Can we talk about the second law of thermodynamics? Because I don't quite see why it should hold.
As far as I understand it, it is merely a a convenient assumption concerning the geometry of the state space. However it is well conceible that the actual global state space does not need to have this property. So where's the evidence for this global assumption? Lack of counterevidence is not sufficient.
I'm not an expert, but doesn't the evidence come from observing the evolution of phase space for a fuckton of systems?
Monkey poster kys
It only holds true for isolated systems. What you should be asking is why we consider the universe a closed system.
Oh, also, science can't prove shit, can only disprove, and laws are observations of the universe, distinct from theories yo.
The law describes the behavior of the system. It's a statistic by definition. With any law, if you zoom into the system far enough, you'll see cracks.
> merely a convenient assumption concerning the geometry of the state space
2nd law is just the statement that states of a thermodynamically isolated system will naturally progress towards those with a higher entropy. as says though, the progression of individual microstates of a system doesn't necessarily have to obey that law
calling the 2nd law an assumption is really giving it too much credit, it's mainly just probability, entropy is 'always increasing' because there are far, far more high entropy configurations for a system to choose from.
>lack of counter evidence is not sufficient
except it is.
statiscal mechanics provides a reasonably simple explanation of macroscopic thermodynamics, and even though entropy is sort of a fuzzy concept, if it works, it works. A scientific theory only needs to fit the data and be falsifiable
convenient assumptions and lack of counterevidence is exactly what science is about
you sound confused about what science is, I suggest reading Popper
>Popper
no
what do you recommend for someone to learn what science is?
Read any science textbook.
science doesn't study science. you should know this.
Introductory physics books tend to start with an explanation of the scientific method in the preface or in the first chapter.
why would you read a simplistic, usually wrong, short note on what science is, instead of reading it for real?
That's what I'm asking you. You recommend to read Popper's simplistic outdated bullshit instead of studying science.
it's ridiculous to suggest that the short notes on the scientific method in the introduction to elementary textbooks are better for understanding science than modern philosophy of science.
Not an argument.
cool, fuck off then. it's clear you're just being contrarian and never studied philosophy of science.
"Philosophy of science" is the "we wuz kangs" of academia. A bunch of people who were unqualified to contribute to actual research prefer to circlejerk about their oh so deep meta-analysis of the scientific method as if it wasn't trivially known by every scientist.
if you don't care about a topic, then do not butt into conversations on the topic.
Exactly. So please stay out of science discussions, if your background is only pop sci tier pseudo-philosophy.
...
what an embarrassment of a thread
bump
there was a clear question about philosophy of science involved.
>it is merely a a convenient assumption
>Lack of counterevidence is not sufficient.
I replied to that. You butted in to say "hurr this topic is retarded". That's autistic.
The fact that I bothered to learn a bit of philosophy of science doesn't mean my background is "pop sci tier pseudo-philosophy".
>haha you guys are retarded arguing on the internet and calling other people retards
>fucking retards lmao
>im so smart
I didn't say the topic is retarded. OP's question is relevant and interesting. Recommending Popper is retarded though. Obviously you have nothing insightful to contribute beyond pop sci platitudes.
the study of what science is is not pop sci
pop sci is something pretending to be science
philosophy of science clearly isn't science, you can't study something from inside
and mostly this kind of question in Veeky Forums is a mix of the poster not understanding the material well enough and not understanding what science is.
>the study of what science is is not pop sci
There is no need for a "study". We all know what science is.
>pop sci is something pretending to be science
Nope. Pop sci is pretending to be deep and pseudo-intellectual while only spouting trivial superficial factoids. The so called "philosophy of science" does exactly the same.
>you can't study something from inside
Yes, we can. It's called introspection.
>and not understanding what science is.
Speak for yourself.
Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.
Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D