How do you justify the faith inherent in any scientific understanding of... well anything really?

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?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The answer to your question requires a higher formal education to comprehend.
Do you have one?

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.

you dont need inherent faith in syense when you have inherent faith in reproducibility

> not interested in truth
>describe a subset of reality,
Really gets the neurons firing.

Well, this is a bait thread if I've ever seen one

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".

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?

you need more faith in grammar

aaand a philosopher appears.

>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.

>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.

aaaaaaaand a freshman engineer appears.

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.

>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

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.

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.

>something science
>whoops wrong
>ultimately urinary
>science somehow
>brainlet bullshit
>random greentext
>philosophic Truth
>are attempting

Did you have a stroke or are you trolling?

by the way, you completely misrepresented what i said
>this is what works

if science is wrong, it is only about the scope.

>faith inherent in any scientific understanding
Lrn2science fgt pls

>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.

>babby's first problem of induction thread

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

One of the major foundations of science is observable evidence and reliable levels of replication.

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.

/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

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

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.

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.

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?

OP troll has fled

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."

Faith is independent of reality. Users must be challenged to have faith. Otherwise, it's universal knowledge.

You need faith in your significance ;)

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.

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.

>current models are occasionally modified
FTFY
>we know by induction
L0Lno Lrn2induction fgt pls

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

You don't, obviously.