different way. The "fact" would be the universal statement regarding some natural phenomenon, while the data, measurements, etc... would be the specific instances which gave rise to your making the universal declarative statement.

For example, a fact would be that parents pass on physical characteristics to their children. The data would be numerous instances of people looking over the crib saying to the mother "Ohhh, he's got your eyes and your husband's nose."

>> No.4175577

>>4175559
Yeah, thats what I said, see
>>4175462
Thats because the goal of science is not to prove or find truth.

Through induction, we create theory. In order to progress science we "accept" our theory as fact so that we can use deduction to help make our next hypothesis. Nothing is ever proved in science, theories can only be disproved.

>> No.4175579

>>4175562
fair enough, I can get behind that.
>>4175559
True. but that's a dead-end argument.

>> No.4175584

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. "
~ Karl Popper

>> No.4175588

>>4175556
If it turned out that science was attempting to be deductive and failing, then what do you do?

If it's a religion, you choose another religion. And yet all science does is shove it's problems into hands of scientists who are experts within their own categories.

There is a degree of peer review occurring, much more than within religion. But the fact is that a quantum mechanic will do very little to see how his answers relate to human psychology, and instead will say "Well, fuck it. Let everyone in the middle do all the work."

Sciences seek context within the field below them and the field above them, and very little past that point. In fact, all attempts to make such connections become labeled as pseudoscience and are rejected preemptively.

Not to say I think homeopathy has any place within science. But the peer-review process is done by people who are experts in psychology OR QM, but never experts in both. And sadly, the complaint I'm making will surely be labeled as nothing but babble as a result.

Science is a religion. It's my favorite religion, but a religion none-the-less.

>> No.4175605

>>4175572
That is a problem, we all don't use the same definition for our words. A fact in my life only one thing, a measurable piece of data, nothing else qualifies. I am 6'4", I wiegh 220, I have 10 fingers, etc.. these are facts. We pass on traits to our children is a theory, one that has yet to be dis-proven.

>> No.4175620

>>4175588
>science is a religion
You understand neither science nor religion.

>> No.4175625

>>4175588
If you don't assume that the universe is predictable, testable, and modelable, then you lose everything, including the ability to believe that the religion you have chosen is the true one.

Insomuch as our collection of empirical models can be called a religion, it is the most diverse, complex religion available, and it is the only one that seems to hold consistent within itself.

>> No.4175628

>>4175579
No, it fucking isn't.

I've seen you argue before, you consistently refuse argument with solipsists on the ground that they are dead-end arguments. But you hardly ever try to consider that maybe they're asking questions that your system is completely unable to answer. Not because your answers are wrong, but because you're completely unwilling to admit that your answers are purely contextual.

The fact of the matter is that even if a solipsist were to come to all of the same conclusions you did completely independently of a logical, you would never take his ideas seriously because "he didn't do it the right way."

You are one of the most horribly biased people I've met on this board, and you are completely unwilling to admit it on the grounds that you grade your knowledge solely on what the praise of the people who went through the same process as you think.

Even if a grain of truth did smack you across the face, you would never recognize it unless you found evidence. And sadly, that evidence won't be found unless it's searched for in the first place. Science is flawed. The only scientists who break the mold are those that realize this fact and utilize it.

Fuck you and your assertions that the rejection of "accepted" scientific models is useless.

>> No.4175655

>>4175625
I've never assumed that the universe is not testable, predictable, and modelable.

My assumptions lie solely on the grounds that the universe needs to be tested, predicted, and modeled from multiple perspectives before we can ever gain a true idea of what we are looking at.

A telescope will let you see into the distance. But binoculars will give you true perspective. THAT is my argument. And I think it's a completely just one at that.

Scientific theory needs to be rewritten entirely. Not to get rid of the old views; but to be used in unison with the old views.

>> No.4175662

>>4175628
solipsism is a philosophical black hole.

I am happy to announce that all of your accusations are true.

Have a nice uncertain day!

>> No.4175673

>>4175620
And you don't understand the concept of axioms.

Christians aren't allowed to question the bible. Scientists aren't allowed to question logic. I prefer logic any day, but I hardly see how it is different. The bible is true because the bible says it is true. Logic is true because Logic says it is true.

Just like a christian wouldn't be able to imagine a world without the bible, you're not able to imagine a world without logic. And neither of you are going to understand how similar you are.

You are a joke.

>> No.4175687

>>4175628
>science is flawed
No, its not. Its ceraintly not perfect, but thats not the same thing as saying its flawed.

>> No.4175688

>>4175662
You assume others are wrong because you yourself do not understand their reasoning.

It's like you're playing chess, and I'm playing shogi, and you accuse me of breaking the rules even when I explained to you before hand how my game worked. I'd love to keep playing, but all you do is give up and quit out of frustration like a child.

It's kinda sad, really.

>> No.4175689

>>4175673
You can question logic, scientists question eachother constantly.

>> No.4175695

>>4175687
>Perfection - a state of flawlessness
You were saying?

>> No.4175697

>>4175673
>logic and the bible not different
>mfw

>> No.4175704

>>4175689
And the cardinals under the pope question each other constantly as well. The pope (aka, logic) still has final authority. If the pope were wrong, how would anyone even know?

I'm a protestant, though. I read the "bible" and follow what it says the best I can. But I take it's passages with a grain of salt, seeing that it is not a perfect system adjusted to modern times. The laws of logic are over 2000 years old. That's older than the bible itself. Why do you refuse to question them?

>> No.4175705

>>4175688
>the bible
>reasoning
>pick one

>> No.4175710

>>4175688
But I don't want to play shogi. Who says I have to play shogi? I like chess.

>> No.4175715

>>4175704
I think we're on the same side...

>> No.4175716

>>4175710
go

>> No.4175720

>>4175716
knight to f3

>> No.4175724

>>4175704
>question
>law
>mfw
thats like questioning grammar or why a rook moves strait in chess.

Question logic, you dont even know what you're talking about christfag.

>> No.4175733

>>4175720
nf6

>> No.4175742

>>4175733
I've got none. go fish.

>> No.4175749

Broadly deductive but specifically inductive.

A single theoretician is inductive, he has a theory and tries to prove it, but the institution of science is deductive by a process of all theoreticians going through every available theory and disproving each in turn until one is finally found correct.

>> No.4175750

>>4175710
Because unless you play both, you'll never know which one is better.

A true scientist would give each a fair chance. You reject shogi simply on the grounds that it's rules are different than chess, and therefore makes for a poor chess game.

And maybe you're right. Maybe chess IS a better game. But frankly, I have just as much fun playing both and reach the same conclusions with each, even if the means are entirely different.

You say solipsism is the black hole. But when I look at philosophy, I see a black hole in itself. Once a man is stuck in logical assumptions, he can never escape. I've been doing just fine, however. Each of us has. But you are determined to tell me I'm wrong. I'm determined to tell you that even if I am, you could be, too. That's the difference between us. I do not reject science. I merely accept it can be wrong.

>> No.4175751

>>4175742
Got any kings?

>> No.4175759

>>4175749
You're confused, you didnt read the whole thread.

>> No.4175766 [DELETED] 

>>4175710
I've thought about both, and I chose to assume that the universe I experience is objective and predictable. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm saying that our assumptions are too different to allow direct debate. Also, I don't know what the fuck shogi is.

>>4175751
SHIT how did you know? I was dealt pocket Ks and landed trips on the river. let's see your hand.

>> No.4175770

>>4175750
I've thought about both, and I chose to assume that the universe I experience is objective and predictable. I'm not saying that you have to agree, I'm saying that our assumptions are too different to allow direct debate. Also, I don't know what the fuck shogi is.

>>4175751
SHIT how did you know? I was dealt pocket Ks and landed trips on the river. let's see your hand.

>> No.4175774

>>4175724
So you refuse to question the unknown on the grounds that it cannot be questioned?

Then create an alternative system and work within it for a bit, even temporarily. To question grammar in the English language, people learn different languages. You don't need to prefer the new language, but it will help you see what kind of confusions english will lead to. Knowing both languages gives you a far better understanding of each.

That's the process I go through when I question logic. I still speak "logic" fluently, but because I'm a solipsist, I'm able to see the potential flaws that logic may miss or not check for on a regular basis. If anything, solipsism has given me a far greater grasp on scientific concepts.

>> No.4175776

>>4175750
Go home christfag. This is /sci/
Science, the process, is perfect for obtaining information about the world. Just because each individual piece of information may or not be correct, does not make the process flawed. Thats it the nature of the process, its a characteristic of science that we accept, that our ultimate conclusions may not always be correct. We PLAN for that We MAKE that the case, on purpose THAT is the scientific method. we set up the rules AGAINST ourselves, we try to DISprove our theories. it is a perfect system, admittedly, some abuse it, but the sytem is perfect.

>> No.4175791

>>4175774
>a christfag pretending to be a scientist
how original...

>> No.4175799

>>4175774
>speaks logic
>solipsism
pick one

>> No.4175802

>>4175774
>solipsism
>scientific concepts
pick one

>> No.4175809

>>4175776
>Science, the process, is perfect for obtaining information about the world
That, my friend, is what we call an axiom.

It's when we say, "It's conventional, therefore, it's true". Don't get me wrong, axioms are completely necessary for things to be conventional. But we are not required to stick to a single axiom. Changing between multiple axioms allows you to see the flaws and successes in each, even if both are conventional.

That's why I question science. Not because science is unconventional; but because it could be MORE conventional. And you will never see that science could be better until you realize that the process itself is not perfect.

Take this example: You hear a "moo", but you see both a cow and a speaker sitting next to each other. Either could have made the sound, so what do you do? You just do whatever is conventional. You've not achieved knowledge, you've only made an assumption, and built all other facts and information off of that assumption.

You check to see the speakers are turned on and find they are. Does that mean the cow didn't "moo"? No. You just don't care enough to check.

>> No.4175820

>>4175799
>>4175802
I reject your assumptions that they are exclusive, and I picked both. And it works juuuuust fine.

>>4175791
The whole "pope" thing was an allegory. I don't belong to any single religion.

>> No.4175827

>>4175809
OK, 7/10 I kind of knew I was being trolled, but wasn't sure until just now.

>> No.4175836

>>4175827
I can't tell what's more sad.

That you questioned me this long and didn't get anything out of it.
Or that you'd bother questioning me when you preemptively decided you had the answers in the first place.

>> No.4175849

>>4175836
Oh, I got something out of it, or I wouldnt have given you 7/10. Its what you don't say thats so informative.

>> No.4175863

>>4175849
What didn't he say that was so informative?

On a related note, is anyone else tired of the trolls?

>> No.4175873

>>4175863
What I'm really tired of is people like you calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a troll.

>> No.4175879

>>4175863
Even a good troll who talks too long will eventually reveal that thier arguement depends on the victim not compeltely understanding something they are saying, making the person beleive there is something imortant about the conversation that they are not aware (when its actually a fake dichotomy, for instance). But you can only talk so long without actually saying anything and still maintain the facade.

>> No.4175897

>Science, the process, is perfect for obtaining information about the world.

/sci/ - which so loved religion that it turned even science into a religion.

you make me sick

>> No.4175909

>>4175897
0/10

>> No.4175920

>>4175909
see >>4175873
/sci/ should be renamed "scientism"

>> No.4175922

Hello all.
Science is about constantly disproving hypotheses.
If I say something is true, there are implications to it, and if you disprove them, then I am clearly wrong.
In religion, you are told something is true, unquestionably.
TL;DR
Science-Proves itself wrong
Religion-Proves itself right

>> No.4175923

>>4175920
0/10

>> No.4175933

>>4175922
>In religion, you are told something is true, unquestionably.

Not true.

>> No.4175934

>>4175922
Thanks for the support, but this threads been trolled.

>> No.4175943
File: 79 KB, 463x462, 1289695623519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4175943

>Bacon

<mfw

>> No.4175950

>>4175462
what?

>induction is unimportant
>induction

proof by induction???

>> No.4175954

Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish that a given statement is true of all natural numbers (positive integers).

>> No.4175995

>>4175950
Um... no
Science is not proof.
All I said was good science depends on induction and deduction.

>> No.4176013

>>4175954
Im not a mathematician, but this seems like a misnomer. How exactly is it induction?

>> No.4176023

>>4175995
OK nevermind, I found your definition directly from wikipedia, and, in fact, the same article states that mathemaical induction is a form of deductive reasoning.

>> No.4176026
File: 58 KB, 750x457, Oh-Boy-Oh-Boy-Georgie-Has-a-New-Toy--34329.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4176026

ITT: people making assumptions about assumptions

>> No.4176113

>>4176026
Guy from >>4175750 here.

That's the entire scientific process summed up for you.

My argument is simple:
1) You need to base assumptions off of assumptions.
2) You need to make assumptions in the first place.
and most importantly...
3) You need to recognize you are making assumptions in the first place.

Arguments between religion and science are stupid. Neither has the authority to say the other is wrong. Each is based off of their own axioms, and axioms, by nature cannot be disproven.

Science is not wrong. But it is not right.
Religion is not wrong. But it is not right.
What matters are the axioms you choose to follow.

I choose to follow logic. However, I recognize it for the axiom that it is. Logic is inductive, THEN deductive. That is why it is both. Logic is based off of logic. Logic is based off of assumptions. Logic is a bunch of assumptions built off of other assumptions.

I have provided you a logical rejection of logic. I do not entirely reject logic; logic rejects its own existence. I merely assume it to be true when it is conventional. But when there are things logic cannot disprove then that is the answer in itself.

Logic. Is. Not. Perfect. And it will never realize this until it analyzes itself.

>> No.4176138

itt: implications being implied at an implicative rate

>> No.4176139
File: 11 KB, 200x243, uncertainty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4176139

>>4176113
tl;dr
It is dogmatic to not question the bible
It is dogmatic to not question logic.

Logic is a far more conventional religion than Christianity, however, it is undeniably dogmatic in its views. Logic points out the inconsistencies in the Bible. The bible does not care. I point out the inconsistencies in Logic. Logic does not care.

Both the bible and logic ignore the possibilities that they are flawed. That, in itself, is why each is flawed to begin with. I respect aristotle for saying that science should be done purely through observation. But at this point in time, we have no choice to accept there are realities in nature that are downright contradictory and illogical.

Pic related.
Quantum mechanics is a series of assumptions. The assumptions are entirely conventional, however, they are far from being what we would call "logical".

THAT, my friends, is why I reject logic. Because the human perspective itself is flawed. Pauli's exclusion principles would have the same results had we chosen them to apply to bosons instead of fermions. They would just be beyond conventional understanding, and are therefore ignored. We are "made of fermions" as far as we're concerned. And all answers must relate to that assumption.

>> No.4176179

>>4176139
Here's a list of small instances where logic needed to be abandoned:
1) The square root of 2 being an irrational number
2) The orbits of the planets according to geocentricity
3) The idea that animals, provided enough time, will evolve
4) The idea that two objects cannot have dual existence
5) Pretty much every goddamn scientific advancement we've ever had.

Some advancements I'd like to see:
1) Our ideas regarding the definition of "life"
2) Our ideas regarding the definition of "matter"
3) Our ideas regarding the definition of "philosophy"
4) Our ideas regarding the definition of the "universe"
5) Our ideas regarding the definition of "time"
6) Our ideas regarding the definition of "species"
7) Our ideas regarding the definition of "abiogenesis"
8) Our ideas regarding the definition of "intelligence"
And several more like this. A lot of scientific principles and concepts rely on strict definitions of these words. We are constantly finding more and new information that is straight up contradictory to these principles and concepts, but we refuse to accept them as "legit" on the grounds that they are not logical.

If the scientific community chose to entertain them a little bit more (and we are more than capable of it in this day and age), we might learn far more than we could have ever imagined. As it is, it's been a slow and crawling process because there are so many "assumptions" already in place that we'd have to abandon to take them seriously.

That is why I propose that axioms not be set in stone or regarded strictly as "true/false". It eliminates things in our universe that are not only potentially true, but the nature of reality itself.

>> No.4176226
File: 13 KB, 265x272, yes and.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4176226

>>4176138

>> No.4176517

>>4176179
>>4176139
>>4176113
You've been brainwashed by philosophers. There is no hope for you.

>> No.4176641
File: 9 KB, 530x276, rectangles and squares.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4176641

>>4176517
Brainwashed by philosophers?

I already told you, I question Logic itself. Philosophers fucking hate when you do bullshit like that.

Philosophers say, "Squares are always rectangles, but rectangles are not always squares."
I respond by saying "The idea that squares are ontologically dependent on rectangles is not a fact, but the product of logic itself. Rectangles both can be and ARE defined by multiple squares. It's called integration and it's a fundamental concept in mathematics."

Which pisses them off more than anything else because quite frankly, BOTH answers are absolutely true. The idea of "ontological" dependence is not the nature of reality; it's the product of "logic", which is even right in the very word "ontological". Without logic, ontology literally is just a nonsensical concept.

Now quit being a pretentious asshat. I have as much of a beef with philosophy as I do with any other science and you're only flaunting your ignorance on the subject by thinking I'm on good terms with their department.

>> No.4176663

>>4176641
No, you are the solipism guy, a philosophical idiocy that even other philosphers consider rediculous.

I call you philosopher because I have never in my life seen someone write so much and actually say so little.

>> No.4176699

>>4176179
I don't think you understand what logic is.

>> No.4176715

>>4176641
>Rectangles both can be and ARE defined by multiple squares.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with "Squares are always rectangles, but rectangles are not always squares." and are in no way contradictory to it.
So what the hell are you talking about?
You're not saying anything, just spewing out nonsense.

>> No.4176719

Observational science vs. theory?

Wtf.
Science is a lot of shit.

>> No.4176723

>>4176699
In almost every single sentence you write, which is many, you clearly demonstrate that you dont know what science is.

>The idea that squares are ontologically dependent on rectangles is not a fact

yeah, nobody said it was a fact, in scientific terms, its a theory. The facts are: it is 5 inches wide and 5 inches tall. Theoretically, its a square. (now, whether or not its a square is literally a math question, not a scientific one, I'm only using it as an example because Im not a mathematician and don't know much about proofs) Theory, fact, proof, you have no grasp of how these terms are used in science, yett you disparage science without even knowing the definitions of the terms you're disparaging.

>> No.4176728

>>4176699
Sorry I did not mean to attribute
>>4176723
to you, it was ment for the silipism guy

>> No.4176730

troll thread throll tread troll thread
and all of you fgts are feeding it
And you know what?
Sciencetists question logic.
And you know what?
religion doesn't, because it takes circular logic innstead of AA's

>> No.4176741

>>4176730
I know. But I had so much hope for this thread, it started out great.

>> No.4176742

>>4176663
>I call you philosopher because I
cannot into philosophy, apparently

>> No.4176747

>>4176663
I see people write a lot and never actually understand what they said. And then use their own ignorance to disagree with other people. That's what the guy in >>4176723 is doing for example. He never understood what I was getting at, and declared I was wrong without any further thought.


>>4176715
This conversation has everything to do with ontology. Either I'm spewing nonsense, or you just have no clue what I'm saying.

If a scientist decided that DNA seems like a lot of nonsense, is that justification for him to say that DNA obviously doesn't work? Does he declare it's pointless to try and understand it? No. He fucking digs in there and tries to make sense of things. This is exactly what you're NOT doing.

>>4176723
>you clearly demonstrate that you don't know what science is.
And you're clearly demonstrating that you don't understand the fundamental theory of calculus. Not trying to say that you need to understand mathematics to understand my argument...

But the evidence that you might not have any idea of what I'm actually trying to get at is right there in your very own post.

>> No.4176751

>>4176730
>Sciencetists question logic.
Sometimes.
>religion doesn't
Completely wrong.

>> No.4176753

>>4176699
I understand exactly what logic is. It's a bunch of statements stemming from axioms chosen purely out of convention, presented in a "true/false" format.

Logic is based off of nothing but axioms. Axioms are nothing but assumptions which we refuse to question. Logic, therefore, is nothing but a bunch of assumptions. Conventional assumptions, mind you, but assumptions nonetheless.

>> No.4176756

>>4176747
>a scientist decided that DNA seems like a lot of nonsense
Yeah, scientists do that all the time.....

>> No.4176767

>>4176723
I think his use of squares is just an allegory. He's talking about how mathematic concepts like "integration" contradict logical concepts like "essence" and "ontology", and how things in science can be described in an "integrative" format. Which it does on occasion, but not often.

>> No.4176768

>>4176753
>chosen purely out of convention
>mfw

>> No.4176771

>people putting in the same place reality with metaphysics

You people are disgusting

>> No.4176788

>>4176753
>assumptions
>axioms
pic one

>> No.4176797

>>4176756
Are you familiar with "junk code"?

It's not useless code in DNA. It's just the term used to describe all the code that biochemists have no clue "what it does". They're still searching. It's like mapping the universe. It's a really cool picture to look at, but you still don't have any idea what all those dots "really" are.

They know "junk" code is useful cause the DNA won't work without it. But they don't actually know what it all does yet.

>> No.4176806

>>4176797
>decided that DNA seems like a lot of nonsense
>They know "junk" code is useful

Your point?

>> No.4176808

>>4176788
All assumptions are axioms-
As long as you decide they can't be proven wrong.

>> No.4176822

>>4175449
Which ever one is older, wins the argument.

Sorry child.

>> No.4176830

>>4176808
>All assumptions are axioms.
Um no.
I "assume" that you ment to say, all axioms are assumtions.
Still, no.

>> No.4176844

Inductive. The task of science is to provide general law from a set number of observations.

>> No.4176854

>>4176806
My point is that scientists don't like admitting how little they actually know about DNA and get offended when people call them out on it.

It becomes an issue of semantics where they say, "Yeah, but 'junk' code actually isn't junk!", which is a fancy way of saying "I may not know what it is, but you don't either. So stop pointing out my ignorance."

The guy in >>4176723 is the same way. He doesn't understand my complaint about logic and its relation to science, and therefore decided that I'M the ignorant one. I'm not saying the scientific process is wrong. I'm saying that it's flawed in ways it doesn't understand.

>> No.4176863

You need both, the concepts used in deductive reasoning are formed by inductive reasoning.

>> No.4176866

>>4176854
>scientists don't like admitting
>get offended
These sound like problems with scientists, not science.

>> No.4176876

>>4176830
Provide me an axiom which is not an assumption, please.

>> No.4176888

>>4176854
>it's flawed in ways it doesn't understand.
What is "it" exactly... Science? Science doesn't understand? I'll "assume" you mean scientists, not science.

>> No.4176895

>>4176866
Scientists do not exist without science.
Science does not exist without scientists.

Science is only as perfect as the scientists who perform the scientific method. How is "perfection" be measured, then? How will we know that "science is perfect"?

There's still "error". There's still things we don't know. There is no means whatsoever to determine that "science is perfect". Only convention. "If it's the best we got, then it's perfect enough". It's only perfect in a conventional sense.

>> No.4176905

>>4176888
I mean both.

Science is based off of logic. I'm questioning the dogmas of Logic, therefore, I'm questioning science as well.

If axioms can be wrong, then they are no longer axioms. As long as the possibility exists that an axiom is wrong, then there exists the possibility the Logic based off of it is wrong. If logic can possibly be wrong, then the science which is based off of it can possibly be wrong.

As long as axioms are not checked for soundness, science itself cannot be considered "sound" with certainty.

>> No.4176911

>>4176888
So to answer your question:

Yeah. Your assumption is right. But it's also wrong. Depends on how you want to look at it, but I see it as a combination of both.

>> No.4176914

>>4176895
>Science is only as perfect as the scientists who perform the scientific method
I think thats like saying a chess game is only as good as the skill of the player, it has nothing to do with whether or not the game of chess itself is flawed.
>still things we don't know
Really? Thats informative.

>> No.4176920

>>4176876
I think you're confusing math and science, there are no axioms in science, only theories. math is a language, and it has rules, just like English has grammar rules.

>> No.4176931

>>4176914
>Really? Thats informative.
Actually, it is.

We don't even know "what" we don't know. Science only finds the answers we look for. If we aren't looking for answers, how often does science give them to us?

Walk in a straight line in a desert, you'll find something eventually. But briefly looking in all directions at least gives you an idea where to go.

>> No.4176942

>>4176931
don't give up now dude, this adds nothing to the discussion. answer the other point

>> No.4176949

>>4176920
Now we're getting somewhere.

Do theories in Psychology rely on theories in Quantum Mechanics? How about vice-versa?

The two are undeniably related, but the separation between the two is considered so vast that we hardly even acknowledge it. THAT'S how they are axioms. Even if they are the products of previous systems, the previous systems are then disregarded over time, and the changes between each are not considered.

"Science" does not rely on axioms: However, unless you're an expert in all the sciences at once, then they ARE axioms, because you are not questioning them. Depends on how you want to look at it. Again, I think both are true.

>> No.4176953

>>4176942
I did. See >>4176905. I'm still addressing it.

>> No.4176957

>>4176931
And this
>Science only finds the answers we look for
Is completely untrue, by the way. I'd wager as much has been discovered by accident than what was intended.

>> No.4176969

>>4176949
No, "science" only discovers "inconsistencies."

"Scientists" discover new theories. Science makes no assumptions. Scientists, however, do.

Are we arguing about "science" or "scientists"? Tell me in advance to prevent further confusion.

>> No.4176971

>>4176953
No you missed answering the chess analogy

>> No.4176975
File: 748 KB, 960x1299, doingsciencewrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4176975

Should I sleep in the cold mud or my bed?

>conjecture
mud is cold and wet, these sensations are uncomfortable and the cold might cause hypothermia, you should sleep in the warm dry bed, of course this isn't 100% certain, it is possible the bed has been laced with poison by a ninja or some other random thing making it worse than the mud but there is no reason to assume so

>strong inductive reasoning
Not all mud is cold or wet, also you have never tried sleeping in cold wet mud so you cannot confirm whether it is better or worse. You must sleep in the cold wet mud to test this theory and even if it does feel uncomfortable and you do get hypothermia this does not confirm whether it was due to the mud or some other factor.

>> No.4176976

>>4176969
Yeah that wasn't me, by the way. But some of that is correct. Why is it you would think science only discoveres inconsistencies?

>> No.4176980

>>4176969
>Science makes no assumptions.

Except that there is an objective reality to be dealt with. And that it responds similarly to different individuals (excepting relativity). And that real=replicable.

>> No.4176984

>>4176949
This.... is just to vague to answer.
> then they ARE axioms
What are? Theories? Theories are axioms if we're not familiar with the science we borrow from? No, scientists do not assume that. Not good ones anyway.

>> No.4176986

>>4176976
Because a series of numbers and results only provide answers when given contextualization. Otherwise, they are just "answers". If they aren't consistent, then they are "errors", or the theory is wrong. Whether there is a theory that is "right", the experiment itself says nothing about. That's the job of the scientist, who is also flawed. Science relies on the scientist, who is flawed. That is why science is flawed.

>>4176971
Not really. I questioned the foundation of science, which is logic. Logic dictates the rules of science. The rules may not be "wrong", but could the be better? That's my question.

>> No.4176988

>>4176980
Science makes axioms.

Life makes orange.

Oranges make Orange juice.

Orange Juice is Science.

QPQ

>> No.4176999

HAVING ONLY AN INDUCTIVE MINDSET TO WORK WITH WOULD PRODUCE FLAWED ILLOGICAL SYLLOGISMS SOONER OR LATER

USING ONLY DEDUCTIVE PROCESSES WOULD CRIPPLE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD COMPLETELY.

>> No.4177022

>>4176986
>That's the job of the scientist, who is also flawed. Science relies on the scientist, who is flawed. That is why science is flawed
I'm affraid you're going to have to be more specific than "flawed" that smacks of religion, humans are flawed beings....

>> No.4177031

>>4176986
>The rules may not be "wrong", but could the be better

Perhaps you could provide and example of a rule that could be better?

>> No.4177053

>>4176986
>Whether there is a theory that is "right", the experiment itself says nothing about.

Theories might be wrong, but they are never right, they have only failed to be refuted. Experiments are designed to refute theories, its called the null hypothesis, (the hypothesis of no difference, meaning, we assume hte theory is wrong to begin with) and if we "fail to reject" the null hypothesis, then the theory stands. That does not mean we say the theory right, simply we have failed to refute it.

Now, I will agree, some scientists play fast and loose with the interpritation of results gleaned byt hte use of the scientific method, but the merit of method itself is NOT a reflection of the scientists who abuse it.

>> No.4177071

>>4177053
Sorry. If we reject the null, the theory stands. If we fail to reject, the theory is demonstrated to be wrong. I always get that backwards, I have not taught basic stats in a long time.

>> No.4177121

>>4176986
You're falling apart my friend, relying on clearly religious arguments against science... Science is flawed because scientists are flawed.... come on now.

Chess is flawed because the players are flawed.... makes no sense.

>> No.4177139

>>4177121
And THAT is why I dismissed you much, much earlier, I suspected as much.

>> No.4177153

There's no such thing as straight deduction. Deduction relies on induction. I hate that we still think a priori knowledge is a thing, there's no basis for thinking we could understand anything without sense experience.

>> No.4177174

>>4177153
In science, yes. Other fields rely entirely on deductive logic. Religion, math, philosophy...

>> No.4177185

>>4176986
>Because a series of numbers and results only provide answers when given contextualization.
What does this sentence mean without logic?
>If
What do you mean by this "if" word, what does it mean for something to be a conditional? (remember you're not allowed to use logic)
>then they are "errors", or the theory is wrong.
What is this deductive "then-this-follows" you're talking about?
>Science relies on the scientist, who is flawed. That is why science is flawed.
How does that follow?

>Not really. I questioned the foundation of science, which is logic. Logic dictates the rules of science. The rules may not be "wrong", but could the be better? That's my question.
If you throw out logic, everything you said is completely meaningless, every argument you make has absolutely no substance to it.
You can't have it both ways, you can't argue logic away, with logic.

>> No.4177186

>>4177174

As a philosophy and math major I disagree. The degree of separation is greater, but I don't think without the basic inductive principles that sense data works with that any knowledge would be possible. What I mean is, everyone has senses and I think it is vital that we have those senses to even understand a topological space, despite how distinct it might be. What I mean is, no one has ever been born completely without sense to my knowledge and I postulate that if someone like that was born they would have no capacity to reason.

>> No.4177188

Science is all inductive, idiot. A deduction implies it follows with certainty. And induction implies it's likely it follows. Induction because you must accept axioms to get there. /thread

>> No.4177198

>>4177186
Well, its good to meet you. I dont know if I quite follow, though> Sure we have senses, and they are neccesary for reason, but how do mathematics and philosophy use inductive logic?

>> No.4177206

>>4177188
Um, no.
The process of deductive logic in science simply implies that we make a conclusion based on a supported theory. While the scientific method is inductive, science includes making conclusions about the implications of the findings, which is deductive. If you'd ever written the discussion section of a scientifc manuscript, you'd know that.

>> No.4177217

>>4177206

Deduction: a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

Induction: any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.

/thread 2

>> No.4177220

>>4177198

I'll ignore the trivial cases where philosophy mingles with naturalism and other forms that combine scientific data into their analysis to decide a position on a philosophical problem and where mathematics uses probabilistic and inductive methods (such as in the proof of the four color theorem). I think math uses induction indirectly just because we as a species use induction. I think that the very way we're hardwired is to promote inductive methods of reasoning, using memory-prediction type frameworks. I don't have a strong basis for that claim, it's just my opinion. What I can say, at least, is that if deduction requires certainty than mathematics can't be deductive since math isn't certain. Lets then assume it doesn't. All I'm arguing in this case is that we derived our pattern finding nature from the way we explore the world, and then abstracted it further and further from metric spaces to topological spaces etc. None of this, I think, would have happened without our initial inductive methods of exploring and living in the world. Hell, set theory didn't exist in a reasonable form till recently, and even still not everything can be deduced from the axioms. I'd agree that mathematics employs deductive reasoning and is centered around it, but you have to build a system before you can play with it.

>> No.4177223

>>4177188
>Induction because you must accept axioms
Ohhh you. 0/10 or idiot.

>> No.4177242

>>4177220
>but you have to build a system before you can play with it.
Yes, I suppose that is true, and a good point, but:
>mathematics uses probabilistic and inductive methods
mathematical induction is actually deductive logic, is it not? I know very little about math, but I did read that somewhere.
>combine scientific data into their analysis
If they only use the data (the raw facts), then yes it might be inductive, but if they use the theories and conclusions of science, then deductive for sure.

About your opinion, I cannot say, I know too little of math.

>> No.4177259

>>4177217
The definitions... hmm I hadn't really thought to look up the definitions... wow thanks man.
0/10

>> No.4177270

>>4177259
Rookie mistake. But most of /sci/ is just a playground for people to argue about definitions of is.

>> No.4177273

>>4177242

On mathematical induction I'm just skeptical about its deductive status for a number of reasons. The main point I'm getting at though is that inductive and deductive reasoning are often intertwined. I believe all deductive systems only emerged because of inductive principles that are hardwired into the way the human brain works. Again though, I can't prove this.

>> No.4177277

>>4177217
You use deduction to create a hypothesis, dumbass, then you use induction to test it.

>> No.4177280

>>4177270
>mfw doesnt understand sarcasm

>> No.4177295

Okay seriously what is with this notion of a dichotomy between empiricists and rationalists? As though rationalists aren't allowed to look at the world they are trying to reason about. That's just plain idiotic.

>> No.4177308

>>4177295
Who's stopping them from doing whatever they want? But as soon as you collect and analyze data, you are in the realm of induction.

>> No.4177312

>>4177295
I wouldn't say it's a dichotomy but rather a continuum.

>> No.4177319

>>4177277
This. Science builds on itself. We have theory A and theory B, we might logically conclude that C follows (deductive), then we test C (inductive) this keeps logic in touch with reality, so much as is possible.

>> No.4177351

>>4175449
+148 posts to prove the reductio ad absurdum is demonstrably true?

>> No.4177347

>>4177312
Mmm, I dont think so. The definitions are pretty clear. It might be difficult to classify some practices as deductive or inductive, but thats probably because they're not completely within the realm of logic anyway. Like, observational-only stuff, quasi-experiments and such.

>> No.4177352

>>4177308

Well nobody is stopping anybody from doing whatever they want. But the second law of thermodynamics ensures that, with probability ~1, you cannot form accurate beliefs about something without ya know going and looking at it. So you can't really call yourself a rationalist unless you venture into the realm of induction.

>> No.4177364

>>4177352
Well, I dont know about rationalists and how they classify themselves, but if they make conclusions based on data, conclusions that that are supported by, but don't neccesarily follow from the premises, they are using induction.

>> No.4177476

the "scientific method" is used interchangeably in some books with "inductive method"

that should be a good hint