/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12107345

741KiB, 682x677, 41F3DBC7-563B-40C6-B021-BED3174AB246.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 03:35:14 2020 No.12107345 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12107351 >>12107404 >>12107414 >>12107476 >>12110500 >>12110601 >>12110712 >>12111170 >>12112083 >>12112243 >>12112859 >>12112940 >>12113501

In science is there such a thing as an objective external reality aka truth or is everything fundamentally subjective?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 03:38:02 No.12107351 Report

Quoted By: >>12108046

>>12107345
The second one.
Empiricism does not deal with Truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 03:59:53 No.12107404 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Something something Noumenal world, Transcendental Idealism, Copernican revolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 04:04:44 No.12107414 Report

Quoted By: >>12113482

>>12107345
Whatever cannot be tested is irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 04:18:14 No.12107456 Report

Quoted By: >>12108736

I want women willing to sacrifice themselves for me but not so fucking stupid as to actually do so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 04:25:47 No.12107476 Report

Quoted By: >>12108053 >>12112947

>>12107345
>my opinions
objective external reality
>your opinions
fundamentally subjective

glad i could clear that up

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 09:39:24 No.12108046 Report

Quoted By: >>12108730 >>12112834

>>12107351
Empiricism is Truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 09:43:29 No.12108053 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107476
Wow, it's self consistent!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 15:54:20 No.12108730 Report

Quoted By:

>>12108046
Empiricism is to truth what regression is to interpolation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Sep 2020 15:57:06 No.12108736 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107456
Why do you want this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 05:14:55 No.12110500 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Symbols and language is subjective, truth is ultimate and mutual understanding is not guaranteed even trough use of dictionary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 06:07:30 No.12110601 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Truth is a meme. Its like the limit of a function where we could approach closer to the truth but probably wont arrive to the truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 06:49:20 No.12110712 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
There's only one way the world is. Humans are thrown into the world with given sensory and cognitive limits, a language and syntax, etc. It's most likely that our finite capabilities get lots of things wrong. There's also the problem of axioms that have no epistemic justification, how each scientific observation needs to cohere with a previous set of auxillary beliefs (which may be wrong), and you get reality as more subjective than objective. Does it matter though? Science works fine. Our lives go on. Maybe you were wrong in your assumption that there can be objective truth with a truth-knower.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 11:30:42 No.12111170 Report

Quoted By: >>12111217 >>12111842 >>12113491

>>12107345
>In science
>truth
Science does not deal with truth, that's in the realm of metaphysics. Science deals in models.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 12:05:42 No.12111217 Report

Quoted By: >>12111220

>>12111170
This, and what it deals with regarding models is their ability to accurately predict occurrences that are necessarily implied by the model.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 12:06:58 No.12111220 Report

Quoted By:

>>12111217
There is no "thinking outside" of the model for the model. There is only the model. To think outside the model you need metaphysics, which is indispensable.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4558F8F9-083F-4E76-8683-BA24B530 (...).jpg, 34KiB, 560x560

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 17:05:12 No.12111842 Report

Quoted By:

>>12111170
>Science deals in models

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 18:35:39 No.12112083 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Truth might exist but humans probably wouldn't know of it. Even the idea that we can get close to truth is a bit dubious because to know whether or not you are close to knowing the truth you would have to know what is true, i.e. you would have to know where the destination is to know how far away you are from it. Science is more unguided meandering in dark unknowing hoping to accidentally bump into something than it is to some approach towards some light at the end of the tunnel, like how most pseudo-religious futurists like to see it as.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dress_color.png, 241KiB, 986x1280

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 19:20:18 No.12112243 Report

Quoted By: >>12112280

>>12107345
>is everything fundamentally subjective

Yes, it is possible for two people to see the exact same data and come up with different conclusions.
Ex:Racial differences in intelligence, liberal progressives will explain any differences are because of environmental differences, systemic racism, flawed tests, etc. They fundamentally reject the idea that intelligence is different for different races.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 19:29:54 No.12112280 Report

Quoted By: >>12112352

>>12112243
>it is possible for two people to see the exact same data and come up with different conclusions.
Of course, the trannime poster as an absolutely braindead take. People having different conclusions about data isn't proof that truth is subjective, more like it's proof that people can be wrong. Take that image you posted as an example; it ignores the fact that the original picture of that dress everyone was arguing over was a photo of a dress that was blue and black in reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 19:48:37 No.12112352 Report

Quoted By: >>12112489 >>12112969

>>12112280
>dress that was blue and black in reality.

You totally do not get it.
If the dress was yellow and white and the background dark then the image it would IDENTICAL to the original one and you would be claiming that people who saw it as black and blue were obviously "WRONG".

Data is interpreted differently based on the observers perception of reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 20:27:51 No.12112489 Report

Quoted By: >>12112887

>>12112352
>If the dress was yellow and white and the background dark then the image it would IDENTICAL to the original one and you would be claiming that people who saw it as black and blue were obviously "WRONG".
Because they would be in that case. But that wasn't the case; the dress was black and blue in reality and therefore the people who said black and blue are correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:10:05 No.12112834 Report

Quoted By:

>>12108046
Wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:19:40 No.12112859 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Functionally, there is such a thing as objective truth

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:31:00 No.12112887 Report

Quoted By: >>12112922 >>12112943

>>12112489
>therefore the people who said black and blue are correct.

You slow speaking, slope headed, inbred, mouth breathing moron!

The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to look at the image and know which dress color created the image.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1573371490034.jpg, 278KiB, 1908x967

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:48:10 No.12112922 Report

Quoted By: >>12112943

>>12112887
>The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses.
No, it can't. Look at your trannime pic and isolate only the color shifted rectangles. Notice how the rest of the rectangle besides the dresses is either yellowish or dark bluish depending on the dress color?
>It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to look at the image and know which dress color created the image.
You can if you have other elements in the image besides the dress to base it on. The original image is obviously overexposed based on what's going on around the dress, so lower the exposure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:56:31 No.12112940 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
If there was no Logos, there could be no science.
I understand why you'd think that though, as the reproducibility crisis shows, science is dying due to how much kikes, cunts, niggers, pajeets and other lying subhumans are "scientists" these days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 22:58:32 No.12112943 Report

Quoted By:

>>12112887
>>12112922
>The EXACT same image can be made with either yellow-white or blue-black dresses
Regardless, this entire issue is settled by the fact there isn't a fucking yellow-white dress to compare it to begin with. The dress in that photo is fucking black and blue in real life whether you like it or not. The "yellow-white dress" doesn't fucking exist and is a fucking illusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 23:01:21 No.12112947 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107476
In my opinion, you are correct.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Sep 2020 23:08:24 No.12112969 Report

Quoted By:

>>12112352
The act of applying interpretations will one day be fully elucidated by neuroscience, opening up a science of interpretation itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 13 Sep 2020 03:06:48 No.12113482 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107414

Irrelevant only as far as material evidence is concerned. Not actually irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 13 Sep 2020 03:09:18 No.12113491 Report

Quoted By:

>>12111170

Science deals in models that have a relationship to whats true, and tries is supposed to reflect it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 13 Sep 2020 03:11:15 No.12113501 Report

Quoted By:

>>12107345
Op, why are you asking a phi question in the sci board?

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