/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6958609]

Do you believe in scientism?
That science will explain everything eventually?

If thats true then every other philosophy is practically useless.

[Anonymous No.6958611]

I define science as the practice of apply philosophical ideals and models in order to better exploit natural phenomena for society as a whole.
So yes.

[Anonymous No.6958630]

Nope, a lot of plenty-respected formal-types are recognizing that we're reaching the empirically testable limits of science and seeing that we're going to need to adapt new approaches. It's going to be something that works on a probability scale. You already see scientism types reaching to make "probably true" arguments to win public debates.

>>6958611
I define science as being accurately generalized reproducible predictions, which lives up to it's etymology. Also, I have no idea what your utilitarianist drivel is suppose to be saying.

[Anonymous No.6958671]

>>6958609
Define everything.

[Anonymous No.6958682]

>>6958671
Everything =
Known knowns +
Unknown knowns +
Known Unknowns +
Unknown Unknowns

[Anonymous No.6958702]

>>6958682
does everything include things that are false?
so science explaining everything must explain why the sky is purple, even though it isnt?

[Anonymous No.6958710]

>>6958609
Science has never explained anything. Science only measures numerical correlations between observations, and creates models to predict future observations. The 'explaining' part is done by philosophy, which scientists unwittingly (and often badly) use, shortly before shitposting about how useless philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.6958711]

>>6958710
EBIN MAIMAI M8

[Anonymous No.6958752]

>>6958702
That might be under the category of unknown knowns. If we have a "map of everything" which puts a non-existent island in the ocean then obviously there's a problem with our map. But, all knowledge can only operate off a map. When we say "everything" with respect to science we're talking about the convergence of the map (knowledge) with the territory (everything). When you're asking for a definition of everything you're expecting a map within a map to some degree as though we can carve a model of our map into a mountain so it can be seen in both maps (the map in the mountain and the map external to the mountain and the map in the map of the mountain and the map in the map in the map.. etc.) creating a sort of fractal. Logic, a grammatical tool, doesn't and will never be able to handle these feedback loops for natural reasons concerning a metaphysical value of "limits". So everything will never be defined in a perfectly literal sense, but it can be defined to practical limits. Moreover, we cannot explain things limitlessly and if everything is limitless than it's futile to expect a perfection which transcends the limit of limits (infinity). So, you'd have to be a staunch and obtrusive deconstructionist to ignore efforts concerning practicality. But putting that hostile role aside, what are you practically expecting to achieve or avoid with a definition of everything that's better than one's we can naturally or naively assume for practicality's sake?

[Anonymous No.6960017]

u cant know no nuthin

[Anonymous No.6960022]

no is the correct answer

[Anonymous No.6960026]

>>6960022
ooo dubs confirm

[Anonymous No.6960704]

>scientism
There's that buzzword again ...

Nobody believes that science is the only method of answering all questions. You don't use science to decide the color of your clothes or the interior design of your car. In their everyday life people rely on intuition and experience all the time. This being said, science is and always will be the most reliable and objective method of finding explanations for observed phenomena. Science answers the questions of "why" and "how". In doing so, it has solved a lot of problems and produced many useful results. Philosophy on the other hand never solved a single problem and never answered a single question. Philosophy wallows in masturbatory pseudo-intellectual fantasies while using big words to describe trivialities everyone has already considered. Now go back to >>>/lit/ and stay butthurt over the fact that your useless starbucks degree will never be comparable to STEM master race.

[Anonymous No.6960734]

>>6958609
No, science cannot explain everything. Yet, our knowledge will continue to grow unbounded.

[Anonymous No.6960735]

>>6960704

/thread
get rekt OP

[Anonymous No.6960791]

>>6960704
>yfw you realize science is simply a derivative of philosophy(i.e i want to know stuff)

[Anonymous No.6960797]

>>6960791
>yfw science actually provides proof to test the structure and integrity of the universe instead of some arcane spergmumbling

[Anonymous No.6960801]

>>6958702
Isn't the sky actually purple but we perceive it to be blue?

[Anonymous No.6960803]

>>6960791
Philosophers are not interested in "knowing stuff". They only want to circlejerk over their own baseless opinions on issues which are not amenable to any kind of rational inquiry.

[Anonymous No.6960810]

Muh Equilibrium

[Anonymous No.6960841]

>>6960797
>>6960803
>being this clueless

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

[Anonymous No.6960847]

>>6960801
>Isn't the sky actually purple but we perceive it to be blue?
nope you are confusing the violet in rainbows (dark blue) with the colour violet (purple), stupid i agree.