How will science ever recover?

I agree!

They should both be read after Popper to showcase what a brainlet Popper was! God, I hate that hack!

...

And yet science continues to be performed?????

Science could have performed better if it woke up!

Also, don't bother making he HUR DUR mUH MOBILE PHONE argument if you want to prove that science """"""""""works""""""""""".

What is wrong with the scientific method and how can it be improved?

Nice bait.

check'd

The point is that there is no such thing as """""""the scientific method""""""""""" or methodological monism.

The way to improve it is to destroy all Academic institutions and have a complete free-for-all approach to acquiring knowledge.

>There is no scientific method and everything is a free-for-all
>We need to destroy those institutions that implement the scientific method so we can have a free-for-all

Literally pick one.

>>There is no scientific method and everything is a free-for-all

Nowhere did I state the second part of that sentence, brainlet.

Are you unable to think? By building """methods""" and frameworks on top of one another, you create a narrow area by which to operate which is not preferable in comparison to epistemological anarchism.

Why in God's name would anybody want epistemological anarchism?

Ok the scientific method isn't real but it obviously gets results.

But you say acquiring knowledge can be improved by having a free for all? Can you be more specific? Is this implying that it's bad to have things like positive and negative controls?

>by building """methods""" and frameworks
Thus you admit that there is a scientific method. You're just incapable of seeing the contradiction in your own argument.

>epistemological anarchism
so just random shit

>Ever wonder why there have been no new scientific discoveries or inventions of any worth over the past few decades?
>What is CRISPR
>"N-no, you're b-brainwashed from the establishment!"
Please stay in your Veeky Forums special education containment board, thank you.
Saged.

>Thus you admit that there is a scientific method

God, you are a buffoon. There is a method that scientists today apply by the method doesn't exist inherently in the world.

That is to say, there is no method to be found.

Because it's better than what we have now.

Of course, the Veeky Forumscucks are against it. It means that they would lose their bureaucratic jobs which they can never let go.

>Ok the scientific method isn't real but it obviously gets results.

Results don't prove the theory and science is constantly changing its methods when met with data which fundamentally opposes what they previously believed.

Instead of realising their efforts to obtain a specific universal method is retarded. The Veeky Forumscucks just think "Well, we got it wrong last time!" implying that they are correct *this time* which they are not!

>There is a method that scientists today apply by the method doesn't exist inherently in the world.

What you just said doesn't mean anything, it's semantically vacuous. What is it for a method to exists inherently in the world? There is a scientific method, and it is precisely that upon which scientists converge in making their research. Until you've actually done any research instead of reading mediocre philosophers, I would withhold judgement from what you clearly don't know.

Lmao, I can already smell your sweat from over here!

Worried that you're about to lose your job for the coming time!

Don't worry, you will be spared in the future.

>Ever wonder why there have been no new scientific discoveries or inventions of any worth over the past few decades?

This is wrong though. See the new fuses America's nuclear weapons use, which the government is now going to spend a Trillion dollars to implement. Or improvements to solar panels.

Sure, I'm the one who should be worried about having a job here...

If you're into philosophy, you should read some philosophers with interesting ideas rather than clinging onto whatever is the most radical thing you can find. Read some Quine, Putnam, Sellars, Popper. Even Kuhn is interesting. Feyerabend is for retards.

as far as I understand the method of:

observing phenomena
making a hypothesis
developing an experiment
performing the experiment
evaluating the quality of the hypothesis

has not changed since the enlightenment

if results don't prove the theory then why is science able to make accurate predictions about the world?

So basically you're salty because the scientific community dismisses new age bullshit.

>Read some Quine, Putnam, Sellars, Popper. Even Kuhn is interesting. Feyerabend is for retards.

LMAO

I've unironically read everyone on that list besides Sellars.

What's wrong with Feyerabend? Why are you capable of agreeing with Kuhn but not Feyerabend?

Popper is a retard. Falsifiability suffers from a whole host of problems, no different to inductivism in it's shitiness.

The OP of this thread is such a shitposter. He's like a caricature of what a normie thinks a Veeky Forums poster should be like

my guess is he's a redditor who came here to make one of those dank troll threads he say screencaps of on s4s

now that i have a hypothesis i must test it experimentally

Because Feyerabend is a hack who never opened a science textbook in his life, much like you. Maybe had people abandoned the scientific method, he wouldn't have died from a brain tumor.

apparently the scientific method isn't reals so you can go ahead and assume that your theory is correct

Not an argument.

I can tell you've never read Quine, Popper or Kuhn seeing as you resorted to Ad Hom attacks instead of actually formulating an argument!

Enjoy science, Academicuck!

>my guess is he's a redditor

The only redditor here is you for believing there is such a thing as a scientific method.

>oh my god like science is so cool am i right guys haha ? XD

Oh please, you've called me a brainlet, a buffoon and a cuck, and now you complain that I resort to an ad hom? What a joke you are. Unlike those of us who pursue serious research, you will never add up to anything because you waste your efforts on shit philosophy for little kids. Grow up.

Your argument against Feyerabend is that he "never opened a science textbook" despite the fact he studied Physics and studied under Popper (whom you laud).

How's about you grow up, dork!

>studies physics
He never even got a degree in the field. Despite your delusions, science will keep going and Feyerabend's work will never have any significant impact. The only reason why anybody talks about him today is because a bunch of hippies read his shitty book in the 70s. Once those degenerates die, Feyerabend will simply be forgotten.

>Despite your delusions, science will keep going

You actually believe there has been significant developments in the past decade AHAHAHAHAHAH

assuming there haven't been any significant developments (there have been)

why would the scientific method all of a sudden stop being successful because someone says it doesn't exist?

God, it's obvious you haven't read Kuhn.

Fuck off, retard.

nice argument

>Instead of realising their efforts to obtain a specific universal method is retarded. The Veeky Forumscucks just think "Well, we got it wrong last time!" implying that they are correct *this time* which they are not!
No scientific theory is "right" it's just less wrong

Define a significant development

his definition is anything that was developed before the past decade

Man, literally yesterday in Immunology class the professor, who is a researcher also, told us, as the first image was showing "if you are here in five years this text will be not accurate enough due to recent discoveries" and then, 3/4 of the class in he stopped and said "if you were in this room 10 years ago the class would have ended here but now we know this...".
Please delete you life OP

I know this is a troll thread but I always respond, hoping that I really am picking low hanging fruit and not just responding to unclever bait

Scientific discoveries in the past decade:
>gravitational wave detection
>lithium battery miniaturization (or perhaps, the end of it, as evidenced by exploding cell phones and laptops)
>whatever the fuck Mochizuki is on about
>CRISPR
Everything else is basically an iteration on previous science

The allegation that a book that nobody has read can "kill science" is laughable.

>it's just less wrong

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>more conjecture and """"""""""knowledge"""""""""""" equates to progress

AHAHHHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHHAHA

No one claimed the book killed """"science"""".

Only that it killed Academic or institutional science but of course, the Academicucks won't admit it because their entire lives and jobs rest upon the belief that they are doing meaningful work.

What a nice philosophy, so what's "right" and "progress" to you?

>AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
wot r u getting at with this response

There's no such thing as """""right"""""", friend.

Embrace epistemological anarchism and the merits of complete free scientific practice.

Do not become an Academicuck.

Dad?

>The method that led to most major discoveries of the past thousand years is why we haven't made discoveries in the past few decades.
Before even discussing the scientific achievements of the past few decades, you should read your implication, and try to wrap your brainlet mind around how stupid you are.

>he thinks the result proves the theory

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH

THIS IS YOUR AVERAGE ACADEMIKEK AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Can you define the scientific method for me?

Ok, why not, but where are your arguments?

...

see thing
decide to poke thing with stick
poke thing with stick
make a bunch of noise because something did or did not happen
repeat until the tiger eats you

>that one user confusing science with philosophy