[ 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: 59 KB, 468x326, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7336063 No.7336063 [Reply] [Original]

How can you 'believe in' fact?

>> No.7336090

>>7336063
You listen to an expert that gives you a conceptual understanding of something you don't really comprehend. Like I suppose I 'believe' in photosynthesis.

>> No.7336117

>>7336063
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

>> No.7336149

>>7336063
I don't believe in 'linear progression' evolution, try again.

>> No.7336175
File: 55 KB, 740x312, certainty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7336175

>>7336063
>fact

You don't understand what science is kiddo. We have no time machines nor do we have access to the universe's source code. There isn't anything outside of mathematics that is a "fact".

>> No.7336192

>>7336117

>Aristotle

BITCH

>Galileo

BITCH

>Newton

BITCH

>> No.7336210

Nothing is provable at a fundamental level, everything is based on belief. "Fact" is just a convenient term to use when it works with our prescribed model of the universe. We don't know how the universe or the smallest particles or dark matter works and if we can't know the fundamentals we can't know the things based on the fundamentals. It's likely we will never be able to know. The only way to legitimately know would probably be to somehow no longer be a part of the universe and to observe it from outside existence. Science is magic.

>> No.7336291

>>7336063
How do you know space exists bitch nigga? You believe what you believe to be a trusted source on the matter.

>> No.7336333

If facts are real, then why are there still dogmas? Checkmate, molecular biologists.

>> No.7336641
File: 63 KB, 590x332, comment_9E0sKJ2WsyF1segMFpaZCH0fYIr3xmlm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7336641

>>7336192

>Marcellus Wallace

?

>> No.7336670

>>7336333

In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Crick wrote about his choice of the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him:

"I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth. Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support."

>> No.7337039

>>7336090
But you can see photosynthesis occur.

>> No.7338292

>>7336641
What?

>> No.7338364

>>7338292

What ain't no science I ever heard of, they use Bayes in what?

>> No.7338434

>>7336063
All knowledge is contingent and subject to potential revision.

>> No.7339194

>>7336063
science is a belief system. you witness phenomena, and then believe whatever your culture has taught you is the cause. science happens to be very useful, but when you do chemistry, you are believing that the phenomena you are creating and witnessing is caused by atoms and molecules and the way they interact. there is no absolute way to "prove" that tiny particles are the cause of giant explosions, that is just the explanation that has remained the most true and consistant