/sci/ - Science & Math

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641525]

As David Hume pointed out, all of our conclusions in science come from induction rather than reason. Induction is fundamentally flawed and is no basis for anything rational. For example, how many tests do you need to perform before you confirm a theory? What if you perform 100 tests and claim it's confirmed, yet the 101st test would have disproven it?

[Anonymous No.9641527]

>>9641525
then you make a new model
this is how science works

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641529]

>>9641525
That's why math will always be better than any of the "natural sciences" that blindly assume they are right without justification.

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641531]

>>9641527
You can never prove any model to be right, they are all just guesses

[Anonymous No.9641533]

>>9641525
>scientific method
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.9641539]

>>9641531
>make bullshit guess
>take experiment
>coincidentally get correct to 19 decimal places
>Luck. There was certainly nothing genuine to what they said
In a world of so many possibilities, the chances of making a theory, getting predictions right by coincidence, is astronomically low. It's much more likely there's weight to what they said

[Anonymous No.9641545]

>>9641531
>>9641525
>>9641529
But you are missing the main point of the scientific method. Making theories about nature is fucking hard. The only way to sift through all the fucking bullshit people came up with was to make them relate it to reality in one way or another. This is why philosophy is bullshit, but physics isn't. Without a bullshit meter philosophy is doomed to failed

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641558]

>>9641539
Likely is very different from certainly, and correlation does not equal causation.

[Anonymous No.9641562]

>>9641525
>induction is flawed
How is Philosohy 101 or Intro to Phil os as I treating you, sophomore?
Now, ask yourself this. If you had to bet your life on someone's deductions given their definitions or axioms, or the inductively arrived at fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, which would you bet your life on?

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641573]

>>9641562
I would feel much more confident in betting that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that is because humans are wired to trust induction. What I feel should have no effect on what we say is certain. Your example is equivalent to saying we should trust our emotions over logic.

[Anonymous No.9641583]

>>9641573
So that anon nailed the philo 101 comment lmao. If you want to have a "but dude how do we even know" conversation this isnt the place.

[Anonymous No.9641584]

>>9641525
Scientific method, and science in general don't claim absolute truth. This was known long before hume.

This, however, doesn't preclude us from knowing anything, there's just a caveat that science can only be certain to a degree.

Tldr: humes arguments are tautological bullshit

[Anonymous No.9641585]

>>9641531
it's a good thing literally nobody in science is trying to prove a model right. only trying to disprove them

[Anonymous No.9641588]

>>9641525
As I pointed out, all of art is based on conception.
>Am I profound thinker now?
kys

[Anonymous No.9641590]

>>9641533
>Dictionary

>scientific method
>sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
>noun
>a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.9641599]

>>9641525
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things

[Anonymous No.9641605]

Hume would have changed his tune if he could watch a recording of the moon landing on a smart phone.

[The scientific method is a loa(...) No.9641612]

Hey guys just so you know I actually completely agree with the scientific method I just have to write a paper arguing against Hume and I figured I would get many more responses by pretending I think it's bullshit. Thanks for the contributions.

[Anonymous No.9641615]

>>9641612
wow you really showed us with your creativity and ability to think
are you the next euler?

[Anonymous No.9641620]

>>9641585
FOR FUCKS SAKE WHY IS THIS SUCH A HARD CONCEPT FOR PEOPLE? The law of gravity isn't a law because "It works every time" the law of gravity is a law because "it works every time we've tried it." Any non-brainlet will tell you that science is only ever about disproving something. You can never truly prove something, because you can set up the theory and try it again.

[Anonymous No.9641622]

>>9641590
It's not a distinct and limited algorithm though. It's more like a broad guideline.

[Anonymous No.9641628]

>Scientific method
Only autists hold absolute views of anything. Science is a living process and discussion is always active and every field has it's own rules and principles that can change. The problem of induction is only a problem as far as a scientists holds to certain paradigms.

[Anonymous No.9641641]

>>9641525
>be OP
>think the scientific method is a waste of time
>writes post about said thoughts built entirely by scientific method based technologies and theories, running on a force that cannot be seen and is only proven using inference

wow op, you are a special one

[Anonymous No.9641708]

>>9641525
Oh look, another freshman who took one philosophy course.

[Anonymous No.9641736]

>>9641612
Is this the new "I was only pretending to be retarded"?

[Anonymous No.9641809]

>>9641525
>David Hume
>Eighteenth-century philosopher
GTFO philosophag

[Anonymous No.9642028]

itt. triggered scienshits pissed that mathematics and philosophy are more fundamental and important than their inductive scientific method.
Math > philosophy > science.

[Anonymous No.9642037]

>>9642028
>my field is better than yours
You came up with that on your own?

[Anonymous No.9642045]

>>9641525
the scientific method is the only thing that self confirms and biologically ingrained into our most fundamental behavior. fuck off philtard

[Anonymous No.9642051]

>>9642045
how does it feel to prefer your imagination like rationalists told you to, instead of being an empiricist?

[Anonymous No.9642071]

>>9642051
how does it feel to be a stupid dipshit?

[Anonymous No.9642079]

>>9641525
>Probabilistic models are not rational
Your position is not rational.

Also, science is both inductive avid deductive. The problem of induction is a problem of the physical world, not science.

[Anonymous No.9642083]

>>9641558
Certainty about empirical matters is impossible. But thanks for admitting that achieve gives us likely answers, thereby admitting it is rational.

[Anonymous No.9642562]

>>9642028
>Math > philosophy

[Anonymous No.9642632]

>>9641525
Clearly we're on to something with induction, everything science has come up with using it works incredibly well.

>know the speed of light precisely to within 4 parts per billion
>know how far away the Moon is to within a few centimeters
>have microscopes powerful enough to view a single atom

[Anonymous No.9642677]

>>9642632
>durrr it must be right because its worked before
Bet you're one of those neural network "it works so who cares" fags

[Anonymous No.9642680]

>>9642677
What is more important than the utility of your theory?

[Anonymous No.9642876]

>>9641583
Philosophy sophomores don’t understand that the axioms of any deduction are incomplete and based on whether they work. In other words, they are produced and validated inductively.

[Anonymous No.9642896]

>>9641529
>>9641545
induction problem still applies to models

>>9641539
>>9641573
the point is discussing logic and proof. not heuristics and intuition. this is what philosophy does - challenge intuition with logic and see what kind of conclusions we get or what kind of problems there are because we are fallible. obviously science seems to work but it is a good debate on whether we can think of its theories as truths etc, or if the method is truly rigorous.

[Anonymous No.9642902]

>>9641584
but I doubt you would be making this measured statement about what science can and cant do without his arguments.

[Anonymous No.9642913]

induction is not the opposite of reason and rationality you maroon

[Anonymous No.9642992]

>>9641525
Or maybe one test is better than none, one hundred tests are better than one, one million tests are better than one hundred, etc.
Why are brainlets so obsessed with perfection?

[Anonymous No.9642996]

>>9641525
Math works in proofs anon, not reason.

[Anonymous No.9643001]

>>9642677
>Missing out on massive gains because you're afraid of not being guarenteed 100% perfection.
Absolutely disgusting, "people" like this should have their personal technology seized and get forcibly relocated to a more suitable can't know nuffin environment like subsaharan Africa.

[Anonymous No.9643003]

>>9641525
Reichenbach’s response to Hume is one of practicality. We can’t be sure that our universe is uniform in that the future is like the past, but it’s worked so far, so why fuck things up now.

[Anonymous No.9644384]

>>9641525
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html