Science seems to be more philosophy than evidence. Nothing is truly objective...

Science seems to be more philosophy than evidence. Nothing is truly objective, it all has its basis in how one views the world.
Prove me wrong.

>nothing is truly objective
Deep

>science is actually philosophy
nice meme

You thoughts are the basis from which to start, other than that mathematical truths are the common ground.

Math will work for you as it work for other brains in the world, then we can devise scientific experiments to confirm data and apply mathematical models to the cosmic configuration in which we are.

In turn the triumphs of this method is the modern world in which we live into.

How does one not know if the methods weree based on any preconceived notions of the person who made them? Say a professor with degree in philosophy claims all morality is relative, and then molests his students, could it be that he made this worldview in order to run from the guilt he felt.

It's all about feelings, not facts.

Yes, so?

I don't know what should I answer to your wall of text, I don't catch any interesting or useful idea from there.

i like your glasses

>Feynman
"It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations."

...

>english motherfucker do you speak it

How is this even a debate? Are the effects of scientific discovery that we can see with our very own eyes not enough?

this board is called science

...

That is empirical evidence. You can't prove empiricism with empirical evidence; that's circular.

Also you can't prove to me that you aren't a figment of my imagination.

Science is actually a branch of philosophy called methodist naturalism.

Hypothesis: The OP is a faggot
Experiment:

You are right OP, nothing is objective, not even truth.
So if science allows me to discover subjective truths that let me build roads, houses, cars, computers, produce enough food, cure diseases and so on, I'm fine with it.
Why would I want to prove empiricism? There is no objective truth, so I can only assume that empiricism is correct, that's my subjective truth and then do science based on this.

You use empiricism everyday in your life otherwise you wouldn't even be there.
Accepting empiricism is a prerequite for having this debate at all.

Science is the method of using data to find optimal solutions by analyzing your variables and constructing algorithms.

I think it's more Math than whatever spiritual new age bs your into OP.

Sorry I meant methodological naturalism.