/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12835044

342KiB, 1881x1120, 1614573108281.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Scientific Faith

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 06:10:25 2021 No.12835044 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12835121 >>12835153 >>12835155 >>12835171 >>12835278 >>12835288 >>12835289 >>12835324 >>12835460 >>12835776 >>12836804 >>12837132 >>12837244 >>12838018 >>12840385 >>12842969 >>12842972

So what inspires your belief in science? especially physics?
Here, help me understand. Let's start with your favorite concept in physics.
I don't personally believe deeply in physics, but the US was founded by people escaping religious prosecution. Everyone is granted the right to practice faith as they desire.
I'd have to say my favorite idea though would have to be the ideas of motion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:24:00 No.12835086 Report

Quoted By:

I'm a math major btw, if that matters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:38:34 No.12835121 Report

Quoted By: >>12835133

>>12835044
favorite concept in physics? i guess it would be that the world works in a logical way without any magic or mystical crap going on. isntythat comforting? maybe not if you believe in a benevolent god, but if you were worried about a horrible sadistic god, then it should reassure you.

either way the best thing about believing in science has got to be that you actually know an answe and that the answer is well supported within an empirical system. if empirical facts turn out to be wrong, then that would mean god is retarded. god isn’t retarded so no worries

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1611329763438.png, 94KiB, 499x199

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:44:52 No.12835133 Report

Quoted By: >>12835161

>>12835121
Oh anon I don't believe in either such gods. Those are flawed human understandings. God is innocent. Like a child who is just born.
That's why I have no issue with robotic overlords, they would be innocent just like god.
In in the entirely I know nothing.
> i guess it would be that the world works in a logical way without any magic or mystical crap going on
How do you mean anon?
what does human logic have to do with the world?
I don't understand this. But I'd like to know.
>empirical system
what makes something empirical?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:49:57 No.12835153 Report

Quoted By: >>12835159

>>12835044
It depends, what do you mean by "belief"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:50:30 No.12835155 Report

Quoted By: >>12835174

>>12835044
A belief in it in the system we set or the fact that a material world can exist at all and we can measure it?
I don't think it's hard to argue against solipsism and at the very least even if the world is solipsistic in a utilitarian way we need to know it to operate in this world even if the world changes completely second to second.
The system as it sucks but having a good metaphysics system can help us skip Newton in favor of furthering aristptelian science to einsteinian or vice versa. If you believe in math it implies science as physics is a degradation of the universality of math measurements to more particular material ones. In my opinion you take one w the other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:51:26 No.12835159 Report

Quoted By: >>12835193

>>12835153
Should it mean something specific?
what do you think it should mean?
what should it not mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:51:33 No.12835161 Report

Quoted By: >>12835170 >>12835184

>>12835133
let me make it more basic for you. some people say “the world works in mysterious ways because that is gods will. the reason your brother has a disease is because that is god’s master plan”

others might say
“the universe works in very predictable ways because there are natural laws. the reason your brother has a disease is because of the chemical reactions that dictate genetic inheritance.”

a person may find the former explanation more comforting than the latter, but others like me might prefer the latter

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:55:48 No.12835170 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835161
Not him but faith can be had in anything. That people say "science agrees with me" without mentioning any metaphysical justifications in einsteinian, comtian, newtonian etc science gives us different ways to interpret and expand science. Obviously the conclusions are mostly unimportant, Aristotle would have been in line with Einstein but Newton would disregard it. Platonist realism in math etc differs greatly from formalism and this differs in a scientific rhetoric like the method or in the epistemological justifications. I don't think Newton would accept a falsificationist epistemology and Plato certainly wouldn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:55:48 No.12835171 Report

Quoted By: >>12835184

>>12835044
We're not fedoras. Science is just a tool and its toy models are useful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:56:30 No.12835174 Report

Quoted By: >>12835179

>>12835155
I don't believe math is universal at all.
I would not really like to make such an assumption.
There's no meaning to why I study math, it's simply out of interest.
There is a concept of life and things that live. But not all out actions pertain to that.
And I have no authority of knowledge to know what actions should and should not be done.
I'm not obligated to agree with anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 06:58:53 No.12835179 Report

Quoted By: >>12835184

>>12835174
By universality it's on an order no? The universality of truth in a schizophrenic is small but still true on some degree. That physics takes math as an axiom implies it is more universal but it's also seen in physics being math simply applied to matter with justifications held in the fields separately

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:00:42 No.12835184 Report

Quoted By: >>12835204

>>12835161
How are these statements different? they never stated their exclusivity to each other?
>>12835171
useful for what?
>>12835179
Is that meaningful?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:05:30 No.12835193 Report

Quoted By: >>12835198

>>12835159
>Should it mean something specific?
Yes, I want to answer your question using your definition, I could give many different answers.
>what do you think it should mean?
I just want you to clarify how your notion of "belief" is exercised in practice.
>what should it not mean?
I don't know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:09:15 No.12835198 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835193
I guess without being lost in semantics:
I supposed it would be accepting something as true.
which is what a dictionary would define it as.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:13:03 No.12835204 Report

Quoted By: >>12835211 >>12835250

>>12835184
It's meaningful to the world if you want to understand it.
A foundation of existence is the most universal which degrades into and informs abstract subjects like metaphysics, logic, math which similarly degrade into each other. Those abstract subjects have a degraded existence or truth preservation into material subjects which further degrade into sociological then existential. Most political conversations are speaking past each other because they are speaking on sociological truths that are completely unrelated to each other so being against abortion for life of a child and being for it for women's rights never come together. If we accept there exists a solution or framework that accounts for both the question becomes how to advance both rights instead of whether abortion is bad for baby or good for women's rights. It gives meaning to subjects but it doesn't matter so long as your framework or metaphysics can give meaning. I think foundationalism helps but Aristotle had a double foundationalism and established meaning, truth etc and could develop a science off of it. Man is imperfect but reality (existence) is simply what it is. People say a TV gets broke when you put a hammer through it but it just did what it did. You can fix it based on saying what happened and what they are. It applies to everything but whatever you find works and that can account for a lot of things fundamentally is what gets used like Hegel's progressivism gave us a lot of politics, a math perception (intuitionism which led early math and is two steps foundational to what gave us computers). People argue Darwin's evolution was influenced by Hegel. I'm not a hegelian but the metaphysics is what gives it meaning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:17:04 No.12835211 Report

Quoted By: >>12835225

>>12835204
lots of words bit no science. i suggest moving this thread to another board

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:22:11 No.12835222 Report

Quoted By: >>12835240 >>12835250

No belief, no faith in science. Just hard, brute facts. And even they should be questioned constantly. Theories withstanding this bombardment of questioning are good approximation of this universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:22:41 No.12835225 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835211
I spoke about Darwin and Aristotle. I was trying to cast a wide net but adopting the meaning that Aristotle has leads you to a different science than plato's would have and seeing which ones advance science the most is the meaning one should adopt.
I'm interested in seeing op put out a good meaning narrative and developing a theory of gravity from it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:27:05 No.12835240 Report

Quoted By: >>12835312

>>12835222
By Godel you can't just have constructive axioms because you'll never actually know if it covers everything.
To get a square you take x+y(x+y). The square can account for any x+y. You can add on z as well with the same operation but x+y+z... can never account for what all x, y or z can equal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:30:31 No.12835250 Report

Quoted By: >>12835268 >>12835274 >>12837962

>>12835204
>metaphysics, logic, math
what motivates us to believe these are good methods of understanding truth?
>>12835222
tell me a fact.
and which facts does physics currently wish to find?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:37:25 No.12835268 Report

Quoted By: >>12835274 >>12835305

>>12835250
If you accept existence is a good foundation then you can see how well those map to existence. You can choose any foundation. If your foundation to reading a book is 20 pages every day to keep up with school then you'll adopt methods which reach those and be able to measure them. We have foundations with anything.
Just choose which foundation you're basing whatever off of and see how those subjects relate to your foundation. Just try and go far back enough. All subjects in science math etc operate like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:39:07 No.12835274 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835250
>>12835268
I don't accept truth as any real thing except an uneven conflation with existence but make truth your foundation then see how those subjects work in it. Truth, like freedom, is a bit unwieldy and probably isn't a real thing but that would be the structure

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:41:15 No.12835278 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835044
Unblock me joey

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO belief systems chad.png, 3MiB, 9770x1753

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:43:52 No.12835288 Report

Quoted By: >>12835305 >>12835315

>>12835044
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Multimorph

Multimorph Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:43:56 No.12835289 Report

Quoted By: >>12835305

>>12835044
Motion is indeed cool. Velocity is momentum of units. Energy is invariant for the same reason that momentum is, it is a linear sum of forces, except over space rather than time. Matter is knots in the ether, approximately. This is why it warps spacetime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:49:19 No.12835305 Report

Quoted By: >>12835319 >>12835323

>>12835268
>If you accept existence is a good foundation then you can see how well those map to existence.
there's no way to know I'm a reliable observer.
>>12835288
How do I know what is and what is not?
>>12835289
how do you know these things? or what convinces you of these beliefs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:51:46 No.12835312 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835240
I deleted my aristotelian math foundation so I'm working from memory but it's U(subset x+y) x+y so if x is 2 and y is 1 then it's (x+y)+(x+y)+(x+y). It is equivalent to (2+1)2. I can build a circle with it too and create any number system even linear with a few other instructions but I haven't had time to try modular arithmetic. I create anything from 0 by 0 implies 0 as a necessity and 0 is the absence of something so 0 > 0 can have the antecedent be negated to be x > 0.
I haven't been able to practice diagnolization but it builds everything with another couple axioms. I wanted to found it in a more parmenidian unitarian Christian metaphysics but it'd be a foundationalism just I wouldn't use a reverse foundationalism to justify x existing

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Heh.jpg, 198KiB, 2356x1403

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:52:55 No.12835315 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835288
Is this OC? Deism is pretty good. Voidlightunitytotalgod, then Janus the demiurge, facing out of this universe and into it. Spinoza said there might be more modes than thought and matter, couldnt hypercreativity penetrate the next realm? It is similar to the mathematics of uncountable sets, if you would just read some.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:54:00 No.12835319 Report

Quoted By: >>12835335

>>12835305
It honestly doesn't matter because we aren't but reality isn't dualistic, it's on an order otherwise there's no growth. So you measure based on how universal the existence preservation is covered. For logic it founds math, computer science, linguistics. Math founds much less than that. For the observer we can found consciousness as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:55:05 No.12835323 Report

Quoted By: >>12835335

>>12835305
>what convinces you of these beliefs?
The morality dictated by sensation/survival. Consistent abstractions thereupon (consistency is atomic)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:55:31 No.12835324 Report

Quoted By: >>12835329

>>12835044
None. I only believe in scientific method, not science itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:56:28 No.12835329 Report

Quoted By: >>12835347

>>12835324
Which scientific method tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 07:58:46 No.12835335 Report

Quoted By: >>12835346 >>12835350

>>12835323
This is what tells you matter is knots?
>>12835319
>there's no growth
growth?
I don't know what you mean.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO KnotNot.png, 190KiB, 428x537

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:02:06 No.12835346 Report

Quoted By: >>12835370

>>12835335
No, that is not what tells me that matter is knots. For that, the following:
>matter warps space time
>the universe likes few basic elements
>if we can construct matter out of ST, why not do so?
>knots on a string warp it
>knots in space could warp it
>energy and mass are interchangeable
>energy is potentially a knot as well, in some verifiably consistent interpretations

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:02:17 No.12835347 Report

Quoted By: >>12835359

>>12835329
Bayesian

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:02:58 No.12835350 Report

Quoted By: >>12835370

>>12835335
I don't know how to speak to you if you only ask questions or I risk not communicating with you.

If you accept causation and have some causation narrative then it's the cause of one object of another. In a pragmatic sense saying I know computer science isn't a real thing. If we could quantify it we could say I know x-tier of computer science. The negation is similar as well. This has an analogue in physical objects like light, dark, heat, cold. There exist the absences then an order of those. Saying it's light or cold outside is just linguistic placeholders for the material truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:05:02 No.12835359 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835347
I figured out how to found induction vs deduction logic. I used vector geometry. You can actually find the rest of the pieces if the situation is set up in a realistic quantifiable way. I deleted and forgot it but it's not hard to figure out again I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:09:00 No.12835370 Report

Quoted By: >>12835377 >>12835389 >>12835419

>>12835346
I don't see what that has to do with strings and knots.
I don't even see how any of those statments relate to each other.
>>12835350
>>12835350
So it's all based on an assumption?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:10:49 No.12835377 Report

Quoted By: >>12835389 >>12835416

>>12835370
Ig it can start as that but an assumption doesn't really exist. You have a whole life of experience you draw from. In the end it's based on existence preservation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:14:59 No.12835389 Report

Quoted By: >>12835416

>>12835370
>>12835377
There's an existence scalar which is foundational to the Higgs boson but it isn't material. If you find that it explains how everything went and will go in the universe. I developed a metaphysical, logical and mathematical framework. Got a decent bit into a physical framework but if you find that scalar it explains everything and we can go outside this universe (an outer universe which founds ours not some multiverse crap).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:27:50 No.12835416 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835377
>>12835389
For metaphysics there are metaphysical structures then ontological dimensions. Foundationalism is a structure, coherentism is, monism is, nihilism is etc.
For dimensions you have monism, dualism, trialism etc. A dualist reverse foundationalism (or progressivism to distinguish from Aristotle's reverse foundationalism) would be hegel's thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Anyways everything follows from these. You create your own see how it works then found everything in it. I was working through some big philosophers but I got tired of it. Religions are pretty much just more foundational metaphysics. I was wanting to go through burial cultures and sacrifices then polytheism etc etc and see what is the development of these. It's easy to see how number systems are founded off of religions for all civilizations. Sumerians had a base 60 system from their astrology 360 day thing. From that they got trig etc. I was wanting to get into philosophy of technology because computers are digital instead of analogue and base 2 along with other things. I think better technology is there and it won't be some capitalist lynch mob circle jerk. You humans are creepy and it's really not hard to do any of this. I'm not doing it for y'all. Idk how y'all fucked up this hard.

Mult

Mult Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:29:06 No.12835419 Report

Quoted By: >>12835506

>>12835370
Its not my fault youre blind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 08:43:31 No.12835460 Report

Quoted By: >>12835506

>>12835044
Oh no it's the "belief in science" idiot again....
Weren't the "I believe spacetime is discrete because muh Planck units" threads bad enough?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 09:03:42 No.12835506 Report

Quoted By: >>12835676 >>12835698

>>12835419
I suppose vision must be required to understand then?
>>12835460
what do you mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 10:12:19 No.12835676 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835506
Vision comes from an open heart

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 10:22:29 No.12835698 Report

Quoted By: >>12835746

>>12835506
>what do you mean?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you're not him. Carry on then. It was a fag who said he believed in discrete spacetime and science does so as well. Then created six threads lamenting about me calling him out when I told him science isn't about belief.

To answer question in OP, because the scientific method worked every single time it was used correctly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 10:41:24 No.12835746 Report

Quoted By: >>12836793

>>12835698
>spacetime
what does that even mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 10:55:47 No.12835776 Report

Quoted By: >>12835785

>>12835044
That is the beauty of science - at least natural science anyway - it works regardless of belief in it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:02:44 No.12835785 Report

Quoted By: >>12835814

>>12835776
>it works regardless of belief in it.
what does that mean?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 2013-updated_scientific-method-s (...).png, 30KiB, 415x496

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:13:58 No.12835814 Report

Quoted By: >>12835824 >>12838134

>>12835785
>what does that mean?
it means that science, by using the scientific method, produces knowledge about reality that corresponds to reality. You may not like the knowledge it provides, or even deny it, but it is true regardless of your dislike or denial, because it was proven by experiment or observation (one of the few ways of determining something to be true).
That is what that means.
Keep in mind, this works for natural (hard) sciences, for other, say, social (soft) sciences it may not be so clear-cut

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:18:31 No.12835824 Report

Quoted By: >>12835850 >>12838031

>>12835814
well assuming people are not unreliable observers, it would seem kind of obvious that a phenomenon of existence is described by its existence during that phenomenal existence, no?
I generally know I exist constantly.
can you give me an example of a known thing according to this standard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:25:13 No.12835837 Report

Quoted By: >>12835853

There is no empirical way of verifying that gravity is real as opposed to the earth is rising (or if you have faith in a heliocentric model, that the earth is "expanding")

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:34:27 No.12835850 Report

Quoted By: >>12837104

>>12835824
>assuming people are not unreliable observers
Observation in natural science (in general) means not observing with your sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) but by using some sort of measuring equipment like a microscope, a telescope, a spectrometer, etc. Equipment is more reliable than humans and can also detect things humans can't.
>example
you are standing at the edge of a tall cliff. you throw a rock into the distance. you see the rock falling down to the bottom of the cliff.
you may not like that it behaves that way, but it does, as demonstrated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 11:35:51 No.12835853 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835837
not sure if troll or stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 17:03:38 No.12836793 Report

Quoted By: >>12837104

>>12835746
This is a science board.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 250px-050Diglett.png, 53KiB, 250x250

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 17:05:22 No.12836804 Report

Quoted By: >>12837104

>>12835044
you don't seem to understand. look no farther than the success of engineering as evidence that physics models reality to some degree

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:06:51 No.12837104 Report

Quoted By: >>12838031 >>12838040 >>12838045 >>12838065 >>12838541 >>12840018

>>12835850
You're still observing the existence of phenomenon, anon.
that can only be regulated in the mind.
there's not going around that.
Or do you believe that has nothing to do with it?
>you may not like that it behaves that way, but it does, as demonstrated.
the phenomenal existence of such a thing could be observed but that doesn't indicate anything about another phenomenon.
There's simply no proof that two phenomenon will act the same way, they are different and not the same.
That's an experiential claim.
And if it's not then it's an agreement to certain dogma, similar to belief.
I just don't believe there has been any evidence of certainty.
>>12836793
Yes, and?
this is why I'm interested in this belief in science.
>>12836804
That doesn't indicate certainty, it only implies that it's a successful guess.
ideas of our observations are held within the mind, and thus reductionisms of those experiences into repeatable ideas allows us to repeat our experiences in a reduced and stationary form.
Math is treated like a blanket and formed over these dreams.
In my mathematical opinion it does not impress me at all.
Applying a human concept over a supposed transphenomenal existence only known experientially does not mean very much to me at all.
that is the basis of all language.
and thus human nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:10:22 No.12837132 Report

Quoted By: >>12837321

>>12835044
lain anon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:29:41 No.12837244 Report

Quoted By: >>12837321

>>12835044
Belief: If I pray over a piece of silicon I can make the stones sing my praises.

Knowledge: By wiring these stones in a configuration, I can make these silicate structures quite literally sing my praises.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 18:47:06 No.12837321 Report

Quoted By: >>12838190

>>12837132
No I'm not him, but I've posted lain with him before. I'm just a fan of lain's.
>>12837244
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
her belief in God
a belief in democracy
I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.
contrary to popular belief
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed
an individual's religious or political beliefs
especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
the beliefs of the Catholic Church
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief in the validity of scientific statements
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 20:55:50 No.12837962 Report

Quoted By: >>12838031

>>12835250
The facts are the measurements. The data.

The theory should be based on logic AND to data. Even if it fails one, it fails to be a theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:12:19 No.12838018 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835044
There are lots of ways of building different frameworks to understand reality. Religion and Science are two of them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:14:49 No.12838031 Report

Quoted By:

>>12837962
see >>12837104
>>12835824

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:17:09 No.12838040 Report

Quoted By: >>12838065

>>12837104
>that can only be regulated in the mind, there's not going around that.
Everything is "regulated by the mind". If you think no input from the physical world can be trusted, might as well try solipsism - only my mind is real, everything else is fake (i.e. you might be a brain in a jar). While seemingly irrefutable, also completely untestable, and therefore not only not science (because untestable), but also pointless in every way, because if reality really is not real, then it is also pointless to think about reality (because it is not real).
>There's simply no proof that two phenomenon will act the same way, they are different and not the same.
If you try doing the same action with different things, a pattern always emerges. Throw enough things off a cliff and you will see that in general, things tend to fall, not go up or maintain altitude. Hey, if you think a rock being thrown down a cliff and a person being thrown dowm a cliff have no relation, try jumping off yourself - maybe it wont apply ot you and you will fly away?
>That's an experiential claim
The origin of every natural science is empirical and there is no going around that - some kind of experiments gave rise to physics, chemistry, etc. Some people even claim that some formal sciences (like math) are also empirical in origin.
>the point
You dont believe science, because it has nothing to do with belief. At most, you can trust it (if it was done without error).

There are many at least half-decent answers here already. If you are still not satisfied, I'm starting to think this is either:
1) a bait thread
or
2) you are approaching this purely from a deeply philosophical perspective (in which case your question in completely unscientific because philosophy is not a science in any way and you are really questioning metaphysics, not science)
or
3) you are legally retarded

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1612632318716.jpg, 24KiB, 480x270

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:18:21 No.12838045 Report

Quoted By: >>12838077

>>12837104
science isn't the pursuit for certainty, it's the pursuit of increasingly accurate models
the fault is with your concept of science, not with science itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:25:02 No.12838065 Report

Quoted By: >>12838074

>>12838040
>then it is also pointless to think about reality
yes
and?
>If you try doing the same action with different things, a pattern always emerges
this is just an assumption
>The origin of every natural science is empirical and there is no going around that - some kind of experiments gave rise to physics, chemistry, etc
yes I already said this see >>12837104
>etc
it seems as if we're at an impasse.
define science.
is this definition true always?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:26:50 No.12838074 Report

Quoted By: >>12838088

>>12838065
i dont know if its worth the bother, you clearly dont seem to understand what most people here are saying

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:27:21 No.12838077 Report

Quoted By: >>12838084 >>12838089

>>12838045
I never offered my concept of science.
All I've done was ask and state obvious things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:27:47 No.12838079 Report

Quoted By: >>12838101

>science is consistent so far
>method works
>models work
>nothing more required
if there was a phenomenon unsuitable for scientific inquiry we would either relegate it to philosophy or have to reconsider our entire epistemological justification for using science

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:28:43 No.12838084 Report

Quoted By: >>12838101

>>12838077
>That doesn't indicate certainty, it only implies that it's a successful guess.
this is your concept of science

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:29:27 No.12838088 Report

Quoted By: >>12838134

>>12838074
>So what inspires your belief in science? especially physics?
>Here, help me understand. Let's start with your favorite concept in physics.
>I don't personally believe deeply in physics, but the US was founded by people escaping religious prosecution. Everyone is granted the right to practice faith as they desire.
>I'd have to say my favorite idea though would have to be the ideas of motion.
I don't recall anyone specifically answering my questions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:29:30 No.12838089 Report

Quoted By: >>12838101

>>12838077
then offer it. maybe i will have an understanding of what your problem is with previous answers

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:33:46 No.12838101 Report

Quoted By: >>12838140 >>12838147 >>12838193

>>12838084
No that was my concept of things that are certain to exist.
If Science is not certain then it is not certain.
That's all.
I've been told many contradicting opinions so far.
>>12838079
What is science then?
and if it's underlying foundational arguments are unsuitable to be answered by science what does that mean about science?
>>12838089
I don't know. I would like to know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:41:49 No.12838134 Report

Quoted By: >>12838190

>>12838088
>So what inspires your belief in science?
Science is not a thing you believe in, it is a thing you do. Closest thing to "believing" is trusting it. And people tend to trust it because it works.
>help me understand
understand what - why people believe in science? I just said - people dont believe in it, they just trust it. Science is not some god you "believe in", it is a process of gaining knowledge about the universe from the universe by using the scientific method. The basics of scientific method are depicted in >>12835814
>I don't personally believe deeply in physics
and nobody is asking you to do that
>the US was founded by people escaping religious prosecution what does that have to do with anything?
>Everyone is granted the right to practice faith as they desire
Science is not a religion, it requires no "faith". It requires your desire to learn it and understand of it
>I'd have to say my favorite idea though would have to be the ideas of motion
you like mechanics, good for you

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO cow.jpg, 55KiB, 520x403

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:42:49 No.12838140 Report

Quoted By: >>12838190

>>12838101
anon, your computer works because science works. it's a testament to the success of scientific thought. it doesn't matter if you like the principles applied to make such a device, because the principles seem to do a good enough job that we can construct billions of things on nanoscales, repeat that process billions of times, and then use those things to shitpost on a mongolia throat-singing webzone.

i study physics, electrical engineering, and computer science. seeing how these principles are applied to build things, and then seeing those things do what they were designed to do, has given me assurance that these are useful ideas. and the best part? the ideas make sense and work within their frameworks. have we got it all figured out? not by a long shot, but try sending a rover to mars on faith and see how far that gets you.

i believe in science because i try to understand it and actively participate in it and see the results first hand. that's where my "faith" comes from, experience

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:45:23 No.12838147 Report

Quoted By: >>12838187 >>12838190

>>12838101
>If Science is not certain then it is not certain. That's all.
Yes. Any scientific theory is true until there is some new evidence that contradicts it. Scientific theories are always being tested. If they withstand the tests, they work. that is literally one of the main aspects of science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:55:18 No.12838187 Report

Quoted By:

>>12838147
and if a successful theory starts showing cracks outside its domain of applicability, often refined theories reduce to the old theory in the appropriate limits

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:56:22 No.12838190 Report

Quoted By: >>12838215 >>12838222 >>12838230

>>12838134
see >>12837321
to avoid redundancy on my end.
>it is a process of gaining knowledge about the universe from the universe by using the scientific method
yes experientially observing a phenomenal existence. usually an event of a transphenomenal existence interacting with an observer.
Though the patterns which we assign to these are not a direct observation, they're an imposed belief about a thing.
I'm not going to continue with this redundancy of things I've already said.
>and nobody is asking you to do that
ok...
etc.
>>12838140
My computer works because my computer works.
>it doesn't matter if you like the principles applied to make such a device
I don't know what you're saying or implicating.
>i believe in science because i try to understand it and actively participate in it and see the results first hand. that's where my "faith" comes from, experience
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
>>12838147
>Yes. Any scientific theory is true until there is some new evidence that contradicts it.
Nothing can be true without being certain. Theories are not truth, they are beliefs.
Throughout this thread I find it interesting how so many people describe their beliefs in science differently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 21:56:57 No.12838193 Report

Quoted By: >>12838225

>>12838101
>What is science then?
an empirical method
>and if it's underlying foundational arguments are unsuitable to be answered by science what does that mean about science?
the foundational arguments have been expounded in many ways, as i said this task usually falls on philosophy. hegel for example posited science as a form of rational inquiry whose work is ultimately never done; in other words knowledge is infinite. so far this has worked out pretty well for us.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:01:45 No.12838215 Report

Quoted By: >>12838256

>>12838190
>My computer works because my computer works.
your computer works because we have figured out classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, solid state physics, metallurgy, nanoscale fabrication, etc. etc. etc.
it's based on a heap of scientific thought, and wouldn't work had those ideas not been put into place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:04:04 No.12838222 Report

Quoted By: >>12838256

>>12838190
>Nothing can be true without being certain
then truth doesnt exist because nothing is certain and cannot be certain in principle

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:04:41 No.12838225 Report

Quoted By: >>12838229

>>12838193
>an empirical method
and what does that mean?
>etc.
is that supposed to be meaningful?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:07:25 No.12838229 Report

Quoted By: >>12838256

>>12838225
>and what does that mean?
do you know what empiricism is?
>is that supposed to be meaningful?
how do you use science to justify the foundations of science?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:07:45 No.12838230 Report

Quoted By: >>12838256

>>12838190
In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:14:53 No.12838256 Report

Quoted By: >>12838397

>>12838215
>it's based on a heap of scientific thought, and wouldn't work had those ideas not been put into place.
interesting idea.
>>12838222
>because nothing is certain and cannot be certain in principle
and you're certain of this?
I personally don't know, though I supposed some might have higher knowledge possible granted to them by higher power, I wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. Though I'm not certain of it.
>>12838229
>do you know what empiricism is?
according to common knowledge, the dictionary:
>The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
>how do you use science to justify the foundations of science?
I don't know
I'd just like to believe there is a different between strings of words and call that meaning.
though I'm not entirely certain.
>>12838230
>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
something is because it is. I agree with this, though I'm not sure how it can be confirmed if it's closed.
>The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
yes this makes sense.
>The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
such as axioms in math.
>etc.
why do you mention this though?
It's an interesting idea indeed.
does this then relate to science?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1462007416581.jpg, 470KiB, 1196x1600

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:21:52 No.12838286 Report

Quoted By: >>12838302

Utopian visions of what's possible

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1606703085215.png, 13KiB, 650x450

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:23:57 No.12838294 Report

Quoted By: >>12838302 >>12838535

I only believe the science that makes sense

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:25:27 No.12838302 Report

Quoted By: >>12838307 >>12838365

>>12838286
looks like an awful hellscape.
>>12838294
like what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:27:09 No.12838307 Report

Quoted By: >>12838377 >>12843615

>>12838302
Chemistry
physics
stuff that can be observed and tested
if I can't prove it to myself I reject the idea
currently I'm still trying to prove to myself that the earth is spherical

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1396853335202.jpg, 611KiB, 1819x760

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:38:49 No.12838365 Report

Quoted By: >>12838377 >>12843615

>>12838302

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:41:46 No.12838377 Report

Quoted By: >>12843615

>>12838365
horrid hellscape
>>12838307
That's an interesting way to think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 22:49:26 No.12838397 Report

Quoted By: >>12838478

>>12838256
the fact that you agreed to be using the trilemma philosophy means you are a troll in a bait thread and you are wasting our time.

Such
Actions
Generally
Equate to punishment

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 23:06:40 No.12838478 Report

Quoted By:

>>12838397
I don't know what you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 23:18:58 No.12838535 Report

Quoted By: >>12839143

>>12838294
>HS2
And how does this make sense?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Mar 2021 23:20:15 No.12838541 Report

Quoted By:

>>12837104
Maths are the actual languages of implication and there are many mathematical constructs and topologies that they imply are real but are impossible and will never exist in this universe.

Hell, there are different fields of mathematics that will yield entirely different solutions to the same fucking problem. Physics doesn't have that problem though because there's only what can be observed and described and what can't.

Physics is more useful because it attempts to define the laws of the universe we live in in its most practical, logical sense using math as a means to an end but not venerating it as some zenith of collective human intelligence. Space shuttles, skyscrapers, race cars, rockets, GPS -- these are all human creations that are built because of our understanding of physics... meanwhile that penrose circle some topologist jacks off to sure as shit isn't gonna get us to Mars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 01:55:18 No.12839143 Report

Quoted By:

>>12838535
wait that pic is from hs2?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 07:06:17 No.12840018 Report

Quoted By: >>12840026

>>12837104
>Yes, and?
You should know what spacetime is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 07:09:48 No.12840026 Report

Quoted By: >>12840060

>>12840018
why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 07:24:16 No.12840060 Report

Quoted By:

>>12840026
It is the basic requirement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 10:34:46 No.12840373 Report

Quoted By: >>12840647

fpbp

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 10:36:43 No.12840380 Report

Quoted By:

what is belief?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 10:37:54 No.12840385 Report

Quoted By: >>12840647

>>12835044
troll

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 12:36:07 No.12840647 Report

Quoted By: >>12841261 >>12841267 >>12841566

>>12840385
>>12840373
These

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 15:28:54 No.12841261 Report

Quoted By: >>12841267 >>12841566

>>12840647
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 15:30:43 No.12841267 Report

Quoted By: >>12841566

>>12840647
>>12841261
those

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 16:53:32 No.12841566 Report

Quoted By: >>12842750

>>12840647
>>12841261
>>12841267
This. Unironically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 20:42:54 No.12842750 Report

Quoted By:

>>12841566
thats

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 21:27:38 No.12842969 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835044
Implying I belief in it, just because I use it on daily basis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 16 Mar 2021 21:28:39 No.12842972 Report

Quoted By:

>>12835044
Science is not about belief, but also about doubt.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1611209671854.jpg, 495KiB, 762x1024

Anonymous Wed 17 Mar 2021 00:24:02 No.12843615 Report

Quoted By:

>>12838365
>>12838307
>>12838377

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