[ 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: 23 KB, 297x400, Godel_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8401847 No.8401847 [Reply] [Original]

If there are things that math can't prove, there are things that science can't prove, right?

>> No.8401850

>>8401847
Science can't _prove_ anything. We can make models that are in agreement with our measurements, but we cannot prove stuff as in mathematics.

>> No.8401860

>>8401847
>If there are things that math can't prove, there are things that science can't prove, right?
I want to get what you've written as a tattoo.

>> No.8401990

>>8401847
>scientific proof
this does not exist OP. you can't only for models to data using mathematics

>> No.8402001

>>8401847
Science is more powerful than math, faggot. Don't talk shit about science or we're gonna science your anus.

>> No.8402730
File: 108 KB, 998x974, 288785.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8402730

Sadly anon, science is based on the "CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN" philosophy

I'm surprised at the fact that scientists don't seem to be bothered by that. Human instinct and popular belief should tell us that curiosity and the love for knowledge is what drives science, but ultimately it's all about muh theories and models that don't prove nuffin

Honestly, I don't understand what motivates scientists to work on their career other than maybe "useful evidence" and getting paid

>> No.8402752

You don't prove anything with science, brainlet.

>> No.8403031

>>8402001
> implying science doesn't ask for big daddy Math's permission to do literally everything it does

>> No.8403132

>>8402730
Suddenly inductive reasoning is 'can't know nothing'? Maybe 'can't know nothing' in some Socratic sense but don't you think that scientists feel they are progressing towards some truth in their field?

>> No.8403247
File: 57 KB, 640x450, blogger-image--2120040702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8403247

>>8403132
Maybe the ones who are more oriented towards practice than theory. I have an epistemology teacher that preaches the "science can't know nuffin" stuff and surprisingly he's also a physics teacher. He doesn't seem to be bothered in the slightest about skepticism, in fact he's enthusiastic as fuck and I have no idea why. I don't get why some scientists are enthusiastic about new findings if according to them they will never know nuffin and accept that notion without showing any sign of disturbance.

Some of my teachers are scientists and still talk about finding truth, though. Whether or not their ideas are correct or if they simply don't want to behave in a skeptic way, they're far more relatable.

>> No.8403576

>>8402001

Is this bait? Science is essentially just applied math

>> No.8403578

>>8403247
>epistemology teacher
>studying philosophy

brainlet get the fuck out of here, only math and science allowed

>> No.8403582

>>8402730
What motivates musicans? a) It's fun. b) New stuff happens, as opposed to being a bus driver.

>> No.8403584

>>8403247
What's the alternative? Arrive at a theory and declare that it's the be-all-end-all of human knowledge? Pack your bags and go home and never question human knowledge again?
Scientists recognise that any theory we have is our best guess based on the evidence we have. The best we can do is constantly refine and reinvent our models to better fit reality. If that's not interesting enough, then go join a religion, where you can pretend to have figured out all the secrets of the universe.

>> No.8403765

>>8403578
It's Psychology anon

>>8403582
The same could be said about anything ever. The thing is that music is widely enjoyed by humans and everyone accepts that the fun is self-contained within the music itself, so people don't really care for a deeper justification or extrinsic motivation. That's not the case with other stuff: when you study theology as an atheist, or when you choose anything that is opposing to your values and / or behavior, people expect a better reason than "it's fun" and "they always do new stuff". It's the same deal with the "can't know nuffin" scientists. If they can't justify why it's fun to investigate something that they will never know the truth about, then they aren't relatable or easy to empathize with

>>8403584
But science itself is based on a philosophy which says that universal truth is never approachable, so by definition it's unknowable if those models are getting any closer to fitting reality in the big sense of the word. They only consider probabilistic inferences as valid

>> No.8403786

>>8403031

Ever heard of qualitative methods?

>> No.8403892

>>8401850
We can prove things exactly in the same way mathematicians do: Set up a system of Axioms (what we observe), think of a new hypothesis and try to prove it within the realm of these axioms.
The result is pretty much as meaningful as a mathematical proof is: Its true, but only in the given set of axioms. If we find new axioms then we need to reprove the hypothesis or make a new one if that doesnt work.

>> No.8403902

>>8403892

No we can't. The difference is that mathematicians can say 'these axioms hold in this branch of mathematics' and then infer things because the axioms allow logical implication.

In science we cannot do that, we can say 'these non-axiomatic heuristics are pretty good, lets see if they hold up in unusual circumstances'. The only sort of proof we have is proof that something is not inconsistent with other observables; and that's really quite powerful, but it's nothing like mathematical inference