/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5500406]

ITT: we point out fundamental flaws in science.

This is good practice because it establishes what science is or isn't capable of.

#1: Science relies on chopping things into discrete pars, whereas in nature everything works interconected, as a whole.

Your turn.

[Anonymous No.5500436]

thats a gross over-simplification OP

[Anonymous No.5500447]

>Fields that study the general properties of systems include systems theory, cybernetics, dynamical systems, thermodynamics, and complex systems.
"But MUH ANTISCIENCE!"

[Anonymous No.5500448]

#1 0,999...=/=1
#2 Axiom of choice is false
#3 Can't explain magnets
#4 Newton didn't create calculus
#5 >tfw no gf
#6 Biology is science
#7 Non-constructive proofs are useless

[Anonymous No.5500452]

>>5500406
It seems, OP, you do not understand systems, modelling, or the scientific method.

Science is limited when considering the unobservable/untestable. If there was a particle that didn't interact with anything, and didn't cause any observable real-world effects, then it would stay in the realm of theoretical physics and we could never validate its existence.

[Anonymous No.5500459]

>>5500452
it would stay in the realm of non-existence actually. if something doesn't cause observable real-world effects it does not exist by definition.

[Anonymous No.5500460]

>>5500448

And the trivial award goes to

[Anonymous No.5500465]

>>5500459

THIS.

[Anonymous No.5500490]

>>5500406

>Science relies on chopping things into discrete pars, whereas in nature everything works interconected, as a whole.

and yet it also relies on going back and making sure the conclusions drawn from those discrete (pars?) still stand up to scrutiny when integrated back in.

[Anonymous No.5500493]

qualia

/thread

[Anonymous No.5500497]

>>5500493

Don't even start on yuh qualia.

And this is just going to turn into a philosophical debate on HERR DURR HOW DO WE KNOW ANYTING EXIST HURR DE DUUR.

Good luck solving that one.

[Anonymous No.5500500]

>>5500406
>can't explain magnets
>can't find a way to fuck a girl within seconds
>no timetravel
>eating up too much money inexchange for little or no results.

[Anonymous No.5500516]

>>5500406

but muh analogue & calculus

[Anonymous No.5500540]

>>5500516
>doesn't realize that every formulae he's ever seen is a discrete approximation

[Anonymous No.5500579]

>>5500500
>>eating up too much money inexchange for little or no results.

True, to an extent, in that without a map, all roads must be travelled to find the castle.
How do you know which research will lead to petroleum's replacement?

In a country which spends so much money on a military and fails to curbstomp the obese with regard to medical costs, the size of the science budget is disgracefully small.

[Anonymous No.5500758]

Science conflates actualities with what nature really is. And then scientist, wonder why there hasn't been any new scientific revolutions, or challenging ideas lately. HMMMMM!?

Science=/=Philosophy. But for some reason Science can't make sense nor properly work without it. Why is that?

Oh! That's right. Because Science isn't as perfect, nor as glorious, as /sci/ hypes it to be. (not without help from other human institutions of thinking to help it)

[Anonymous No.5500764]

[Anonymous No.5500771]

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

[Anonymous No.5500774]

>>5500406


But if everything is interconnected as a whole, we can simply describe each individual part, then add a function to describe the interconnectedness.

[Anonymous No.5500775]

>>5500771
The concept of a designer would imply a non-natural universe.

Since data would have to be natural (we cannot rely on the supernatural due to inconsistencies) it would never prove an intelligent designer.

[Anonymous No.5500789]

>>5500406
>ITT: we point out fundamental flaws in science.

Science tells us that every macro-scale object in the universe moves in a deterministic fashion that is perfectly predictable based on a set of mathematical formulas (e.g. an object orbiting the sun).

Yes somehow we have a free will that allows us to induce motion that wouldn't otherwise exists. For example, typing this text into 4chan.

>inb4 free will is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.5500798]

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." -- Richard Feynman

[Anonymous No.5500796]

The only answer to OP's question that matters is that science assumes Induction works.

[Anonymous No.5500799]

>>5500789

>inb4 free will is an illusion.

>hurr if we can't model it yet, it must be magic durr

[Anonymous No.5500800]

>>5500798
If he really said that, I actually lost a little bit of respect for Feynman.

[Anonymous No.5500802]

>>5500774
And that's still not how nature does it and therein lies the beauty of it.

[Anonymous No.5500801]

>>5500789
Science also tells us about chaos. Small variations in complex systems quickly lead to large deviations, making long term predictions of complex systems (weather, the brain, the market etc.) practically impossible. So "free will" is really just lack of perfect precision measurements and chaotic behaviour.

[Anonymous No.5500804]

>>5500406
Wrong-o. Reality is not continuous. There exist discrete fundamental particles. Checkmate, philosophers.

[Anonymous No.5500806]

>>5500804
>There exist discrete fundamental particles
Name one.

[Anonymous No.5500814]

>>5500448
>0.999... is not actually a valid number in our system
your teachers forgot or didn't know it when they taught you numbers, but repeating nine are forbidden in our numeral system to prevent some numbers to have 2 representations.

>the cartesian product of non-empty sets can be empty
lel

>true
>true
>true
>true

>implying knowing there exist a solutions to problems is useless, even if you can't construct one of those solutions.

[Anonymous No.5500823]

>>5500806
electron, electron-neutrino, up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom, muon, tau, photon, gluon, Z, W, Higgs, muon-neutrino, tau-neutrino. There, have the standard model.

[Anonymous No.5500822]

100 years ago:

> God created the universe from nothing.
> Religious neanderthal.

Today:

> The universe created itself from nothing.
> Brilliant scientist.

[Anonymous No.5500837]

>>5500822

Your point being?

[Anonymous No.5500862]

>>5500823
Waves are not discrete

[Anonymous No.5500885]

>>5500862
Wavepackets are. You can't just ignore the particle bit of wave-particle duality.

[Anonymous No.5500897]

>>5500885
We see it as particle, but is it really particle?

The implications of what you're proposing go far deeper than you'd like to admit or have the capability to understand.

[Anonymous No.5500990]

>>5500897
A quantum mechanical particle is an irreducible representation of the poincare group and the gauge groups. Its a distinct thing because the representation is irreducible. Has nothing to do with "waves" or "wave-particle duality" or something like that, really.

[Anonymous No.5501003]

>>5500822
you can easily flip that argument the other way around.

[Anonymous No.5501028]

>>5500990
>ITT ignore the frame of the issue at hand, and instead talk about something else as a distraction

[Anonymous No.5501068]

>>5500448


#1 lrn2limit

[Anonymous No.5501107]

>>5500822
There is no respectable scientist today that will ever claim to say that the universe created itself. There will be conflicting theories among the community, but none are proven or tested. Saying, "I don't know," is completely perfect answer.

[Anonymous No.5501126]

If you spin a bucket of water, the water rises at the edges. If you just spin the bucket, the water's surface remains placid.

This shouldn't happen under relativity.

[Anonymous No.5501148]

>>5501107
Lawrence krauss and stephen hawking are 2 who spread that myth

[Anonymous No.5501170]

>>5501126
inertial frame

[Anonymous No.5501265]

Science can't tell me why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch.

[Anonymous No.5501279]

>>5500798
>Feynman confirmed for actually wanting to learn something about the universe instead of jerking off to unprovable opinions

[Anonymous No.5501285]

>fundamental flaws in science
>most of it is just different interpretation of the english language
keep going science, that will get you far

[Anonymous No.5501291]

>>5501279
+1

[Anonymous No.5501293]

>>5501285
Thank god /sci/ is actually just shit and real science is still happening out there.

[Anonymous No.5501321]

>>5501265

Science

[ ] Told
[ ] Not Told
[X] Fucking Told!

Face it /sci/ there's some shit you can't comprehend

[Anonymous No.5501324]

>>5501321
of course it can

[Anonymous No.5501353]

>>5501028
Isn't that the rule for all threads?

[Anonymous No.5501383]

>>5501353
>rule for all threads?

No, you fucking moron.

https://www.4chan.org/rules#global

[Anonymous No.5501440]

>>5501383
>>>/global/rules/

[Anonymous No.5501446]

>>5500406
ITT: we point out the fundamental faggotry of OP

This is good practice because it establishes how much faggotry a single OP is or isn't capable of.

#1: Faggot OP's always make broad statements about subjects they know little about, whereas this is directly proportional to how much of a faggot OP is.

Your turn.

[Anonymous No.5501462]

>>5501440
>fail
Nope.

[Anonymous No.5501475]

>>5500406
Science can't explain consciousness.
We assume it exists.

[Anonymous No.5501478]

>>5501475
>Science can't explain consciousness
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.5501483]

>>5500800

Why?

[Anonymous No.5501482]

>>5500804
>>5500796
>>5500774
>>5500452

>>5500774

That is still an incomplete description of the system.

Through this process of segregation and categorization we 'create' parts of a complex whole which do not exist in reality. They are useful as a concept and as a convention because things have to be named so that we can assign them functional and structural traits.

Here is the conundrum: when the part is defined by it's context, the act of segregation actually removes part of the information related to it's function/structure. This is sometimes referred to as a Gestalt. Again, that doesn't mean that reductionism is a bad practice, it has been monumentally important in the last hundred years, but it has limits like everything else does.

I am really glad OP chose this issue because I believe it is one of the biggest bummers in modern research. I am certain it occurs in other fields but I can only give examples of some effects of this in biology:

- Enzymes which have very characteristic behavior in vitro actually operate under a totally different context in the cell. There are pH, oxidation, ion concentration and substrate concentration microclimates which change it's behavior. Also, this makes finding protein binding partners a huge bitch. They often bind using very weak electrostatic, hydrophobic or hydrogen bonding regions which are completely disrupted by our fine-tuned protein isolation techniques.

- Chromosomes, when open for reading/writing, occupy a distinct "territory" on the inside surface of the nucleus. This makes them accessible to proteins which have been specifically partitioned in space. When we take the chromosome out of it's micro-environment, we can completely collapse or completely expand the chemical structure, but we cannot restore it's natural environment.

[Anonymous No.5501485]

>>5501482

Put simply: any time a "piece" is defined by it's context, the act of treating it as an independent piece with inherent identity is actually incorporating a bias. Of course, the context is also defined by the pieces. This is not a discrete relationship, it does not go one way or the other. Like in the field of ecology, it is understood (i should say, accepted) that the organism defines the environment and the environment defines the organism - the relationship is "transactional". In all of these instances of OP's problem, what is really happening is that we are trying to describe a unified FIELD of behavior. Reductionism is an important tool for finding the field, but it can't be the only one.

[Anonymous No.5501508]

If function is continious we can just integrate it instead of summing and that's all.
There you go OP.

[Anonymous No.5501511]

………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501512]

>>5501478
No one on /sci/ can give a definition of consciousness qualifying it instead as untestable nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5501515]

>>5501475
>We assume it exists.
Bullshit. We dismiss it by application of Hitchens' razor.

[Anonymous No.5501522]

>>5501511
>.............................................
>......................................
>.........................

>non-existant space
good post!

[Anonymous No.5501526]

>>5501515
Evidence doesn't have to be objective.

[Anonymous No.5501531]

>>5501522
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501533]

>>5501512
I define it as recursion.

[Anonymous No.5501537]

>>5501526
Scientific evidence has to be objectively verifiable.

[Anonymous No.5501540]

>>5501531
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501545]

>>5501537
No, it doesn't. Many sciences study subjective phenomena.

[Anonymous No.5501546]

>>5501540
newfags can't tricock

[Anonymous No.5501550]

………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501553]

>>5501515
>Implying the series of spins in quarks doubtlessly denominating variable actions are not synced by the thing perceiving them
>implying atoms nuclease can be disrupted by electrical impulses
That or the least expensive kind of will is aquired innately and you must level up your character and not forget to apply skill points before they expire

satisfied you broken blender you?

[Anonymous No.5501554]

>>5501550
>tricock fail

[Anonymous No.5501556]

>>5501545
Science only deals with objectively verifiable evidence. If you want to talk pseudoscience, please do it on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5501552]

>>5501511
>>5501531
>>5501540
>>5501550
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5501559]

>>5501552
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501557]

>>5501556
Physics is a pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.5501561]

>>5501556
you can, of course, objectively verify the reporting of subjective phenomena

[Anonymous No.5501562]

>>5501557
>assuming we would see/interact with the same things machines do

Yes.
Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.5501569]

>>5501557
Troll harder.

>>5501561
That's a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.5501574]

>>5501569
The only troll here is you.

[Anonymous No.5501572]

>>5501569
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501583]

>>5501574
▒█▄░▒█ ▀█▀ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▀▀█
▒█▒█▒█ ▒█░ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▄▄▀
▒█░░▀█ ▄█▄ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄▄ ▒█░▒█

[Anonymous No.5501584]

>>5501583
Tsk

[Anonymous No.5501593]

>>5501584
▒█▄░▒█ ▀█▀ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▀▀█
▒█▒█▒█ ▒█░ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▄▄▀
▒█░░▀█ ▄█▄ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄▄ ▒█░▒█
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501594]

>>5501584
Nigger.

[Anonymous No.5501598]

>>5501569
>That's a contradiction.
what do you think happens when a new drug is tested? the patients reporting of symptoms is evidence, for example pain, a subjective phenomena

[sage No.5501604]

>>5501583
>>5501584
>>5501593
>>5501594
sage

[Anonymous No.5501603]

>>5501598
▒█▄░▒█ ▀█▀ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▀▀█
▒█▒█▒█ ▒█░ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▄▄▀
▒█░░▀█ ▄█▄ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄▄ ▒█░▒█
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501606]

>>5501604
▒█▄░▒█ ▀█▀ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀█ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▀▀█
▒█▒█▒█ ▒█░ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█░▄▄ ▒█▀▀▀ ▒█▄▄▀
▒█░░▀█ ▄█▄ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄█ ▒█▄▄▄ ▒█░▒█
………………………………………._¸„„„„_
…………………….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
………….…………………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
…….…………………….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'
……………………¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-"
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \,
:.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì
: : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
"-„_::::_„-*__„„~"

[Anonymous No.5501629]

>>5501606
Looks pretty white to me there bud

[Anonymous No.5501636]

why do placebos work? Why hasn't medical science answered that?

[Anonymous No.5501642]

what the fuck is going on in this thread

[Anonymous No.5501651]

Dark energy, dark matter, Copenhagen interpretation vs the others

[Anonymous No.5501696]

>>5501636
Everybody but me forgets about nocebos

[Anonymous No.5501697]

>>5501482
Great post.

[Anonymous No.5501712]

No scientists are willing to admit the mere possibility that relativity might be erroneous.

We have no way of figuring out how far down the last turtle is.

We will never know what created the universe without breaching causality.

Psychology, among other disciplines, are almost impossible to create an experiment for.

Academia is incredibly stuck-up, so amateur science, regardless of correctness, will often be tossed aside due to elitism and superiority.

Due to limits in human cognition we'll never be able to observe and interpret without any bias whatsoever.

Are those any good?

[Anonymous No.5501901]

>>5500406
>Inductive reasoning is not proof

I rage when people who don't actually understand the scientific method start bullshitting about science proving or disproving anything.

Obviously, some counter-examples exist, but those are mostly because of situations in which science can be reduced to a logic problem by the nature of the theory. A good example is Bell's paper on quantum entanglement.

[Anonymous No.5503597]

>>5501901
>dat irony

[Anonymous No.5505188]

>>5501557
Philosophy is the only real science.

[Anonymous No.5506015]

>>5505188
This is correct.

[Anonymous No.5506033]

>induction
>justified

[Anonymous No.5506041]

>>5505188

[Anonymous No.5506055]

>>5500540
wrong.
analysis is performed on COMPLETE metric spaces, not discrete approximations.

this does not mean such a complete space exists - the universe is quantized. but the discrete elements are so fucking small that a continuous approximation works well.

[Anonymous No.5506060]

>>5505188
Nope. Philosophical theories cannot be falsifiable. You can spout an opinion that is convincing, but it cannot be put through the rigor of being tested. Soft sciences plz go.

>>5506041
Nice reversal gif

>>5506015
Introductory statement, supporting arguments, evidence and citations missing.

[Anonymous No.5506079]

>>5506060
Not every theory has to be falsifiable. If it is plausible and explains the observations, it's science. Popper has been disproved decades ago.

[Anonymous No.5506091]

>>5506079
Except the foundation of scientific inquiry and thought has been the continual proposal and refutation of ideas. By your logic saying god did it all works. As well as every other bullshit argument ever made about everything. If it is plausible and can explain observed phenomena then that is a starting point for the development of theory. It then needs to be generalized, make accurate predictions and be independently verified. You can't just say "makes sense, I buy it so its true". Without being falsifiable then it cannot be accepted as a truthful statement as there is no way to verify it. Everything else is speculation and bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5506097]

>>5506091
>By your logic saying god did it all works.
No, because we have more plausible explanations.

Please learn some basic epistemology.

[Anonymous No.5506101]

>>5500798
If birds could actually understand ornithology it would be pretty fucking useful to them, like human biology to us humans. Was Feynman implying that scientist are too stupid to understand philosophy. He may be right, I know some who are.

[Anonymous No.5506110]

>>5506097
Did you even read my argument you twit. That is an example of what is once (and sadly still is considered) a plausible explanation that is NOT falsifiable. What we have now are falsifiable explanations backed by centuries of work. Also learn to engage in Socratic dialogue you chucklefuck. When you engage in conversation please at least provide some form of intelligent rebuttal. Respond to the other party, address their points and then introduce your own while staying on topic. Seriously, do you even higher thought bro, or did you have a good grade on a philosophy 101 paper and now you think you're hot shit?

[Anonymous No.5506122]

>>5506110
Calm down, kid. I can understand that you think of yourself as the greatest scientist after watching Neil Tyson. But as someone who has alot of experience in scientific research I can tell you that you don't know shit about epistemology. Whether something is falsifiable or not is entirely irrelevant. All that counts is its explanatory value. That's how all of science started and how it still works today. Either the evidence supports your theory or it doesn't. Experimental testing is just an additional method of gathering further evidence.

[Anonymous No.5506162]

>>5506122
Truth is not defined by utility. That's just asinine. By that token false statements are given more credence if they accomplish what you want. That isn't science, that is manipulation.

[Anonymous No.5506203]

>>5506162
We are talkinga about the notion of a theory being "scientific", not about the philosophical nature of "truth". Are you maybe illiterate?

[Anonymous No.5508160]

All logic is circular. If you disagree, please prove that logic works without resorting to logic.

[Anonymous No.5508986]

>>5500406
No unified theory of everything.