/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11280854

46KiB, 990x600, luke-skywalker_star-wars_feature[1].jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 03:30:17 2020 No.11280854 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11281370

How can science be said to know anything?
>why*1 because of newton's laws
...
>why*5 because of quantum phenomena
...
>why*9 because of elecromagnatism
>why*10 because of the strong force
>why*11 because of the weak force
>you mean like magic?
>not magic. it's the force

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO yudkowsky bayes.png, 377KiB, 400x521

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 03:34:04 No.11280860 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmSuDDFE4dicqd4Hg/you-only-need-faith-in-two-things
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C8nEXTcjZb9oauTCW/where-recursive-justification-hits-bottom

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:18:37 No.11280932 Report

Quoted By: >>11280938

Go to bed, Quine

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:23:39 No.11280938 Report

Quoted By: >>11280941

>>11280932
But this becomes more difficult.

For example flat earth can be refuted easily, but global warming is far more difficult because it is complex.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:27:39 No.11280941 Report

Quoted By: >>11280955 >>11280957 >>11281353

>>11280938
>For example flat earth can be refuted easily, but global warming is far more difficult because it is complex.

You can’t “refute” global warming because it demonstrably exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:38:28 No.11280955 Report

Quoted By:

>>11280941
top-tier circular reason, that there is

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:39:33 No.11280957 Report

Quoted By: >>11280961 >>11281353

>>11280941
top-tier circular reasoning, that there is

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:40:40 No.11280961 Report

Quoted By: >>11280962

>>11280957
>top-tier circular reasoning

Wrong. There is no circular reasoning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 04:41:16 No.11280962 Report

Quoted By: >>11281353

>>11280961
>Wrong. There is no circular reasoning.

no u

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 11:50:53 No.11281353 Report

Quoted By: >>11281636

>>11280957
>>11280962

>>11280941 Can confidently assert that it is true, since the scientific community is versed in mountains of analysed data in support of it.

Fucking faggot

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 288d07d71407ac5ee9e97faf76867419.gif, 2MiB, 1500x1200

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 12:05:28 No.11281370 Report

Quoted By: >>11281636 >>11281648 >>11281650 >>11281651

>>11280854
>science can't deal with an infinite sequence of why's
So? That's not what science is for. Science is to make predictions, not answered your dumb infantile "but why" questions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 16:00:27 No.11281636 Report

Quoted By:

>>11281353
>Can confidently assert that it is true, since the [right entity] is versed in mountains of [rightness] in support of it.
>this isn't circular reasoning, i swear
Conclusions are necessarily inferred from data. Any community or otherwise needs to infer their conclusions from the data, and they are not infallible simply by virtue of being a community of people in pursuit of science, regardless of the amount of data.

If you were intrinsically correct, perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to appeal to emotion with things like "versed in mountains of analysed data." Though the succinct composition of sensationalistic words in such a short phrase warrants a certain rhetorical praise. I'm surprised you didn't throw in random capitalizations to really drive the point home.

>>11281370
What about theoretical science or science with impractical conclusions?
>we study quantum mechanics to make predictions
Your conception of science is that of an infantile man who probably owns a "science don't care about yo fee fees" t-shirt

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 16:08:34 No.11281648 Report

Quoted By:

>>11281370
It's not about dealing with an infinite sequence of whys, dummy. It's about phenomena "explained" with fundamental forces in the first place. What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer because of "this fundamental force," immediately? What then? Is it to be taken as an explanation at all? What about a conclusion that derives from that "explanation"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 16:10:09 No.11281650 Report

Quoted By:

>>11281370
> dumb infantile "but why" questions
are exactly the reason why we have 4chan

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 16:10:20 No.11281651 Report

Quoted By: >>11281711

>>11281370
It's not about dealing with an infinite sequence of whys, dummy. It's about phenomena "explained" with fundamental forces in the first place. What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer "because of this [fundamental force]," immediately? What then? Is it to be taken as an explanation at all? What about a conclusion that derives from that "explanation"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Jan 2020 16:50:10 No.11281711 Report

Quoted By:

>>11281651
>What if, as they often do, the whys ended in an answer "because of this [fundamental force]," immediately? What then?
Nothing more. Scientific models need only be accurate predictors according to evidence. For the last 100 years physicists have largely taken an anti-realist stance, if it accurately predicts nature, who cares if it genuinely corresponds to some kind of 'reality'. Shut up and calculate

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches