/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8552535]

Who wants to discuss the book that ended the Scientific "Method"?

[Anonymous No.8552537]

>>8552535
>implying any working scientists gives a shit and would stop doing science to even think about that "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.8552547]

>>8552537
>hur dur let's just not question our methods bro, lets just do what we want haha

>"Well, Jim, we have x amount of dollars, which departments should we be investing in?"

>"Well, Tom, let's invest into alchemy and astrology."

>"But, Jim, their methods aren't valid"

>"Let us not question our method, Tom. Let's just spend the money."

*Two years later, the USA Department of Science is bankrupt and whose lack of technological advancement leads to the Russian Annex of Texas and ultimately, the takeover of the USA.*
The point I made above is antithetical to the book in the OP but it serves to illustrate how RETARDED you are. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.8552568]

>>8552535
I would like to, but I haven't read it yet. Reading Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" atm

[Anonymous No.8552577]

>>8552568
OH BOY, YOU'RE IN FOR A RIDE!

Feyerabend blows that cuck POPPER into the ocean!

POP(PER)S HIS SKULL.

[Anonymous No.8552581]

>>8552535
To be fair I have not ever even seen this book before so I googled what it was about

>Philosophy of sciece
>Philosophy
>IN 2016

WEW

MY

FUCKING

LAD

WEW
WEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WELL MEMED!
YES!!!!!!

lol what a fucking joke. Thanks for the laugh. When you simply talk to philosofags here you do not get the impression that they take themselves and their rhetoric too seriously... but now I know that some faggot went out of his way and published a whole book about his own philosophical circle jerking. Holy fuck.

Philosofags put into mental institutions when? At this point you have to consider these people to be at the same level as those who claim to be otherkin, fucking wolfkin.

I bet these retards would call themselves "Brainkin" or some bullshit, topkek. Pseudo intellectuals make me cringe so fucking hard.

[Anonymous No.8552591]

>>8552581
Really makes me think

[Anonymous No.8552598]

>>8552535

I'm not sure it had such an actual impact, but the point he tries to get across seems interesting, although I'd argue this better suits >>>/his/ unless you give a summary, no fucking way anyone here has read it.

[Anonymous No.8552602]

>>8552547
No let's just follow the scientific method which would tell us not to waste time on astrology and alchemy.

[Anonymous No.8552604]

>>8552581
Oh boy, oh boy. I now looked for the author of this shit. HOLY SHIT THE AUTISM.

Take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

He says one of his academic interests are philosophy of science and "critiquing"

WEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

CRITIQUING BOIIIISSSSS

This fucking retard. You know, when you read critiques of movies or books it is usually the case that the one doing the critique is also a write himself. Most of the time with a degree in literature or maybe without a degree but with a record of writing.

That gives validity to that critique. You cannot really critique a narrative unless you are well aware of what makes a good or bad narrative given a context. In simpler words, you have to be a writer to critique a writer.

Now here comes this fucking lunatic with his book critiquing SCIENCE when he is a PHILOSOFAG

The fucking nerve this faggot has. He knows nothing about the things he speaks of and STILL he decides to write a whole book about why his intellectual penis is so big. Man, these people actually disgust me. The pseudo intellectualism REEKS.

The sad thing is that this poor man seems to have fought in WWII. Looks like a bullet went right through the critical thinking part of his brain and it was never removed. Well, I guess that losing your mind is what makes a good philosopher.

OP, if you swallow the garbage produced by this retard I suggest you kill yourself.

I mean, put this in context. Take an example of another "critiquer". Normal Wildberger.

He loves critiquing mathematics and the "method" of mathematics.

But he is a MATHEMATICIAN. He does what he critiques. He has first hand experience.

The faggot from your book probably read a history book wrote by another philosofag and then thought "OH YES, THESE SCIENTISTS ARE SO DUMB. HOW DARE THEY DO SCIENCE WITHOUT FIRST TAKING 500 CLASSES OF PHILOSOPHY SO THAT THEY COULD JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS DURRRR"

[Anonymous No.8552635]

>>8552602
>No let's just follow the scientific method which would tell us not to waste time on astrology and alchemy.


Except those methods where created by philosophers, retard.

[Anonymous No.8552637]

>>8552604
>hasn't read the book
>considers himself an authority on the "scientific method"


Really makes me think

[Anonymous No.8552642]

>>8552604
are you doing a dan m impression?

[Anonymous No.8552643]

>>8552637
I don't need to read the book.

You are like those crazy people who believe they can get healing out of rocks and they say

>It is all in this book written by my guru. It speaks TRUTH man.

And then you look up who that guru is and find that he has no medical experience, no college education and a sketchy background so you tell them

>I don't trust your guru

And then they get offended like you.
OH BUT YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK ABOUT MAGICAL STONES

After all

How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK MAN.

Lol, you are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

The credentials of the author, in this case, is enough to dismiss him. Just like you can dismiss any book about health not written by an MD or someone trained in general medical science.

[Anonymous No.8552647]

>>8552537
Science is a philosophy. It more or less believes that in order for something to be considered factual, it must be experimentally testable and repeatable.

[Anonymous No.8552649]

>>8552643
>Just like you can dismiss any book about health not written by an MD or someone trained in general medical science.
>"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[2]"
Really makes me think

[Anonymous No.8552657]

>>8552649
Nice. Philosofags must have the fallacies written on their walls or some shit.

The problem is... your logic wrong.

The appeal to autorithy fallacy comes into play when you blindly believe knowledge that comes from authority.

Like imagine if an MD wrote a book about health and you trusted everything in it blindly.

My position is not this. I say that you should only consider people with authority, but also be skeptic towards them. Lets go back to my Wildberger example. You probably do not know but he is a mathematician who critiques modern mathematics and also presents a distinct way of doing mathematics. A lot of people HATE him. They mock him, they distrust his ideas, etc. Even though he has authority, we are skeptic of the usefulness of his ideas.

Now, if some SCIENTIST came out with "Against method" then I would not dismiss it. I would read it skeptically to see what his point is.

But I will not even pay attention to some retard with no training.

Again

>How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK BY MY GURU!!!!!

You and your guru are retarded and your appeal to logical fallacies has brought you down to his level of stupidity.

I think there is even a logical fallacy about when someone overuses logical fallacies to attack an argument.

Fun thing, I know more philosophy than you.

[Anonymous No.8552661]

>>8552657
>>How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK BY MY GURU!!!!!

This is literally the opposite of what Feyerabend says.


You're literally being a spergy retard and completely misunderstanding the sense in which the book is written in and where it is coming from.


Have you even read Popper or Kuhn?

Try actually studying the history of the scientific method and reading the book instead of sperging out in my thread thanks, retard.

[Anonymous No.8552662]

>>8552635
>Except those methods where created by philosophers, retard.

No they were created by working scientists. Go back to /lit/ where you can pretend philosophers have meaningfully contributed to the world.

[Anonymous No.8552670]

>>8552661
>This is literally the opposite of what Feyerabend says.

All of my arguments are against you, not him. I haven't read his book, though it is probably really shit with really shit ideas all over the place. Sprinkled throughout like in an cone of ice-cream sprinkled with shit.

>>8552661
>Have you even read Popper or Kuhn?
Now and I won't. Don't give a shit about pseudo intellectuals and much less when they talk outside of their field.

>>8552661
>Try actually studying the history of the scientific method and reading the book instead of sperging out in my thread thanks, retard.

I would if I had any interest. Maybe show me a book critiquing the scientific method written by a scientist and then I will maybe read that.

If you knew anything about science and knew how often people from the outside (non-scientists) try to step in to give their opinion or present their "theory" then you would know why I am immediately dismissing your author.

Every single day some new fucking faggot comes with his NEW argument about why "all science is wrong, BELIEVE IN GOD TODAY!"

Your author is probably not a religious nut, but he is an intellectual nut and his god is himself. That is just conjecture though, but I am almost sure. Every single philosofag I read about has the biggest superiority complex ever and it shows. The superiority complex of your author manifests in the form of DARING to talk about a subject he knows jack shit about.

Absolutely disgraceful and disgusting. Please consider cyanide.

[Anonymous No.8552671]

>>8552662
Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper, a philosopher of science you braindead, retard and the majority of scientists pre-20th century were both philosophers and scientists.

[Anonymous No.8552675]

>>8552670
>Maybe show me a book critiquing the scientific method written by a scientist and then I will maybe read that.


You're literally a retard.

The 'scientific method' which you are advocating was literally created by a philosopher in the mid-20th century.

Try reading this page, you fucking braindead teenager:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Popper_and_Kuhn

[Anonymous No.8552676]

>>8552671
>Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper

Then why were people falsifying results for hundreds of years before he wrote some crap and sold it to humanities majors?

[Anonymous No.8552678]

>>8552604
A-anon, are you ok?

[Anonymous No.8552680]

>>8552671
>Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper

BULLSHIT
BULL FUCKING SHIT

Popper considered the way different sciences addressed their problems. He observed how some sciences (example physics) would get a theory and then try to disprove it and how other sciences (example psychology) would get a theory and then try to prove it and then take any evidence as truth and then take the theory for truth unless it was proven otherwise by another set of investigations.

Karl Popper observed falsifiability. I will even give you that he may be the first to put it into formal words but he didn't create it. You fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8552681]

>>8552671
Bill Nye's is a perfectly reasonable quote. Meanwhile Schrodinger sounds more stoned than a freshman at the University of Vermont.

[Anonymous No.8552682]

>>8552676
>Then why were people falsifying results for hundreds of years before he wrote some crap and sold it to humanities majors?


Provide evidence that the primary methodology or significant proportion of the scientific method for "hundreds of years" was based on falsifiability.


You've got 10 minutes. If you reply with a meme or non-answer, you won't receive a reply.

Let's see how you do :)

[Anonymous No.8552683]

>>8552681
>I didn't get it

Should have just said.

What has Nye provided for science? Thought so, retard.

[Anonymous No.8552685]

>>8552682
The mathematical works of anyone who published from, say, the time of Thales to the time of Popper.

[Anonymous No.8552686]

>>8552675
>The 'scientific method' which you are advocating was literally created by a philosopher in the mid-20th century.

Look, I am not advocating for the scientific method.

I am simply saying that I will not listen to a non-scientist talk about the scientific method. I literally could not care less.

Imagine a similar scenario. A mathematics PhD starts to talk about health and a cure he found for diabetes in the plants of his backyard.

You would think he is a nut. You would think why is this retard talking about medicine when he knows NOTHING of medicine?

The same is happening here. You guru found a cure for science in his backyard and now wants us to take him seriously.

Nope

Outta here

Literally kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8552688]

>>8552680
Try to reply to this, let's see how you do :^)
>>8552682

[Anonymous No.8552692]

>>8552683
>What has Nye provided for science? Thought so, retard.

Are you kidding? Tens of thousands of currently working scientists were inspired to work in their field because of Bill Nye. He's done orders of magnitude more for science than any of the black and white guys who's work only stuck around for a few years before needing to be revised.

[Anonymous No.8552696]

>>8552685
>The mathematical works of anyone who published from, say, the time of Thales to the time of Popper.

Mathematics is based on proof not falsifiability, retard.

Falsifiability applies to natural sciences.

You literally don't know what the FUCK you're talking about.

Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.8552698]

>>8552692
>Are you kidding? Tens of thousands of currently working scientists were inspired to work in their field because of Bill Nye. He's done orders of magnitude more for science than any of the black and white guys who's work only stuck around for a few years before needing to be revised.

So nothing? Thanks for agreeing.

[Anonymous No.8552703]

>>8552696
Ok, so not only are you not a scientist but you've never solved a nontrivial 'prove or disprove' problem. No wonder your thread lacks substance.

[Anonymous No.8552705]

>>8552703
>but you've never solved a nontrivial 'prove or disprove' problem.

YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT.

YOU JUST USED THE WORD 'solved'.

POPPER IS NOT ABOUT 'solving'.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

[Anonymous No.8552706]

>>8552688
Why don't you actually address the post you are replying to instead of deflecting?

[Anonymous No.8552707]

>>8552696
Not him but you are also retarded.

Mathematics has a form of trivial falsifiability. As mathematics bases itself on axioms, if I give you a theorem and a prove for it, it is immediately falsifiable. You can observe my statement and then try to find a counter example

Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.

Every logical statement is falsifiable. Every mathematical statement, it follows, is falsifiable. Falsifiability is the basis of mathematics, just maybe not directly. Mathematicians do not discuss it, they accept it. As falsifiability is simply a biproduct of having such a rigorous basis.

[Anonymous No.8552712]

>>8552705
This is why scientists don't bother with your kind. We are busy doing work and you are getting buttblasted telling us how to do it and then arguing semantics when we tell you to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.8552728]

>>8552707
>Mathematics has a form of trivial falsifiability. As mathematics bases itself on axioms, if I give you a theorem and a prove for it, it is immediately falsifiable. You can observe my statement and then try to find a counter example
>Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.


WRONG.

By finding a different example which is correct is not a falsification BECAUSE BY DEFINITION AN EQUATION OR FORMULA IS EITHER CORRECT OR NOT.

Something in mathematics is BY DEFINITION TRUE or UNTRUE.


If I believe that 1+1=3 and someone comes along and offers the result 1+1=2 THEY HAVE NOT FALSIFIED ME, THEY HAVE SIMPLY GIVEN WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BY DEFINITION BE THE ACTUAL RESULT/ANSWER.

>Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.

WRONG. THIS DOES NOT "FALSIFY" BECAUSE BY DEFINITION THE PROOF WAS WRONG.

[Anonymous No.8552729]

>>8552712
>We are busy doing work and you are getting buttblasted telling us how to do it and then arguing semantics when we tell you to fuck off.

Cosplaying sperg

[Anonymous No.8552732]

"Against Method" is certainly a landmark work and one that scientists should read, but it's ultimately flawed and hasn't stood the test of time. Many of his examples about historical scientists are either wrong or blatantly cherrypicked.

That doesn't necessarily mean we should discount the points he's making, because they do stand on their own feet. And he even says in the introduction not to treat him or the book like any kind of oracle, that he was presenting the arguments more as thought experiments than as some definitive counter proof to the scientific method.

It's refreshing that "Against Method" exists.

[Anonymous No.8552733]

>>8552706
Popper essentially created the methodoligical monism that is known as falsifiability and in that sense, yes he did create it.

The manner/sense in which others have falsified was not done with such a methodology in mind.

[Anonymous No.8552735]

>>8552728
>Something in mathematics is BY DEFINITION TRUE or UNTRUE.

But a theory in science is also true or untrue, it is just much harder to confirm or disprove theories.

What is even your point?

Many theories in science are wrong. Some were even accepted as truth before they were disproven. See astronomy for that.

Those theories were wrong, always had and always will be, but we didn't know.

What is even your point?

[Anonymous No.8552742]

ITT: Philosophy of science debated by people with no training or experience in the field.

I thought you idiots got mad when people talked outside their disciplines as though they were experts?

[Anonymous No.8552745]

>>8552735
>What is even your point?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'NATURAL SCIENCES' AND 'MATHEMATICS'

NATURE SCIENCE HAS PREDICTABILITY OR HYPOTHESIS, MATHEMATICS IS BY DEFINITION TRUE OR UNTRUE

NATURE SCIENCE CAN BE FALSIFIED IN OPPOSING RESULTS OR DATA, MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE 'FALSIFIED' BECAUSE IT IS *BY DEFINITION* TRUE OR UNTRUE

[Anonymous No.8552755]

>>8552745
>MATHEMATICS IS BY DEFINITION TRUE OR UNTRUE

But science is also by definition true or untrue.

Do you think theories are not true or false until we find enough information?

Man, the planets were spinning around the sun WAY before we even discovered there were other planets out there.

Theories are theories and right now we have theories that are not confirmed nor disproven. Do you not think they have truth values?

They are either true or they are false. We just don't know. If the common interpretation of quantum mechanics is actually the truth then right now, even if we don't know it, that is what is going on.

If pilot wave theory is true, even without us knowing, right now every particle is riding their wave. Those particles do not care about us knowing. They just do themselves. The truth is out there. Every theory already has a truth value assigned to it, we just have to find out which one.

[Anonymous No.8552759]

>>8552755
We are talking about FALSIFICATION in relation to Popper's book.


It seems you and I are having entirely different conversations no, science is NOT by definition 'true' or 'untrue'.

Science does not claim to *know* anything, it only claims to be able to *predict* in the strictest sense events.

[Anonymous No.8552771]

>>8552759
>Science does not claim to *know* anything, it only claims to be able to *predict* in the strictest sense events.

By this definition the flat earth theory is rigorous science.

The modern interpretation of flat earth theory accounts for almost everything, if not actually everything, that we can observe in the sky. The seasons, the day/night cicle, etc.

Flat earth theory can predict some things, that does not make it science... because that is not what is actually happening.

Sure, science is mostly comfortable about predictions but how do you fit theoretical physicists?

Pilot wave theory is not a way to predict things about quantum events. We can already predict them. Pilot wave theory is about what is REALLY going on at the quantum level. And there is experimental data for it, as there is experimental data for every other interpretation.

[Anonymous No.8552783]

>>8552771
>By this definition the flat earth theory is rigorous science.

No because no one has significant evidence or phenomenological experience of a flat earth and it has been falsified by images from space.

[Anonymous No.8552795]

>>8552783
But it can predict certain basic events we observe.

It predicts!

And science only claims to predict right?

No, you are wrong about that. As I said, science is comfortable with prediction but ultimately we care about what is really going on, which is why even well established theories get revamped century after century. There is just no end to that.

The interpretations of quantum mechanics is the best modern example of that. Interpretations and the purest form of science that does not care about prediction, only about reality because we already have theories that predict, now we want theories that show us what the deal is with the universe.

[Anonymous No.8552803]

>>8552535
Literally no one cares outside of spergs

[Anonymous No.8552808]

>>8552795
>really going on
we care about things that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. nothing more, nothing less.

[Anonymous No.8552812]

>>8552771
>>8552783
Mathematically speaking, something can only be proven if it can be shown to be a natural consequence of logical rules.

In science we are observing in order to find a general law.

That's the distinction you might be confused about. One is fallible, the other is a result of logical consequences

[Anonymous No.8552820]

>>8552808
>we care about things that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. nothing more, nothing less.

Then explain interpretations to quantum mechanics? They are legit science, with both theoretical and experimental research behind them, yet they do nothing for predictions.

This is the problem. You have been fed science by philosophers and now you are wrong about the most basic things. Your assesment of science does not line up with reality because if it was true that science only cared about prediction then theoretical physics would not be a field of science.

This is, to anyone else reading, my cry for you to NOT read the book in the OP. Do not learn science from non-scientists EVER.

[Anonymous No.8552823]

>>8552812
I should have seen this post
>>8552745
This nigger knows what's up. Is that from What is Mathematics senpai?

[Anonymous No.8552845]

>>8552581
>>8552604
I agree with your general point (philosofags trying to "critique" science are awful), but you clearly did not even read the summary of the book (which actually makes sense).
You should consider re-evaluating your life.

[Anonymous No.8552852]

Lol, science-minded individuals screaming at each other on an anonymous Taiwanese metal sculpture image board. You're all so much more enlightened than the religionists and humanities majors who do the same thing all over the rest of the board.

[Anonymous No.8552854]

>>8552671
>the concept of falsifiability didn't exist until the 20th century
lmfao philosocucks

[Anonymous No.8552859]

>>8552647
>>8552647
>>8552647

Required reading.

[Anonymous No.8552861]

>>8552581
You're trying too hard.

[Anonymous No.8552862]

>>8552647
>shitposting is a philosophy
>art is a philosophy
>car washing is a philosophy

When will this meme die?

[Anonymous No.8552875]

>>8552820
>Do not learn science from non-scientists EVER.
sad that this needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.8552877]

>>8552862
Here's another fav
>the art of science
>the art of mathematics
>the art of philosophy
>the art of writing
>the art of travel
>the art of sex

and another

>the artists way
>the travellers way
>etc

[Anonymous No.8552880]

>>8552862
How is science not a philosophy?
>Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
>the nature of knowledge and reality is only what can be verified by testing in a repeatable fashion

[Anonymous No.8552882]

>>8552820
>science is X
>then what about quantum physics? I dont knoe shit about it so no one does so you're wrong
Typical popsci argument. Explain or dont talk about irrelevant shit.

[Anonymous No.8552912]

>>8552882
>>then what about quantum physics? I dont knoe shit about it so no one does so you're wrong

You clearly did not get anything about my point. Quantum mechanics is just an example.

Simply it, it is an example of a field with two faces. It has an ""applied"" field of prediction which makes experiment and builds the mathematical groundwork needed to do predictions.

Then it has the purely theoretical side. One that is concerned with what is truly going on at the quantum level.

Just google "interpretations of quantum theory". They are legit science that have nothing to do with prediction.

A clear counter example of the philosofag's point of "science just cares about prediction". And this should be obvious. Science cares about the truth and obviously prediction is one step towards it, but not everything.

[Anonymous No.8552921]

>>8552880
Fuck off. Dont talk about things if all you can say amounts to "but their wikipedia blurbs look similar!"

[Anonymous No.8552931]

>>8552912
What the fuck are you talking about? When did i mention prediction? Science is about making models that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. READ the things you reply to.

>about the truth
Truth is unobtainable, or at best ill-defined. You would know if you had read ANYTHING about this topic written in the last 500 years.

[Anonymous No.8552932]

>>8552880
>>Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

This is a terrible definition because it defines philosophy as everything.

Shitposting needs knowledge, is part of realit and existence

SHITPOSTING IS NOW A PHILOSOPHY

See the problem? What a terrible fucking definition. There is no way to separate a philosophers writing from a high faggot talking shit with that definition.

You would think that autists that dedicate 4 years of their life to read dictionaries to memorize the longest synonyms to common words would be able to use those words more effectively when it came time to define their field.

I guess retardation cannot be cured, not even by 4 years of reading dictionaries.

[Anonymous No.8552936]

>>8552931
>When did i mention prediction?

Not you, fuckface.

Now I know why you misunderstood my post. Just go read the posts preceding it. It is a part of a conversation.

I cannot believe that in 2016 we still have retards who do not know how to imageboard.

[Anonymous No.8552945]

[Anonymous No.8552947]

[Anonymous No.8552949]

>>8552932
Provide me with a definition of "philosophy", then, that's to your liking.

[Anonymous No.8552952]

[Anonymous No.8552957]

[Anonymous No.8552959]

>>8552949
Philosophy: The study of the nature of things without any context, rules and with the measure of truth being the philosophers opinion.

Now shitposting is not philosophy, but questioning the natre of shitposting is.

The part about no context and no rules is meant to separate philosophy from science, as philosophers can say anything and it does not really have to make sense in the context of anything, just in the context of the authors thoughts.

And obviously the author is the only one who can measure truth because in philosophy there cannot be a right answer because any new retard who gets a meme degree can write his theory and that is why it is very important to remember that philosophy does not talk about reality, just about the reality made by the wishful thinking of philosophers.

[Anonymous No.8552960]

>>8552945
>>8552947
>>8552952
>>8552957
Yes yes, but what is philosophy really?! XDDDD

[Anonymous No.8552961]

>>8552932
>mfw all of your posts in this thread

[Anonymous No.8552966]

>>8552959
little baby bird brains

[Anonymous No.8552967]

>>8552959
OK, so why can't the philosopher's opinion be that the measure of something true is that it can be 1) experimentally tested, 2) tested in a manner that any other person could in principle verify, and 3) that the results of such experiments are reproducible?

[Anonymous No.8552972]

>>8552967
>OK, so why can't the philosopher's opinion be that the measure of something true is that it can be 1) experimentally tested, 2) tested in a manner that any other person could in principle verify, and 3) that the results of such experiments are reproducible?

It can be! And that Popper's opinion.

But philosophy has no context or rules and no ultimate measure of "philosophical truth" so that philosopher's opinion says nothing about other fields who may actually measure truth in the way this philosopher proposes.

Such a great definition right? Maybe I should also start reading dictionaries like you guys. I may be a natural. Imagine me, Talking all fancy.

Oh, your comment! It is preposterous! Absolutely uncanny of you!

I can already see it. Me, a philosopher. Who knew.

[Anonymous No.8552975]

>>8552972
This board can be really awesome sometimes

[Anonymous No.8552980]

>>8552972
OK, so given that all scientists choose to have that opinion and evaluate the work of others as science based on those criterion, why isn't science a philosophy?

If your argument is that the definition of philosophy is too broad, that's fine. But why do you feel the need to protest that science is *not* a philosophy? Are you still in high school and angry, perhaps? Or is your basement a little too cold this winter?

[Anonymous No.8552988]

>>8552980
>why isn't science a philosophy?

Because science exists within the context of real life and it has clear rules for deciding what is absolute truth and absolute lie.

That is the distinction I wanted to make between science and philosophy. And it is something real. This distinction actually exists. It is just that philosophers do not want to accept it.

Tell me, what is right. Platonism or Conceptualism?

That is a philosophical discussion but that question has no answer. As there ae no rules to measure truth in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8552999]

>>8552988
OK, so who decided the rules? We discovered them using the philosophy of science. It's not like these "clear rules" came out of nowhere: they came out of the process of applying the philosophy of science to examine the physical aspect of our world.

[Anonymous No.8553001]

>>8552999
Okay, fair enough.

But just like some rules of science come from mathematics, science is not mathematics.

I can accept that it is at least true that the first people who thought deeply about studying the world were, in some sense, philosophers. But now they are outdated and outclassed. Welcome to 2016.

[Anonymous No.8553002]

>>8552547
You are a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.8553004]

Threads like this are cancer desu
Take this to /lit/
The philosophy of science has nothing to do with science itself
Maybe back when science was a baby these discussions had more merit but at this point it's a tired and dead debate

[Anonymous No.8553009]

>>8553001
No rule of science has *ever* come from pure mathematics: mathematics is simply a quantitative way of expressing collected experimental data. In the case of theory, it's a quantitative way of expressing anticipated experimental data.

[Anonymous No.8553013]

>>8552972
> But philosophy has no context or rules and no ultimate measure of "philosophical truth"

You haven't read Kant's First Critique, have you?

[Anonymous No.8553014]

>>8553004
How on earth does the philosophy of science have nothing to do with science? Seriously evaluating modern science is a lot more than just "well, if the authors said it's true it's true" -- it requires serious evaluation of the data presented. If a body of work isn't fully consistent with the rules of science (e.g., Did they disprove alternatives? Do their experiments test what they think they are testing?) that's a huge no-no, hence the whoel system of peer review. If you *ever* want to be a serious scientist, you will abide by the scientific method and you will know that philosophy stone cold.

[Anonymous No.8553015]

>>8553009
>No rule of science has *ever* come from pure mathematics

Oh boii oh boiii.

Suppose you find that through measurement:
a = b + c

Just a normal formula. You did your research and the experiments prove this formula holds.

Now, can you say that c = a - b ?

Well, if you were not to use mathematics then you would have to do new experiments measuring c in terms of a and b.

BUT.

Because physicists work with rational numbers, and rational numbers from a group with addition then they can deduce through arithmetic that a = b + c is true if and only if c = a - b

So science deduced the original formula, the rules of mathematics allowed us to get new formulas.

[Anonymous No.8553017]

>>8553013
>You haven't read Kant's First Critique, have you?

No, I haven't read anything. Don't assume I have. Just like I do not assume you have EVER touched a science or math book in your life.

I don't give a shit about your fucking guru selling you "life stones" or whatever. I won't read any philosopher. Fuck them. I will read mathematicians and scientists.

[Anonymous No.8553020]

>>8553014
Yeah it has nothing to do with science since science sits on its own now
It now longer needs endless debates on what makes science science (like this thread)
It's all been codified and threads like this belong on /lit/
You need to go back

[Anonymous No.8553022]

>>8553015
Sure, but theory has to be rooted in some sort of experiment. Without the science necessary to prove a = b + c, you can't possibly extrapolate to c = a - b. Rigorous theory doesn't come out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.8553037]

>>8553022
Sure, I am not saying the contrary. I am just saying that if it were not for the rigorous rules of algebra (lets not forget that scientists no longer just use numbers but all sorts of algebraic structures today) then scientists would have to do 10 times the work, proving every form of an equation experimentally, instead of just proving one experimentally and deducing the rest logically.

[Anonymous No.8553070]

>>8552581
kys, here's your (you).

[Anonymous No.8553081]

>>8553070
I have gotten like 20 (you)'s from this thread so I didn't need your extra but sure.

When philosophers accept they have no counter argument is feels so great because philosophy is basically 4 years of how to have a counter argument so my 0 years of training beat your 4 or potentially more.

Feels good.

[Anonymous No.8553095]

>>8553017
I was not trying to sound smug or condescending; if my post seemed that way to you, I apologize. I really do recommend that you read Kant's First Critique, as it may help to change for the better the opinion you have of philosophic study, which seems to be based mostly-if not entirely-on the teachings of pseudo-intellectuals and the archaic, stoic philosophers. The lack of progress (that is, application to the betterment of human kind) in philosophy, namely the metaphysics, has given many scholars a hatred for the study as a whole, and rightfully so; for what other science besides the metaphysics claims itself so important, but has yet to claim a single victory over an edifice of mystery? Kant also expresses this contempt for the metaphysics in his Critique, and, using. If you simply read some philosophy, you would understand how closely mathematics and metaphysics are related, and, perhaps, you might then also understand how each study, mathematics and metaphysics, can be used, and must even necessarily be used, in order to better advance the other. This is what few people realize: We live in a time, in which the construction of a metaphysics, based on a steadfast set of principles, is possible; Kant's Critique has made it so.

> I do not assume you have ever touched a science or math book in your life.

I have, however. In fact, I just finished an introduction to Funktionentheorie (I'm not sure what its called in English) by Dietmar A. Salamon. I know it's brainlet-tier, but it's something.

[Anonymous No.8553111]

>>8553095
I should really proofread my posts and write one sentence at a time. The sentence that stops abruptly should read thus:

Kant also expresses this contempt for the metaphysics in his Critique, and, using the mathematics as an example, attempts to reform the study, so that it might have a stable criteria, upon which new discoveries might be founded.

Oh, and it's called Complex Analysis. Not sure why I forgot that...

[Anonymous No.8553219]

>>8553095
Literally just go back to /lit/
You have like one person ITT who even half cares about your arguments

Shit like this is why people in stem hate philosophy and art and humanity departments
Stop trying to stick your dick into everything

[Anonymous No.8553223]

Pic is Feyerabend's argument.

[Anonymous No.8553357]

as a math major it's really depressing to see all the morons here insisting science and math are one and the same
a falsifiable hypothesis is the core fucking tenet of all sciences, and you should have learned that in middle school
just look at all the trash like astrology that we had before you were forced to state all your ideas in a way that they could be proven wrong
math on the other hand was safe from the beginning because we start from axioms and go from there
if you're STEM and you're having trouble understanding this, strongly consider switching to X studies or better yet a career in the service industry

[Anonymous No.8553426]

>>8552936
>I don't know shit but I thought i was talking to someone else

I wrote >>8552808 to your post and you replied to it thinking I was someone else. You don't know shit. Fuck off and kill yourself

[Anonymous No.8553715]

>>8552932
>SHITPOSTING IS NOW A PHILOSOPHY
But it is though. Shitposting is a very sophisticated process.
You have to carefully calculate the impact, the timing, the thread so that your post get the most (you).

[Anonymous No.8553757]

>>8552931
>U CANT NO NUFFIN
lol

[Anonymous No.8553760]

>>8553095
>for what other science besides the metaphysics claims itself so important, but has yet to claim a single victory over an edifice of mystery?
philosophers are such faggots. why do you people write like this?

[Anonymous No.8553771]

>>8552729
B T F O
T
F
O

[Anonymous No.8553784]

LMAO I LOVE THESE THREADS WHERE /SCI/ GETS /LIT/ERALLY BTFO THE WATER BY EVERYBODY (INCLUDING /POL/)

/SCI/ ARE THE BRAINLETS OF 4CHAN

[Anonymous No.8553788]

>>8552535
I do, just read books on the history of science and you'll realize how fucking retarded the "method" is.

>>8552537
Exactly, scientists don't actually follow the method, they just do what humans have always done.

[Anonymous No.8553790]

>>8552680
falsifiability is a principle you retard, and one that's unfalsifiable dogma, worse than marxism.

[Anonymous No.8553793]

>>8552681
Meanwhile, Schrodinger is actually important and Bill Nye is a literal nobody in science.

>>8552854
>>8552676
>talking about shit when you don't even know what Popper wrote

This is why STEMtards are complete and utter shit, you ask rhetorical questions and argue against things you literally do not understand. It's like a child arguing that a vector space can't be 4-dimensional because there are only 3 dimensions. You're out of your depth on so many levels.

[Anonymous No.8553794]

>>8552686
Philosophers of math had a huge impact on math, philosophers of science had a huge impact on science, philosophers in general actually change fields, your comparison is a stupid one because it's not even a comparison, you drew a poor analogy.

Also Popper was a scientist, so you're actually just literally fucking wrong.

Eat shit fucko.

[Anonymous No.8553798]

>>8552692
You mean inspired a few autistic twats to get worthless degrees and contribute nothing to a field

>Einstein
>needed to be revised

Fucking kek, just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.8553800]

>>8552862
Philosophy is actually better than science.

[Anonymous No.8553830]

The ultimate real Red Pill
>Algebraic proof
>Alg((h))ebraic
>hebraic

Have you swallowed the hardest red pill yet? So called ((science)) and ((mathematics)) are a jewish creation, an instrument to subjugate and destroy the white man.
>create ((science))
>build a whole structure around it to make it look logical and reasonable
>attribute every invention the white man achieved through his intuition to ((science))
>foster ((science)) to religious status and use it to subvert centuries long traditions and supplant Christianity
>use ((science)) to push sexual perversion and loathing of the white man
>use ((((scientific consensus))) to create the global warming hoax
>use ((global warming)) to create the perfect tool of white genocide: carbon tax

[Anonymous No.8553832]

Anyway, most people aren't in science to get rich, it's for the prestige. They grew up believing that science is the most important thing, the one thing that truly advances humanity, and that scientists are the best people. Not being able to be called a scientist is like death to them. They'll do work they're not interested in, that doesn't seem to be any good, for low pay, with no prospect of advancement, just to be able to say they're professional scientists and to be friends with the other professional scientists. They know that an oversupply of people like them are being raised constantly by the educational system, and there's no way back in anymore if you ever stray from the path or get cast out.

They are extremely sensitive to the prospect of losing their place. They'll commit horrible ethical violations to avoid it.

Beyond that, they have an emotional need to believe in their field, to the point that they'll turn their eyes away from evidence that it has gone rotten, rationalize it away.

[Anonymous No.8553834]

The (((science))) behind AGW is primarily social science. Of course it's a religion in every way and can almost be labeled neo-Pagan.

Climate priests like any priest is a sort of authority figure. They can conjure up scary climate scenarios on their super computers, this is prophecy. They can disseminate these prophecies through a world wide propaganda media network, the etymology of propaganda is propagation of church dogma. As scary as these scenarios are there is of course always a fix, a way to save ones soul. In this case if enough CO2 emitters repent, and a CO2 tithe is collected, the prophecies may be forestalled and earth along with the climate heathens saved! this may involve great sacrifices up to and including life itself!

Any rejection of this dogma is met with an Inquisition of sorts, called deniers now this could easily escalate to a climate heretic hunt with weather vane crucifixions!

Like any religion time will tell if it sticks as it gets hold of the children before they attain any critical thinking skills for themselves. The problem with pop religion today is it's great anti-thesis, pop science. This is where the pure genius and Machiavellian nature of the growing AGW cult shines...
>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

[Anonymous No.8553881]

>>8552671
i'm retarded does anyone wanna please try to explain to me what Schrodinger is talking about? the plurality of what? I get that the little pictures in crystals don't mean that there are multiple of something but what is he trying to imply by saying this. what else is there that i think there are multiple of that he thinks there is only one of? he can't be talking about the plurality of anything right? I mean i can have two different apples right...? Or can I not?

[Anonymous No.8553895]

>>8553881
I think he's talking about corpuscular-wave dualism. Particle and wave are just 2 aspects of one thing - matter.

[Anonymous No.8553896]

>>8553881
He's basically saying there's no one "true" perspective on the world, some sort of relativism that STEMlord retards can't comprehend

[Anonymous No.8553911]

>>8552649
Your position is absurd. It's tantamount to saying that expertise holds no weight (or that there is no such thing as expertise in the first place) and that all opinions, no matter how well or poorly informed and thought out, are equally valid.

This generalization is intellectual bankruptcy at its finest.

Arguments from authority are bad because they're substituting evidence with status (and using this as a tool to shut down debate), but authorities ARE inherently trustworthy in their area of expertise unless proven wrong with evidence.

[Anonymous No.8554201]

"Scientific method" in a nutshell:

>"Oh wow anon, this device is sure weird, it doesn't behave as our textbooks predict"
>"But it does work, doesn't it?"
>"At 26°C and standard pressure it does... what if we put a heater in the room? let's check if it works for all 0.1°C increments, and if it does, we'll do the same at varying pressures"
>endless experiments later the device finally breaks, like his inventor

>"Oh wow anon this device is sure weird, it doesn't behave as our textbooks predict"
>"But it does work, doesn't it?"
>"Well you see, there's no falsifiable theory behind it, because the ongoing phenomena in your device are not explainable... sorry anon, it's not scientific : / your invention cannot work"

[Anonymous No.8554216]

>>8554201
>/sci/ will defend this
fucking retards who inhabit this board

[Anonymous No.8554226]

>>8554216
>"How could it work when there are unknown phenomena happening in this device? Not falsifiable, not real"
>"But it does work, check input/output again, open up everything for the 100th time to check if there's a hidden power source!"
>"LOL I just told you it doesn't work, as it's not falsifiable... oh I get it, this is pseudoscience!"

[Anonymous No.8554231]

>>8553794
>Also Popper was a scientist, so you're actually just literally fucking wrong.

When I say "guru" I meant the person who wrote OP's book.

I read his biography. Not a scientist by any means. He is an specialist in the "history of science".

Call him a historian, not a scientist. Let him write books critiquing historians, but not scientists.

[Anonymous No.8554234]

>>8554231
>muh scientists are untouchable
this is why nobody is buying into your bullshit anymore

[Anonymous No.8554242]

>>8554234
Scientists are not untouchable. This really shows your lack of logic.

You think that not accepting the criticism of your shitty author means that I don't want anyone attacking science.

That is not what I want. I want only scientists to critique scientists, because only scientists know what the fuck is up with science.

Your author has never even computed an integral or carried out an experiment and you want me to take him seriously when he talks about the scientific method?

Fuck you and fuck him.

[Anonymous No.8554250]

>>8554242
>more >muh scientists are untouchable
>if i repeat this enough time it will become a reasonable argument

[Anonymous No.8554252]

>>8554242
Sound like a cult, talks like a cult...

[Anonymous No.8554258]

>>8554242
Sounds like a cult, talks like a cult...

[Anonymous No.8554263]

>>8554250
>>8554252

I feel like it is impossible to reason with you people.

To put it simply, again, philosophers critiquing science is like new age indian gurus who sell "life grass" critiquing medical practitioners.

You have no knowledge of science. You know nothing of what you are talking about and it shows. This is why no one in science hires philosophers. No one in engineering hires philosophers. Nobody wants you in this industry. We want you to be as far as you can get from us because you "deep thinkers" are a cancer for progress.

[Anonymous No.8554285]

>>8554263
>"hey, look at this! it works, but we don't know how"
>"then it doesn't :^) can't falsify the theory behind it, can't make it work"

[Anonymous No.8555165]

>>8554242
>>8554231
Lol fucking moron, by your logic nobody can criticize politicans except politicians.

[Anonymous No.8555171]

>>8554263
>To put it simply, again, philosophers critiquing science is like new age indian gurus who sell "life grass" critiquing medical practitioners.

Actually, scientists claiming their field is above criticism from outsiders is like what they say at Herbalife rallies. You're the delusional cult-follower, philosophers talking about science is fine, grow the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.8555491]

>>8552547