Who wants to discuss the book that ended the Scientific "Method"?

Who wants to discuss the book that ended the Scientific "Method"?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Popper_and_Kuhn
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>implying any working scientists gives a shit and would stop doing science to even think about that "philosophy"

>hur dur let's just not question our methods bro, lets just do what we want haha

>"Well, Jim, we have x amount of dollars, which departments should we be investing in?"

>"Well, Tom, let's invest into alchemy and astrology."

>"But, Jim, their methods aren't valid"

>"Let us not question our method, Tom. Let's just spend the money."

*Two years later, the USA Department of Science is bankrupt and whose lack of technological advancement leads to the Russian Annex of Texas and ultimately, the takeover of the USA.*
The point I made above is antithetical to the book in the OP but it serves to illustrate how RETARDED you are. Thanks!

I would like to, but I haven't read it yet. Reading Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" atm

OH BOY, YOU'RE IN FOR A RIDE!

Feyerabend blows that cuck POPPER into the ocean!

POP(PER)S HIS SKULL.

To be fair I have not ever even seen this book before so I googled what it was about

>Philosophy of sciece
>Philosophy
>IN 2016

WEW

MY

FUCKING

LAD

WEW
WEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WELL MEMED!
YES!!!!!!

lol what a fucking joke. Thanks for the laugh. When you simply talk to philosofags here you do not get the impression that they take themselves and their rhetoric too seriously... but now I know that some faggot went out of his way and published a whole book about his own philosophical circle jerking. Holy fuck.

Philosofags put into mental institutions when? At this point you have to consider these people to be at the same level as those who claim to be otherkin, fucking wolfkin.

I bet these retards would call themselves "Brainkin" or some bullshit, topkek. Pseudo intellectuals make me cringe so fucking hard.

Really makes me think

I'm not sure it had such an actual impact, but the point he tries to get across seems interesting, although I'd argue this better suits unless you give a summary, no fucking way anyone here has read it.

No let's just follow the scientific method which would tell us not to waste time on astrology and alchemy.

Oh boy, oh boy. I now looked for the author of this shit. HOLY SHIT THE AUTISM.

Take a look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

He says one of his academic interests are philosophy of science and "critiquing"

WEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

CRITIQUING BOIIIISSSSS

This fucking retard. You know, when you read critiques of movies or books it is usually the case that the one doing the critique is also a write himself. Most of the time with a degree in literature or maybe without a degree but with a record of writing.

That gives validity to that critique. You cannot really critique a narrative unless you are well aware of what makes a good or bad narrative given a context. In simpler words, you have to be a writer to critique a writer.

Now here comes this fucking lunatic with his book critiquing SCIENCE when he is a PHILOSOFAG

The fucking nerve this faggot has. He knows nothing about the things he speaks of and STILL he decides to write a whole book about why his intellectual penis is so big. Man, these people actually disgust me. The pseudo intellectualism REEKS.

The sad thing is that this poor man seems to have fought in WWII. Looks like a bullet went right through the critical thinking part of his brain and it was never removed. Well, I guess that losing your mind is what makes a good philosopher.

OP, if you swallow the garbage produced by this retard I suggest you kill yourself.

I mean, put this in context. Take an example of another "critiquer". Normal Wildberger.

He loves critiquing mathematics and the "method" of mathematics.

But he is a MATHEMATICIAN. He does what he critiques. He has first hand experience.

The faggot from your book probably read a history book wrote by another philosofag and then thought "OH YES, THESE SCIENTISTS ARE SO DUMB. HOW DARE THEY DO SCIENCE WITHOUT FIRST TAKING 500 CLASSES OF PHILOSOPHY SO THAT THEY COULD JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS DURRRR"

>No let's just follow the scientific method which would tell us not to waste time on astrology and alchemy.


Except those methods where created by philosophers, retard.

>hasn't read the book
>considers himself an authority on the "scientific method"


Really makes me think

are you doing a dan m impression?

I don't need to read the book.

You are like those crazy people who believe they can get healing out of rocks and they say

>It is all in this book written by my guru. It speaks TRUTH man.

And then you look up who that guru is and find that he has no medical experience, no college education and a sketchy background so you tell them

>I don't trust your guru

And then they get offended like you.
OH BUT YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK ABOUT MAGICAL STONES

After all

How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK MAN.

Lol, you are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

The credentials of the author, in this case, is enough to dismiss him. Just like you can dismiss any book about health not written by an MD or someone trained in general medical science.

Science is a philosophy. It more or less believes that in order for something to be considered factual, it must be experimentally testable and repeatable.

>Just like you can dismiss any book about health not written by an MD or someone trained in general medical science.
>"An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[2]"
Really makes me think

Nice. Philosofags must have the fallacies written on their walls or some shit.

The problem is... your logic wrong.

The appeal to autorithy fallacy comes into play when you blindly believe knowledge that comes from authority.

Like imagine if an MD wrote a book about health and you trusted everything in it blindly.

My position is not this. I say that you should only consider people with authority, but also be skeptic towards them. Lets go back to my Wildberger example. You probably do not know but he is a mathematician who critiques modern mathematics and also presents a distinct way of doing mathematics. A lot of people HATE him. They mock him, they distrust his ideas, etc. Even though he has authority, we are skeptic of the usefulness of his ideas.

Now, if some SCIENTIST came out with "Against method" then I would not dismiss it. I would read it skeptically to see what his point is.

But I will not even pay attention to some retard with no training.

Again

>How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK BY MY GURU!!!!!

You and your guru are retarded and your appeal to logical fallacies has brought you down to his level of stupidity.

I think there is even a logical fallacy about when someone overuses logical fallacies to attack an argument.

Fun thing, I know more philosophy than you.

>>How can you disprove magical stones aren't real... IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK BY MY GURU!!!!!

This is literally the opposite of what Feyerabend says.


You're literally being a spergy retard and completely misunderstanding the sense in which the book is written in and where it is coming from.


Have you even read Popper or Kuhn?

Try actually studying the history of the scientific method and reading the book instead of sperging out in my thread thanks, retard.

>Except those methods where created by philosophers, retard.

No they were created by working scientists. Go back to Veeky Forums where you can pretend philosophers have meaningfully contributed to the world.

>This is literally the opposite of what Feyerabend says.

All of my arguments are against you, not him. I haven't read his book, though it is probably really shit with really shit ideas all over the place. Sprinkled throughout like in an cone of ice-cream sprinkled with shit.

>Have you even read Popper or Kuhn?
Now and I won't. Don't give a shit about pseudo intellectuals and much less when they talk outside of their field.

>Try actually studying the history of the scientific method and reading the book instead of sperging out in my thread thanks, retard.

I would if I had any interest. Maybe show me a book critiquing the scientific method written by a scientist and then I will maybe read that.

If you knew anything about science and knew how often people from the outside (non-scientists) try to step in to give their opinion or present their "theory" then you would know why I am immediately dismissing your author.

Every single day some new fucking faggot comes with his NEW argument about why "all science is wrong, BELIEVE IN GOD TODAY!"

Your author is probably not a religious nut, but he is an intellectual nut and his god is himself. That is just conjecture though, but I am almost sure. Every single philosofag I read about has the biggest superiority complex ever and it shows. The superiority complex of your author manifests in the form of DARING to talk about a subject he knows jack shit about.

Absolutely disgraceful and disgusting. Please consider cyanide.

Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper, a philosopher of science you braindead, retard and the majority of scientists pre-20th century were both philosophers and scientists.

>Maybe show me a book critiquing the scientific method written by a scientist and then I will maybe read that.


You're literally a retard.

The 'scientific method' which you are advocating was literally created by a philosopher in the mid-20th century.

Try reading this page, you fucking braindead teenager:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Popper_and_Kuhn

>Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper

Then why were people falsifying results for hundreds of years before he wrote some crap and sold it to humanities majors?

A-user, are you ok?

>Falsifiability was literally created by Karl Popper

BULLSHIT
BULL FUCKING SHIT

Popper considered the way different sciences addressed their problems. He observed how some sciences (example physics) would get a theory and then try to disprove it and how other sciences (example psychology) would get a theory and then try to prove it and then take any evidence as truth and then take the theory for truth unless it was proven otherwise by another set of investigations.

Karl Popper observed falsifiability. I will even give you that he may be the first to put it into formal words but he didn't create it. You fucking retard.

Bill Nye's is a perfectly reasonable quote. Meanwhile Schrodinger sounds more stoned than a freshman at the University of Vermont.

>Then why were people falsifying results for hundreds of years before he wrote some crap and sold it to humanities majors?


Provide evidence that the primary methodology or significant proportion of the scientific method for "hundreds of years" was based on falsifiability.


You've got 10 minutes. If you reply with a meme or non-answer, you won't receive a reply.

Let's see how you do :)

>I didn't get it

Should have just said.

What has Nye provided for science? Thought so, retard.

The mathematical works of anyone who published from, say, the time of Thales to the time of Popper.

>The 'scientific method' which you are advocating was literally created by a philosopher in the mid-20th century.

Look, I am not advocating for the scientific method.

I am simply saying that I will not listen to a non-scientist talk about the scientific method. I literally could not care less.

Imagine a similar scenario. A mathematics PhD starts to talk about health and a cure he found for diabetes in the plants of his backyard.

You would think he is a nut. You would think why is this retard talking about medicine when he knows NOTHING of medicine?

The same is happening here. You guru found a cure for science in his backyard and now wants us to take him seriously.

Nope

Outta here

Literally kill yourself.

Try to reply to this, let's see how you do :^)

>What has Nye provided for science? Thought so, retard.

Are you kidding? Tens of thousands of currently working scientists were inspired to work in their field because of Bill Nye. He's done orders of magnitude more for science than any of the black and white guys who's work only stuck around for a few years before needing to be revised.

>The mathematical works of anyone who published from, say, the time of Thales to the time of Popper.

Mathematics is based on proof not falsifiability, retard.

Falsifiability applies to natural sciences.

You literally don't know what the FUCK you're talking about.

Nice try though.

>Are you kidding? Tens of thousands of currently working scientists were inspired to work in their field because of Bill Nye. He's done orders of magnitude more for science than any of the black and white guys who's work only stuck around for a few years before needing to be revised.

So nothing? Thanks for agreeing.

Ok, so not only are you not a scientist but you've never solved a nontrivial 'prove or disprove' problem. No wonder your thread lacks substance.

>but you've never solved a nontrivial 'prove or disprove' problem.

YOU STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT.

YOU JUST USED THE WORD 'solved'.

POPPER IS NOT ABOUT 'solving'.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Why don't you actually address the post you are replying to instead of deflecting?

Not him but you are also retarded.

Mathematics has a form of trivial falsifiability. As mathematics bases itself on axioms, if I give you a theorem and a prove for it, it is immediately falsifiable. You can observe my statement and then try to find a counter example

Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.

Every logical statement is falsifiable. Every mathematical statement, it follows, is falsifiable. Falsifiability is the basis of mathematics, just maybe not directly. Mathematicians do not discuss it, they accept it. As falsifiability is simply a biproduct of having such a rigorous basis.

This is why scientists don't bother with your kind. We are busy doing work and you are getting buttblasted telling us how to do it and then arguing semantics when we tell you to fuck off.

>Mathematics has a form of trivial falsifiability. As mathematics bases itself on axioms, if I give you a theorem and a prove for it, it is immediately falsifiable. You can observe my statement and then try to find a counter example
>Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.


WRONG.

By finding a different example which is correct is not a falsification BECAUSE BY DEFINITION AN EQUATION OR FORMULA IS EITHER CORRECT OR NOT.

Something in mathematics is BY DEFINITION TRUE or UNTRUE.


If I believe that 1+1=3 and someone comes along and offers the result 1+1=2 THEY HAVE NOT FALSIFIED ME, THEY HAVE SIMPLY GIVEN WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BY DEFINITION BE THE ACTUAL RESULT/ANSWER.

>Or you could observe my proof and find a logical mistake. Both of those cases would render my theorem wrong.

WRONG. THIS DOES NOT "FALSIFY" BECAUSE BY DEFINITION THE PROOF WAS WRONG.

>We are busy doing work and you are getting buttblasted telling us how to do it and then arguing semantics when we tell you to fuck off.

Cosplaying sperg

"Against Method" is certainly a landmark work and one that scientists should read, but it's ultimately flawed and hasn't stood the test of time. Many of his examples about historical scientists are either wrong or blatantly cherrypicked.

That doesn't necessarily mean we should discount the points he's making, because they do stand on their own feet. And he even says in the introduction not to treat him or the book like any kind of oracle, that he was presenting the arguments more as thought experiments than as some definitive counter proof to the scientific method.

It's refreshing that "Against Method" exists.

Popper essentially created the methodoligical monism that is known as falsifiability and in that sense, yes he did create it.

The manner/sense in which others have falsified was not done with such a methodology in mind.

>Something in mathematics is BY DEFINITION TRUE or UNTRUE.

But a theory in science is also true or untrue, it is just much harder to confirm or disprove theories.

What is even your point?

Many theories in science are wrong. Some were even accepted as truth before they were disproven. See astronomy for that.

Those theories were wrong, always had and always will be, but we didn't know.

What is even your point?

ITT: Philosophy of science debated by people with no training or experience in the field.

I thought you idiots got mad when people talked outside their disciplines as though they were experts?

>What is even your point?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'NATURAL SCIENCES' AND 'MATHEMATICS'

NATURE SCIENCE HAS PREDICTABILITY OR HYPOTHESIS, MATHEMATICS IS BY DEFINITION TRUE OR UNTRUE

NATURE SCIENCE CAN BE FALSIFIED IN OPPOSING RESULTS OR DATA, MATHEMATICS CANNOT BE 'FALSIFIED' BECAUSE IT IS *BY DEFINITION* TRUE OR UNTRUE

>MATHEMATICS IS BY DEFINITION TRUE OR UNTRUE

But science is also by definition true or untrue.

Do you think theories are not true or false until we find enough information?

Man, the planets were spinning around the sun WAY before we even discovered there were other planets out there.

Theories are theories and right now we have theories that are not confirmed nor disproven. Do you not think they have truth values?

They are either true or they are false. We just don't know. If the common interpretation of quantum mechanics is actually the truth then right now, even if we don't know it, that is what is going on.

If pilot wave theory is true, even without us knowing, right now every particle is riding their wave. Those particles do not care about us knowing. They just do themselves. The truth is out there. Every theory already has a truth value assigned to it, we just have to find out which one.

We are talking about FALSIFICATION in relation to Popper's book.


It seems you and I are having entirely different conversations no, science is NOT by definition 'true' or 'untrue'.

Science does not claim to *know* anything, it only claims to be able to *predict* in the strictest sense events.

>Science does not claim to *know* anything, it only claims to be able to *predict* in the strictest sense events.

By this definition the flat earth theory is rigorous science.

The modern interpretation of flat earth theory accounts for almost everything, if not actually everything, that we can observe in the sky. The seasons, the day/night cicle, etc.

Flat earth theory can predict some things, that does not make it science... because that is not what is actually happening.

Sure, science is mostly comfortable about predictions but how do you fit theoretical physicists?

Pilot wave theory is not a way to predict things about quantum events. We can already predict them. Pilot wave theory is about what is REALLY going on at the quantum level. And there is experimental data for it, as there is experimental data for every other interpretation.

>By this definition the flat earth theory is rigorous science.

No because no one has significant evidence or phenomenological experience of a flat earth and it has been falsified by images from space.

But it can predict certain basic events we observe.

It predicts!

And science only claims to predict right?

No, you are wrong about that. As I said, science is comfortable with prediction but ultimately we care about what is really going on, which is why even well established theories get revamped century after century. There is just no end to that.

The interpretations of quantum mechanics is the best modern example of that. Interpretations and the purest form of science that does not care about prediction, only about reality because we already have theories that predict, now we want theories that show us what the deal is with the universe.

Literally no one cares outside of spergs

>really going on
we care about things that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. nothing more, nothing less.

Mathematically speaking, something can only be proven if it can be shown to be a natural consequence of logical rules.

In science we are observing in order to find a general law.

That's the distinction you might be confused about. One is fallible, the other is a result of logical consequences

>we care about things that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. nothing more, nothing less.

Then explain interpretations to quantum mechanics? They are legit science, with both theoretical and experimental research behind them, yet they do nothing for predictions.

This is the problem. You have been fed science by philosophers and now you are wrong about the most basic things. Your assesment of science does not line up with reality because if it was true that science only cared about prediction then theoretical physics would not be a field of science.

This is, to anyone else reading, my cry for you to NOT read the book in the OP. Do not learn science from non-scientists EVER.

I should have seen this post
This nigger knows what's up. Is that from What is Mathematics senpai?

I agree with your general point (philosofags trying to "critique" science are awful), but you clearly did not even read the summary of the book (which actually makes sense).
You should consider re-evaluating your life.

Lol, science-minded individuals screaming at each other on an anonymous Taiwanese metal sculpture image board. You're all so much more enlightened than the religionists and humanities majors who do the same thing all over the rest of the board.

>the concept of falsifiability didn't exist until the 20th century
lmfao philosocucks

Required reading.

You're trying too hard.

>shitposting is a philosophy
>art is a philosophy
>car washing is a philosophy

When will this meme die?

>Do not learn science from non-scientists EVER.
sad that this needs to be said.

Here's another fav
>the art of science
>the art of mathematics
>the art of philosophy
>the art of writing
>the art of travel
>the art of sex

and another

>the artists way
>the travellers way
>etc

How is science not a philosophy?
>Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
>the nature of knowledge and reality is only what can be verified by testing in a repeatable fashion

>science is X
>then what about quantum physics? I dont knoe shit about it so no one does so you're wrong
Typical popsci argument. Explain or dont talk about irrelevant shit.

>>then what about quantum physics? I dont knoe shit about it so no one does so you're wrong

You clearly did not get anything about my point. Quantum mechanics is just an example.

Simply it, it is an example of a field with two faces. It has an ""applied"" field of prediction which makes experiment and builds the mathematical groundwork needed to do predictions.

Then it has the purely theoretical side. One that is concerned with what is truly going on at the quantum level.

Just google "interpretations of quantum theory". They are legit science that have nothing to do with prediction.

A clear counter example of the philosofag's point of "science just cares about prediction". And this should be obvious. Science cares about the truth and obviously prediction is one step towards it, but not everything.

Fuck off. Dont talk about things if all you can say amounts to "but their wikipedia blurbs look similar!"

What the fuck are you talking about? When did i mention prediction? Science is about making models that seem to work to the best of our ability to falsify them. READ the things you reply to.

>about the truth
Truth is unobtainable, or at best ill-defined. You would know if you had read ANYTHING about this topic written in the last 500 years.

>>Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

This is a terrible definition because it defines philosophy as everything.

Shitposting needs knowledge, is part of realit and existence

SHITPOSTING IS NOW A PHILOSOPHY

See the problem? What a terrible fucking definition. There is no way to separate a philosophers writing from a high faggot talking shit with that definition.

You would think that autists that dedicate 4 years of their life to read dictionaries to memorize the longest synonyms to common words would be able to use those words more effectively when it came time to define their field.

I guess retardation cannot be cured, not even by 4 years of reading dictionaries.

>When did i mention prediction?

Not you, fuckface.

Now I know why you misunderstood my post. Just go read the posts preceding it. It is a part of a conversation.

I cannot believe that in 2016 we still have retards who do not know how to imageboard.

...

...

Provide me with a definition of "philosophy", then, that's to your liking.

...

...

Philosophy: The study of the nature of things without any context, rules and with the measure of truth being the philosophers opinion.

Now shitposting is not philosophy, but questioning the natre of shitposting is.

The part about no context and no rules is meant to separate philosophy from science, as philosophers can say anything and it does not really have to make sense in the context of anything, just in the context of the authors thoughts.

And obviously the author is the only one who can measure truth because in philosophy there cannot be a right answer because any new retard who gets a meme degree can write his theory and that is why it is very important to remember that philosophy does not talk about reality, just about the reality made by the wishful thinking of philosophers.

Yes yes, but what is philosophy really?! XDDDD

>mfw all of your posts in this thread

little baby bird brains

OK, so why can't the philosopher's opinion be that the measure of something true is that it can be 1) experimentally tested, 2) tested in a manner that any other person could in principle verify, and 3) that the results of such experiments are reproducible?

>OK, so why can't the philosopher's opinion be that the measure of something true is that it can be 1) experimentally tested, 2) tested in a manner that any other person could in principle verify, and 3) that the results of such experiments are reproducible?

It can be! And that Popper's opinion.

But philosophy has no context or rules and no ultimate measure of "philosophical truth" so that philosopher's opinion says nothing about other fields who may actually measure truth in the way this philosopher proposes.

Such a great definition right? Maybe I should also start reading dictionaries like you guys. I may be a natural. Imagine me, Talking all fancy.

Oh, your comment! It is preposterous! Absolutely uncanny of you!

I can already see it. Me, a philosopher. Who knew.

This board can be really awesome sometimes

OK, so given that all scientists choose to have that opinion and evaluate the work of others as science based on those criterion, why isn't science a philosophy?

If your argument is that the definition of philosophy is too broad, that's fine. But why do you feel the need to protest that science is *not* a philosophy? Are you still in high school and angry, perhaps? Or is your basement a little too cold this winter?

>why isn't science a philosophy?

Because science exists within the context of real life and it has clear rules for deciding what is absolute truth and absolute lie.

That is the distinction I wanted to make between science and philosophy. And it is something real. This distinction actually exists. It is just that philosophers do not want to accept it.

Tell me, what is right. Platonism or Conceptualism?

That is a philosophical discussion but that question has no answer. As there ae no rules to measure truth in philosophy.

OK, so who decided the rules? We discovered them using the philosophy of science. It's not like these "clear rules" came out of nowhere: they came out of the process of applying the philosophy of science to examine the physical aspect of our world.

Okay, fair enough.

But just like some rules of science come from mathematics, science is not mathematics.

I can accept that it is at least true that the first people who thought deeply about studying the world were, in some sense, philosophers. But now they are outdated and outclassed. Welcome to 2016.

You are a fucking retard.

Threads like this are cancer desu
Take this to Veeky Forums
The philosophy of science has nothing to do with science itself
Maybe back when science was a baby these discussions had more merit but at this point it's a tired and dead debate

No rule of science has *ever* come from pure mathematics: mathematics is simply a quantitative way of expressing collected experimental data. In the case of theory, it's a quantitative way of expressing anticipated experimental data.

> But philosophy has no context or rules and no ultimate measure of "philosophical truth"

You haven't read Kant's First Critique, have you?

How on earth does the philosophy of science have nothing to do with science? Seriously evaluating modern science is a lot more than just "well, if the authors said it's true it's true" -- it requires serious evaluation of the data presented. If a body of work isn't fully consistent with the rules of science (e.g., Did they disprove alternatives? Do their experiments test what they think they are testing?) that's a huge no-no, hence the whoel system of peer review. If you *ever* want to be a serious scientist, you will abide by the scientific method and you will know that philosophy stone cold.

>No rule of science has *ever* come from pure mathematics

Oh boii oh boiii.

Suppose you find that through measurement:
a = b + c

Just a normal formula. You did your research and the experiments prove this formula holds.

Now, can you say that c = a - b ?

Well, if you were not to use mathematics then you would have to do new experiments measuring c in terms of a and b.

BUT.

Because physicists work with rational numbers, and rational numbers from a group with addition then they can deduce through arithmetic that a = b + c is true if and only if c = a - b

So science deduced the original formula, the rules of mathematics allowed us to get new formulas.

>You haven't read Kant's First Critique, have you?

No, I haven't read anything. Don't assume I have. Just like I do not assume you have EVER touched a science or math book in your life.

I don't give a shit about your fucking guru selling you "life stones" or whatever. I won't read any philosopher. Fuck them. I will read mathematicians and scientists.

Yeah it has nothing to do with science since science sits on its own now
It now longer needs endless debates on what makes science science (like this thread)
It's all been codified and threads like this belong on Veeky Forums
You need to go back

Sure, but theory has to be rooted in some sort of experiment. Without the science necessary to prove a = b + c, you can't possibly extrapolate to c = a - b. Rigorous theory doesn't come out of nowhere.

Sure, I am not saying the contrary. I am just saying that if it were not for the rigorous rules of algebra (lets not forget that scientists no longer just use numbers but all sorts of algebraic structures today) then scientists would have to do 10 times the work, proving every form of an equation experimentally, instead of just proving one experimentally and deducing the rest logically.

kys, here's your (you).

I have gotten like 20 (you)'s from this thread so I didn't need your extra but sure.

When philosophers accept they have no counter argument is feels so great because philosophy is basically 4 years of how to have a counter argument so my 0 years of training beat your 4 or potentially more.

Feels good.

I was not trying to sound smug or condescending; if my post seemed that way to you, I apologize. I really do recommend that you read Kant's First Critique, as it may help to change for the better the opinion you have of philosophic study, which seems to be based mostly-if not entirely-on the teachings of pseudo-intellectuals and the archaic, stoic philosophers. The lack of progress (that is, application to the betterment of human kind) in philosophy, namely the metaphysics, has given many scholars a hatred for the study as a whole, and rightfully so; for what other science besides the metaphysics claims itself so important, but has yet to claim a single victory over an edifice of mystery? Kant also expresses this contempt for the metaphysics in his Critique, and, using. If you simply read some philosophy, you would understand how closely mathematics and metaphysics are related, and, perhaps, you might then also understand how each study, mathematics and metaphysics, can be used, and must even necessarily be used, in order to better advance the other. This is what few people realize: We live in a time, in which the construction of a metaphysics, based on a steadfast set of principles, is possible; Kant's Critique has made it so.

> I do not assume you have ever touched a science or math book in your life.

I have, however. In fact, I just finished an introduction to Funktionentheorie (I'm not sure what its called in English) by Dietmar A. Salamon. I know it's brainlet-tier, but it's something.