Science is a fallacy?

[Anonymous No.9828228]

Hi /sci/

My college Philosophy professor told us that science commits the fallacy of tradition because it makes its claims based on patterns in nature.

How do you counter that argument?

[Anonymous No.9828230]

>>9828228
Empirical evidence is only part of the story,not the story.

[Anonymous No.9828276]

>>9828228
here is a protip anon
whenever you hear "fallacy of X" everywhere on the internet or in your first year philosophy, it is 95% of the time complete horseshit
ask your professor if committing a "fallacy of tradition" results in affirming a contradiction in first order logic?
if the answer is no (and it is), then its only a "fallacy" in so far as its not a societally acceptable form of argument. So basically what your professor is saying is "science hinges on a sort of reasoning that if taken out of context and applied universally, is kind of fishy" which is a mind-numbingly trivial statement that does not need to be responded to.

[Anonymous No.9828279]

>>9828276
The fallacy falls apart if the tradition is based on logical truths.

[Anonymous No.9828288]

>>9828228
He said it weird but yeah, there's no absolute reason to expect things tomorrow will behave like things today. We just kind of expect they will.

[Anonymous No.9828344]

>>9828288
Buts it's retarded to think that they won't

[Anonymous No.9828738]

Not exactly. In the best of cases your prof is making a gross oversimplification of a more complicated line of argument - the fact that scientists do in fact have a kind of "tradition" in their investigation, that it takes a breaking discovery to cause a paradigm shift and that more often than not this discovery is -not- made by following some "scientific method" but precisely by breaking the rules within the field (think Einstein when he discovered relativity). Worst case he's just blurting out BS as some anons have already pointed out.

There's a whole field of philosophy dedicated to breaking notions about the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge, which might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science Try to read into the induction/deduction debate that happened in the 19th century, and then some classical works of the field such as Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Paul Feyerabend's "Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge". Then read critics of said works.

[Anonymous No.9828944]

>>9828344
>But it's retarded to think that they won't
What is contingency, a well-documented phenomena both within and outside of science?

[Anonymous No.9828954]

>>9828228
Philosophy commits the fallacy of irrelevance. How do you counter that argument?

[Anonymous No.9828958]

>>9828738
He meant the problem of induction: all swans we have seen are white, and, therefore, all swans are white.

[Anonymous No.9829038]

>>9828954
Philosophoshits BTFO

[Anonymous No.9829811]

>>9828958
There's literally nothing wrong with induction. Only popsci faggots believe science needs to be the objective truth of the universe.

[Anonymous No.9829908]

>>9828228
Your mom commits the fallacy of my dick.

[Anonymous No.9829915]

>>9829908
ahh "muh dick"

[Anonymous No.9829924]

"Science" Is a word that describe a fucking lot of things. The reducionist view that science follows a clear and well established method is used as an attempt to establish why is that these activities work so well, but it doesn't depend on these observations. So when a scientists says "we know that" he's not expressing some epistemological argument, but working within what's already established, because it keeps giving results. Hell, most scientists today make a big difference between a model that's approximately correct and the actual truth of shit.

[Anonymous No.9829936]

>>9829924
fuck you fag
lol stay mad kid
eat my ass stupid slut

[Anonymous No.9830033]

>>9828288
This statement is retarded. The fact that many experiments are easily replicable,and have been for thousands of years, proves that there are some things that are predictable, and can be reasonably assumed. Take lighting a dry piece of ordinary paper on fire in an environment with sufficient oxygen preseny, for example. Convince me that it won't burn like I expect.