Do you subscribe to scientism Veeky Forums?

Do you subscribe to scientism Veeky Forums?

I do for everything that involves more than 1 person.

No because I'm not a fedora tipping nerd autist loser. The Bible is all you need.

Currently the lower limit of the scientific method are quarks and the upper limit is the event horizon of black holes. For anything in between we can be sure it can be scientifically explained, now or in the future. Problem?

This post was brought to you by the scientific method.

Making autists believe that all facts are reducible to observable natural phenomena

Yes. Anything outside science is nonsensical outside of human culture.

>delivering the core concept in such a long winded, obtuse way

Applying the scientific method to everything is unnecessarily expensive. But every important decision should be based on things that you actually know are true and that requires the scientific method.

No

I think one of the best ways to identify people who have never done any actual science before is if they use the phrase "scientific method" to describe what scientists do.

What do you think about math, which doesn't use the scientific method?

How do you prove the scientific method gives you truth?

Stop spreading ignorance just because you're unemployed after graduating with a useless philosophy degree.

...

>he fell for the scientism meme

Yes, but it's sure not the only thing I subscribe to. A mere mortal such as yourself couldn't possibly understand the depth of my full subscription folder.

It doesn't give truth, nor does it claim to. Facts are not the same thing as truths. They are approximations of truths and can and have been wrong. That doesn't mean that there is anything on par with science though. Anyone that claims to have truths has none and is not even approximating truth.

Shut up, it's fun to read in Darth Vader's voice

>Using evidence to support your claim is dogmatic
Fucking christfags and philosophy fags are this retarded.

They are.
You can't give one example where another method was able to find something science was not.

Natural phenomena are the only things that exist. :O)

Yes, with the qualifier that there are a few things that we can know to exist that the scientific method (intersubjective verification) cannot prove.

The problem with the scientific method isn't that all knowledge through it comes from observation (as all knowledge in general comes from observation), but rather the problem is what I describe here: There are things you can know to exist that only you can observe

>do something
>something happens
>do it again a few hundred times
>the same thing keeps happening

You can now say confidently that everytime you perform that particular action, the same outcome will occur as long as the surrounding environment is held constant. Thats what science is. How can there be anything more trustworthy?

/Thread

B-But my feels disagree with it!

If only you can observe it then you don't know it. If only you can observe it, it's probably "just you" and not reality.

so it's scientifically impossible to prove that there are other minds in the universe?

this is why epistemology is usually a waste of time

it's never about trying to clarify the logical foundations of rational discourse

it's "hurr I'll argue that your foundations are wrong" while offering nothing better, or nothing at all, in return.

Studying science, mathematics, philosophy and history should give you all the evidence and reasoning you could ever need to function in this world.

>reject epistemology
>study philosophy
>add history for better bait

fuck off

yeah that's the thing that pissed me off when I took philosophy

We'd talk about something, I'd bring up a point and then my professor would attempt to refute it, but things would get weird because the premise(just for an example, "free will is real") that he used to make the refutation was not the premise that I accepted.

It's fun to think about stuff but after a while it gets aggravating actually trying to defend positions when your axioms are different.

eastern medicine

by this logic no one wins the lottery
probability doesn't solve everything

No. You just have to have a hypothesis about it.

>Lottery occurs
>We make the observation that a small number of people win and everyone else loses
>'Probability's uselesss lmao'

its true though. look up munchhaussen trilemma

WEW LAD

take the example of the concept of grue which states that until x time where x is a point where humans either do not exist or cannot perform scientific experiments, this rock in front of me has the color blue. after x, the rock becomes of the color green.

you observe the rock 1 gigagorillion times then it always gives you blue. you then conclude that the rock has a color of blue when in fact it is of the color grue. these are two very different conclusions.

this is why analytics are big now with precisely defining their philosophical claims similar to how a mathematician proves a theorem

>a point where humans either do not exist or cannot perform scientific experiments
Your experiment lacks rigor. (We can't test it.)

I'm not rejecting epistemology per se, but most of the time these conversations are pointless wastes of time.

If you believe that things like the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion, the algebraic closure of the complex plane, or the existence of an eigenbasis for any Hermitian matrix aren't real things that inform us about the world, well... you're wrong.

You could argue about how all of them rely on methods of analysis to prove them and analysis is "fuzzy" without a concrete logical basis, and you'd still be wrong.

History is important to learn about human behavior and the due course of spatiotemporal beings such as ourselves. Not a concrete science, but one filled with many truths nonetheless.

We can argue about the foundations of reasoning until the cows come home, but that doesn't render truths of science, mathematics, philosophy and history suddenly untrue.

>unmeasurable untestable hypothetical bullshit
Tell me more about the good Lord?

if I buy tickets for 1000 subsequent lotteries I'm almost certain not to win any. Can I safely conclude at that point that it is impossible for me to win a lottery?
depending on probability is stupid until your sample is large enough

No and as a scientist you wouldn't, you'd give a lower bond on the probability of winning.

Consider learning stats. It's whole point is to precisely define the uncertainty in a statement.

*lower bound

thats the point m8

Science like everything else is a profession. It is imperfect and practitioners make mistakes. But is there a better method out there? Not yet.

I wish I could use science to verify some claims right now. All I have is my intuition and indirect evidence; and reason.