/sci/ - Science & Math

Communication. They have an array of signals that are ready for a system call at all times.

Lol, yes, "The absence of heat", cold, does exist. I think he even mentioned it.

What a fucking idiot.

>>3169596
Oh, no, that isn't what I mean to do. I'm agnostic myself. Although I think they are both speculative in that sense.
Realistically, of course, I don't live my life thinking about gravity deactivating in the next moment, but denying the possibility is just bad science.

>>3169514
So, similarly, as a branch of philosophy, science cannot justify its own truth value?

On that I agree.

To simplify things, consider this point:

"Gnosticism on both sides is weak, from both positions discussing god and positions discussing the scientific method and empiricism."

That is my position.
Do you believe that science absolutely proves, beyond unreasonable doubt, that the universe is exactly the way it is perceived?
I would disagree.
Do you believe that atheists or theists can do that same thing about god?
If you do, I would disagree.
My position is not as radical as you might believe.
If you do disagree, I would really like to know why, as it seems many people hold to those tenets.

I wish sages were worth as much as bitcoins.
Rather, I wish that when /sci/ posted in this thread, they would actually contribute rather than complain and whine while they leave, unable to respond.

>>3169490
Whoops, my economic interests are exposed, better escape the guilt of wasting my life to the search of material things.

>>3169454
Well?
Will I never have your arrogance again?

There is no need to over-complicate replies.

>>3169475
I'm sure glad 1/1 = ...You guessed it.

>>3169427
You imply there is a fundamental disconnect between philosophy and science.

This is not about 'use value', this is about the truth.

I suppose research profiteers wouldn't understand that.

>>3169457
1/1

>>3169454
Whatever you were talking about in your quoted post.

>>3169438
So, what is the foundation of science?

>>3169402

Whenever I mention that, the poster stops posting.>>3169347
>>3169266

>>3169369
I responded to you here; I think it is still sufficient:>>3169362

>>3169367
I'd love to hear you justify the scientific method though, especially to find out what that means in the first place.

>>3169367
Have I said that I have written an essay or a book?
No, I am only using other sources.
Where did I indicate that I was original?

>>3169345
No, I didn't use the term 'amazing' nor did I argue that God does exist.
Read the thread if you'd like, but the summary is that:

Gnosticism on both sides is weak, from both positions discussing god and positions discussing the scientific method and empiricism.

>>3169340
It is a timeless question asked by the greatest thinkers who have ever lived, including scientists.

Have fun masturbating over space-ships, low-tier scientists.

>>3169323
No, I agree with this.
You had to step down and admit that in theory, which I know you all love so much, you may wake up and gravity may no longer apply.
That's all I'm saying, it's not as dense of a thought as you might think.
In this way, in theory, there could also be a god that does not obey natural laws, and therefore the gnostic arguments should be discarded.
I think there is some dissonance between what I believe and what you might think I believe, but I promise it's not as complex or unbelievable as it might seem to be.

>>3169297
Why could there not be invisible dragons?
I'm not laughing at that idea. I swear, it's almost like you've formulated a proof against the idea.

In any case, if you've never seen a picture of a particular crater on the moon, you might also agree that since it cannot be seen by you it must not exist?

>>3169277
I thought scientists were rational, and not as emotional as you.
I suppose this means you're not an on-topic poster?
Oh wait, you're talking about horse cock. No need to suppose anything.

>>3169281
I'm saying that when we say gravity accelerates matter at 9.8m/s/s, what do we mean by matter?
Is the matter we talk about real substance, and if we try this test again tomorrow, how can it be proven that it will pass?

These things cannot be proven, and in that way your idiotic gnosticism fails.

>>3169270
Explain where I go wrong.
Briefly, since you dislike talking about the validity of your methods.

I thought your type was all about meticulous documentation.

>>3169253
What is the foundation of science?
It is philosophy.