How do you justify the faith inherent in any scientific understanding of... well anything really?
I'm just curious, this being the science board and all, how you've all come to think that science is somehow founded upon a ground more solid than some other method of generating knowledge?
The answer to your question requires a higher formal education to comprehend. Do you have one?
Josiah Martin
science is not interested in truth, for this you want philosophy. science is about making inferences, from particular examples to general rules, and making these inferences explicit, falsifiable, coherent with logic, observations and the pre-existing theories. scientific method is just a tool to describe a subset of reality, and it doesn't have the pretence to be anything more than this.
Carson Parker
you dont need inherent faith in syense when you have inherent faith in reproducibility
Jaxson Nguyen
> not interested in truth >describe a subset of reality, Really gets the neurons firing.
Dylan Clark
Well, this is a bait thread if I've ever seen one
Oliver Hill
it's either you can measure something or not, generalize an observation to a point where it has predictive value or not. you don't care if it's "the truth".
Zachary Jenkins
indoctrination confirmed.
user you arent defending science as a valid method of generating knowledge or of deriving understanding from that scientifically generated knowledge or even of empiricism itself.
youre like an old church father telling me only after a lifetime of contemplating the forms will i ever hope to see their relation to the particulars.
youve contradicted yourself, just like all scientists to the moment they become scientists. even in a closed system, being coherent with logic, observations and in particular your pre-existing theories, seem to be developing consistence which is a possible definition of truth, at least in closed systems such as science. youve done a mighty poor job of defining science by saying its not interested in truth yet strives to be truthful relative to itself, which doesnt seem to be doing science any favors in relation to its ability to derive conclusions about things that science is using to generate the conclusions namely everything sensual.
and can you even reliably move from a particular to the general via inference? is a man just because of his actions user, or is he just because he is like justice?
and what exactly do you do once youve demonstrated reproducibiity? do you say "yes this is how this works i know this", because thats not what reproducing a result enables you to do. all it enables is for you to say if -> then. which is a wonderful thought and raises the question is the "if" a cause?
Logan Thomas
you need more faith in grammar
Isaac Cook
aaand a philosopher appears.
Liam Watson
>indoctrination confirmed. By what procedure, step by step, and in conjunction with which facts did you arrive at such an outrageous conclusion?
>youre like an old church father telling me only after a lifetime of contemplating the forms will i ever hope to see their relation to the particulars. False.
Ryan Torres
>I'm just curious, this being the science board and all, how you've all come to think that science is somehow founded upon a ground more solid than some other method of generating knowledge?
This isn't >>>/reddit/atheism. Fuck off.
Jordan Hughes
aaaaaaaand a freshman engineer appears.
Matthew Parker
generalize an observation (via induction, so from particular -> general for the kids) to gain predictive value. this second bit requires some model generation and then science on its path to truth, for what the else is everyone doing then if not eventually attempting to develop an ultimate predicative model. Science says well we have this model that is consistent within these bounds, and then tries either to broaden the bounds, or refine the model.
all this truth stepping.... its more that science is silent about the "why" of something, not about the truth of its models. though it does say the current model could be less true than a future model.
so what if you cant measure it then what does science say about that?
oh i wont be taking the epistemological skeptic position itt.
Anthony Martinez
>and what exactly do you do once youve demonstrated reproducibiity? do you say "yes this is how this works i know this", because thats not what reproducing a result enables you to do. all it enables is for you to say if -> then. which is a wonderful thought and raises the question is the "if" a cause? No i say "this is what works" you sealion. That is the IF THEN and everything in between
Grayson Sullivan
well then what about something science once said works and then said ohwait that doesnt work like that its more like this. oh whoops wrong again better change the model.
this seems like a progressive flow in some ultimately unitary direction. like science somehow thinks it will /eventually/ get to the bottom of the matter and find truth there.
but this is all surface level brainlet bullshit.
>what about the particular method science is utilizing to generate its data. namely an empirical method, making a statement that all true knowledge must be empirically verifiable. literally defining knowledge as that which is empirically verified.
and just to be thorough if science is unconcerened with philosophic Truth it cannot escape being truthful within itself. Otherwise your consistent methodolgy of verify until falsified and then reverify is just out the door. So already the patrons ITT are attempting to bisect truth into that of the philosophic and that of the scientific without providing any real basis for doing so.
Charles Hall
So since OP has not posted his procedure and facts it is safe to conclude that he has admitted that he does in fact need higher formal education and that he currently does not have it.
by the way, you completely misrepresented what i said >this is what works
if science is wrong, it is only about the scope.
Jack Bell
>faith inherent in any scientific understanding Lrn2science fgt pls
Anthony Peterson
>truth of its models. though it does say the current model could be less true than a future model "Current scientific model is true" is scientific realism, but since current models are always being modified and replaced we know by induction that the current models are wrong.
Juan King
>babby's first problem of induction thread
Asher Wilson
I'm a scientist (well, 4th year uni student) and I don't see science as anything more than a human practice of weaving explanatory narratives around various observations in order to predict future observations
I'm a scientific instrumentalist, and some sort of idealist
your question belongs on Veeky Forums
Cameron Fisher
One of the major foundations of science is observable evidence and reliable levels of replication.
Christian Peterson
Scientific truths can be repeatedly tested and verified objectively. The iterative process of the scientific method observes truths to the highest degree of truth currently obtainable. If you have devised a more efficient or accurate way to obtain truth, please enlighten us.
Isaac Clark
/thread OP amounts to >I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but be condescending and and vague so I can pretend I actually have thoughts or questions on the matter
Benjamin Gonzalez
As usual, this is an attempt by lawjik boy to goad people into a fight where the terms are defined by him alone in order to validate himself and feel superior to others
Parker Walker
I'm actually highly skeptical of pretty much any scientific claim except the most well-established models (which also end up being proven to be inaccurate eventually.)
And of course there's the rare but not too rare cases of outright fraud: Google "retractionwatch" for a good blog on ongoing scandals in science.
This isn't an unusual attitude for people who actually work in science and I think it's a healthy middle ground between laypersons who apply little to no skepticism to science news (and they almost always just read science news instead of actual papers) and the troglodytes who reject scientific theories without serious consideration because they dislike the implications or are motivated by politics or philosophy.
Alexander Rivera
Overall logical framework composed of relative truths that are weighted by probability. Truth being probabilistic, rather than binary and hierarchical.
That coupled with properly traced out and structured underlying epistemological and ontological principles, and intellectually honest identification and control for potential sources of error, is about as good as you can get.
And to put it bluntly, most people can't do it. They just can't. Or they slip over time. No matter who you are, no matter where you are, no matter when you are, you are on your own. Truth is something you must derive and maintain for yourself, and you are always alone.
Kevin Jenkins
If the only way to know truth is for that truth to be falsifiable, then how is Chad swimming in pussy while you're on Veeky Forums?
James Diaz
OP troll has fled
Jayden Powell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance You don't need faith to compare what you're testing against a control and calculate the probability your test case differed from the control to a given threshold of significance. You don't say "I believe this thing is true," you say "this probability this thing isn't significantly different from the control is less than .05."
Asher Collins
Faith is independent of reality. Users must be challenged to have faith. Otherwise, it's universal knowledge.
Asher Torres
You need faith in your significance ;)
Christian Ross
You don't need faith in it. You just define the rules and then play by them. You don't need to believe it means anything at all to properly execute the steps of the experiment and report the results.
Jaxson Perez
If you can use the phenomena that science describes and predicts to your advantage, you should.
It's like if you were born sighted while everybody else is blind, you might as well use your sight to your advantage instead of wasting your time trying to convince the blind that sightedness exists and you posses it.
Justin Peterson
>current models are occasionally modified FTFY >we know by induction L0Lno Lrn2induction fgt pls