You have 5 seconds to respond

You have 5 seconds to respond.

On a similar note: if you are a self-proclaimed scientist who doesn't read philosophy of science and history of science books you are not a scientist.

go back 2 lit

Yes.
Compare scientifically unverifiable claim (like "there is an invisible unicorn in orbit around mars"), to verifiable ones (like F=ma), and compare the meaning for both.
Repeat hundreds times, and voila.

Only empirical sciences care about the truth on a phrase. Maths does not

Yes. Because I have a set of propositions with the following properties:
- I always assume they are true, even if I have no evidence
- No proposition in the set can be deduced from other propositions in the set
- The set of propositions is complete in that almost every phenomenom I'm interested in can be explain from it.
- We have agreed that thousands of intelligent men all over the world try to think more axioms, break existing axioms, or find empirical evidence against axioms.
- Should I make any claim about axioms that the other men cannot verify, we shall conclude that claim to be void; a product of my imagination or mental illness.

They are called axioms. They are very useful.

Compare scientifically unverifiable claim ("a perfect circle"), to verifiable ones (u dumb).

Repeat hundreds times, and voila.

Congratulations! You have learnt what Eudoxusinvented in the 4th century BC

Does it mean it's outdated? Are there better models, ways to approach sciencey things?

No, I mean that it looks stupid to use and old method claiming it as modern (althought it's still perfectly valid)

Yes but first we need to define meaningless. Meaningless would be like useless for the wider scientific community and something other scientists don't care about.

Now, lets verify this scientifically with the following experiment:
Make a claim but reveal that there is no proof, it is just your conjecture. Now go to 1000 scientistd and ask them if they want to reference your claim and work with it. All of them will say no guaranteed, because it is meaningless to them.

Therefore it has been scientifically proven (but feel free to carry out the experiment)

what are some modern methods?

Cartesian one is one of the most moderns. It doesn't have much difference from Eudoxus', just some kind of pseudoautistic need to sort all previous evidence so you know what are you talking about.

Come on, that's not modern. Descartes is the entry-point of modern, for sure, but there are several people (Lakatos, Popper, Kuhn) who have newer takes.

You have 5 seconds to GTFO

Experience is the only source of knowledge

Can't be scientifically verified. Can be deducted by logical argument though.

This.

Humelets leave

>meaning

Science is data.
Philosophy is meaning.

A. How?

B. Why doesn't it contradict itself.

1. If something is not scientifically verifiable, it is meaningless.
2. The statement "If something is not scientifically verifiable it is meaningless" is not scientifically verifiable.
3. The statement "If something is not scientifically verifiable it is meaningless" is meaningless.

How did you determine that?

on the other hand if you can't explain what you want in a way other than muh feels don't expect people to give your words weight

everything is meaningless