How do we stop the memeification of science?

I agree with OP. Picture the whole universe (everything, physical shit, biological shit, social shit, EVERYTHING), science is a method used to understand and analyze the universe in little pieces, each tool researching each piece would be each science... its not that hard to understand boy...

You're not a scientist obviously, lol.

>"natural world"
Yah, it sounds vague because it is. The natural world is pretty much everything. That's why delimitation is useless.
>science is the systematic organization of information
So the dewey system is science, then? What do you mean?

>How do we stop the memeification of science?
If you stop doing it, we'll probably be halfway there.
Also, fuck off.

You're probably thinking of the scientific method. That's just a way of avoiding biases and similar problems. The actual information is the heart of it I think.

science is arranging observations systematically. then making models about them which can't be shown to fail. nothing less, nothing more.

Well, that raises a good question.
But i disagree m8, i doubt the pure information and results sciences get are what makes science SCIENCE. Without the method and what it implies, there would be no information.

The most significant source memeification is the attitude encapsulated by pic related as a whole.

Science is a method but it's the best method we have and religion is mental influenza.

Also science was and always will be a meme by definition.

Deal with these facts or forever live with your hemorrhaging pooper.

But science is basically the assertion on the left, not the right.

Too many people, and on this board no less, act like the right.

both of those are absolutely cringeworthy bullshit
the left one is the usual popsci idiot
the right one is a strawman of an impossible euphoric autist

Loosely, yes, however the language used to demonstrate the author's opinion is hugely biased and takes both sides to absurd extremes.

> always question, always test
> but trusting those tests is scientism
> don't you know, that you cant no nuthin?
w/e math is the one and only thing that actually matters.

>Group crusading anti-theists the same as terrorists
>Outlaw popsci that doesn't educate
>Mandate everyone learn calculus by middle school and calculus based physics in high school to push them over the top of mount stupid

the civil war was about slavery you dumb fuck

i love these kiddies non konwers trying to act as grown up

Some ass just edited the original pic, subtle

youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8

States. Rights.

I love when people throw in the word systematic to make a definition sound smarter. What exactly is non-systematic organization you blockhead.

Assorted goods are nonsystematically organized. They're lumped together.

Sorted goods are systematically organized, for instance after color or size.

ESL?

Fair enough, disregard me.

The bottom is true although "botanically" would be more correct.

>Amazons are mythological, hence using "historically" in this context is stupid.
>Slavery was a big part of the American civil war.
>Tomatoes are a fruit.
>No one below postgrad has a decent understanding of quantum physics.

Can someone have thorough knowledge of the concepts of quantum mechanics without knowing the math to any extent? Can someone understand what the wave function is without knowing the math? Someone can understand that a derivative is the change in value at a given time without knowing it is the limit of the secant line.

In highschool physics, which is all I've taken, the way I learned was understanding the concepts, and then just memorizing the formulas and plug shit into that. Like the doppler effect : I just understood the concept, so with the equation I just worked the numbers so the ratio was above or less than 1 to modify the source frequency to raise or lower it.

Pre college physics is obviously completely different but I'm questioning more of a general idea of whether someone can appreciate a topic to a relatively high extent without knowing the math.

you cannot know science without the math, without the philosophy of science and math without the history of science and math. Only plebs think that ''math is necessary and sufficient'' to understand a formal system

Unfortunately, that's a no. You will only gain a cursory understanding of some of the general conclusions of quantum physics without understanding the math. This is true to the point where the math IS the theory. It's not just a way to quantify it.
QM is a statistical science, meaning it is entirely based on probabilities. Probabilities can not be expressed in any way other than mathematically.
I know pretty much jack shit about probability, but after next year's statistical mechanics course that should change. But I do have a fair grasp of the basics of QM and you are screwed if you don't understand the math, even on an introductory level.
Mathematics literally reveals the nature of the theory, so it is imperative you understand it in order to grasp the theory properly. Using words is a gross oversimplification.

It freaks me out how on the fundamental level, the building blocks of the universe, are simply data points in a field interacting with each other. As you pointed out it really is just math, the mass of an electron or whatever else is just a value, a number which dictates force. Everything that evolution built into our minds is completely unable to comprehend the true nature of reality, and all our intuitions completely false on a deeper level. Pic related

QM is just applied functional analysis which is very similar to linear algebra.

YEah, this what you learn in your first undergraduate physics course.

That's not true. Math is how we represent or understand or describe it. This is not necessarily the true way things are.
Besides, most things can be physically visualised, or at least mathematically represented on a geometric basis, which can provide more telling intuition about the system in question.
Physics produces mathematical models that APPROXIMATE the behaviour of nature.
For instance, after Newton's classical mechanics was accepted (along with Kelvin's thermodynamics advances) everyone thought they could pretty much describe anything they wanted with these equations, and hence thought that they had perfectly encapsulated nature. Of course, these laws tuned out to simply be approximations of reality on the (energy/size) scale in which they were formulated. Relativity describes much greater masses and velocities with incredibly superior precision, and QM (and many more advanced fields such as QED) describes smaller and faster things more precisely. But no one says these encapsulate nature, because by now we have learned our lesson and we know them to be approximations, however precise they may be.

No. Now, get back to work.