Prove to me that the scientific method isn't just a huge meme
Prove to me that the scientific method isn't just a huge meme
the last 500 years of technological innovation
there you go now fuck off
Unlike most other philosophical meandering, it actually affects things and produces results. In other words, it's more than empty daydreaming. The 'scientific method' doesn't really exist though, it's not monolithic by any means just as 'science' doesn't exist as a monolith. These two terms, though useful, are cancer.
it's what scientists use to prove things. proven things work. look around your pc. there's proof of what engineers can do with stuff that has been worked out and proven.
Why not post this in /sci/? This isn't Veeky Forums related.
tinto brass knew that ass was all that mattered
Is looking away from ass equivalent to looking away from explosions in movies?
Also,beyond the standard cliche of "read ellul" which you should 100% do, it's not really a meme but it's becoming one. Once you confuse objective (shared between others in a fixed state), group reality with subjective (only your own, your personal narrative of day to day experienced moments) you begin to lose perspective and become dogmatic, hence the notable decline in scientific output over the last few decades outside of muh computer is faster and it told me X.
a "was he kino?" thread died for this
my feefees > reality
go back to reading your bible and fucking your sister Cletus
saged and reported
Thank you for being the single intelligent poster in this thread
philosophy does not belong in Veeky Forums
Science is an enormously successful human enterprise. The study of scientific method is the attempt to discern the activities by which that success is achieved. Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. How these are carried out in detail can vary greatly, but characteristics like these have been looked to as a way of demarcating scientific activity from non-science, where only enterprises which employ some canonical form of scientific method or methods should be considered science (see also the entry on science and pseudo-science). On the other hand, more recent debate has questioned whether there is anything like a fixed toolkit of methods which is common across science and only science.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted. This entry clarifies the specific nature of pseudoscience in relation to other categories of non-scientific doctrines and practices, including science denial(ism) and resistance to the facts. The major proposed demarcation criteria for pseudo-science are discussed and some of their weaknesses are pointed out. In conclusion, it is emphasized that there is much more agreement on particular cases of demarcation than on the general criteria that such judgments should be based upon. This is an indication that there is still much important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.
none of that has to do with the scientific method
It's not a meme but every single person in this thread trying to defend it is a retard
There's a direct cause-effect relationship between the invention of the scientific method and increased technological innovation
I want to genocide people who cite plato.stanford
direct cause-effect relationship
that concept doesn't exist
increased technological innovation
are you sure?
what scientists use to prove things
If some scientist tells you that they proved something, what they're really telling you is that they're nothing more than a trained monkey. Science produces evidence, not proof. That's not a bad thing, though, and I even think it's a good thing.
Is there something wrong with it? I tend to use it for brief overviews since it's magnitudes more helpful than Wikipedia.
You can't really quantify innovation, can you? I guess you could do "number of new technologies" but how innovative something is seems pretty qualitative.
the idea that you can measure it is very silly indeed and posting such silly pictures only makes you as silly yourself as your argument silly
I think this post just proved that /sci/fags are so dumb it is almost wrong to b8 them
What would you propose instead?
Read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Feyrebrand's Against Method. Move onto Frege and Russell and Wittgenstein and Quine. Then read Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. Proceed forward onto Deleuze and Badio and Zizek and Gabriel and incomplete ontology guys. Revisit Greeks and Freud and Lacan if necessary.
profit off new theory
Anarcho-primitivism isn't in conflict with the scientific method though as they want to accomplish different things.
The scientific method is a means to the end of finding the truth of the material so we can better bend it our own ends.
Anarcho-primitivism is the political idea that we should massively reduce our population and stop using the science and technology to live naturally.
Do any anarchoprimitivists think that the scientific method is a bad way of deducing the truth or just that it unfortunately leads to politically bad results?
exactly what we had in the first decades of the 20th century when people like Jung, Bergson, Freud were in vogue; some sort of diagonal system in between pure realism and pure idealism. That era is coincidentally when the vast majority of progress was made in science. Compare 1900-1950 and 1950 to 2000 and it's not even a competition.
yeah nice try but you are still going down on the day of the rock
It is a meme, but one that is indicative of the era's scientific community's zeitgeist in which it belongs to. It didn't just appear randomly / for the hell of it. It's regarded as a rule of thumb for a reason.
Have you ever taken medicine? You felt better after a week right? Thats your proof, your life
we can better bend it our own ends
our own ends
when science approach this (subjective experience) it would be the beginning of the end to science.
You can very easily make a timeline of the inventions that caused big cultural shifts throughout the ages. You can look at what influenced who. You can see where the scientific method led to the knowledge required for inventions and new technologies. It's easy you retard.
looks like you are coming to the subjective