Electons are real because we can detect something with scientific instruments

They would work because of gravity.

We know electrons are real because we can observe them.

youtube.com/watch?v=O9Goyscbazk

We have not observed bigfoot.

electrons don't exist, that's why your ventilator runs on a bunch of little gnomes spinning the shaft inside the engine

What gravity?

It's actually angry pixies

what makes you think what you see there are electrons
there were theories that explained those things before people started relying on electrons. they fell out f scientific favor, what makes you think new theories won't replace the current theories

>sci is full of realists
why can't this board into philosophy of science

Because philosophy is just a circle jerk with no testing or data

>what makes you think what you see there are electrons
>vacuum tube
>negatively charged
>weight a thousand times lower than a hydrogen atom

>I know it was electrons because the theory I believe in says this would be electrons in these conditions
retard

science itself rests on philosophical positions. to dismiss philosophy is to dismiss science

>all science is inductive, therefor none of it is accurate

said no one ever

wrong, brute scientific facts have no philosophical presupposition per se

tell me one "brute" scientific fact

The theory of gravity

>gravity
>theory
There are theories as to the CAUSE of gravity, but gravity itself is not a theory it's a force that occurs between objects of large mass, this is established
If gravity were the cause of emr in circuits then the circuits would behave differently or not function at all when in a vacuum with no large bodies near them
This does not occur

Objects attract
Energy flows from areas of high density to low density
Op is a faggot

Science just works, irregardless of how much philosophers fail at understanding it. The whole "philosophy of science" merely consists of shallowly describing the success of science without contributing to it.

>my theory tells me what gravity is so you're wrong
newton and einstein both disagreed on what gravity is yet they still believed in the force and used it to explain events. newton's conception of gravity fell out of favor, what makes you think einsteins won't fall out of favor? look up the pessimistic meta induction

When did I mention a theory, I told you the property of gravity, not the theory behind it, if you would reread it
We cannot find a gravitational effect in an isolated vacuum and circuits still function, so your idea is just inherently false that gravity effects the circuits

tell me how you know those are true
you can't do this without appealing to an epistemological position
what do you mean by works? if you mean it's theories describe useful fictions which have practical applications then I agree. If You mean Its theories accurately describe reality I disagree. btw the best scientists in history were major figures in the philosophy of science such as descartes and einstein. and there is no reason to hold philosophers to the same standard as scientists as they are doing different things.

your understanding of gravity is determined by einsteins theories. if you were talking to a newtonian he would be disagreeing with you completely.

>he believes Descartes was a noteworthy scientist
This is what armchair fedoras actually believe. Confirmed for never having studied a STEM subject.

his mechanistic physics were the dominant theories before newton you brainlet

How is my understanding based on any theory?
I am only basing it purely off observation right now
When I drop an object, it falls to the ground
If I go to space with no objects around, and let go the object will stay there
We will call this gravity
This is a given
Now what causes it?
Is it a property of matter?
Is it due to change in curvature of space?
Is it some angry wizard in another galaxy making objects crash?
We don't know the exact answer
Regardless of the cause the phenomena still exists and the phenomena=\theory
If the theory were to change tomorrow the phenomena would still exist
So going back to your theory of gravity causing circuit flow
If gravity causes it then it would not occur where the effect of gravity is not observable
But it is still present in a place where gravity is not observable
It could be anything else including the angry wizard
But it's not gravity

Because we can observe them happening

you are basing if off a theory because earlier you said it's a force that occurs between two objects with mass. newtonian physics says the objects themselves cause the force not anything between them

""""Theories""" from the pre-science era are not science. Go to school.

I am using nomenclature
Again if we're taking your approach, we don't know vectors , we don't know math, we just see pure phenomenon
And the phenomena are unique to each other

you just appealed to empiricism
you are the dumbest person in this thread
what are you even trying to say

Mate I'm trying to explain hundreds of years of scientific analysis, experimentation, and study to someone who doesn't believe in any of things so I'm at a loss for what to tell you

>science didn't exist before the rise of modern science!
Americans, everyone.

>ad hominum
I got it. You're running out of socially acceptable rhetorical fallacies.

>hurr durr what is the scientific method

you whole point rested on the the science of descartes time being prescience, which is retarded. it was medieval science that descartes helped get rid of, not prescience. modern science is what he helped usher in not science itself. it's just called modern science because we came to refer to that time period in philosophy as modern philosophy

there is no such thing as the scientific method

>before we had science, we only had philosofaggotry
>therefore philosofagottry is better than science
What a retarded non-argument. Try harder.

Go to school, kiddo. This is like 4th grade.

that isn't what I said at all

>backpedalling

you are taught there is one method in school but that is wrong. it's like how there is nothing that all games have in common yet they are still games. formal science is not empirical for example

I'm not, you just understood me completely wrong

>I'm 2smart4school xD
>what they taught you in school is wrong lol
If you reject scientific education, you're nothing but a conspiracy nut. is the right board for you

Not my problem you can't properly express your thoughts.

you're the dumbass here if you believe every single thing you were taught in school. not to mention that I just explained to you why it is wrong to think there is only one scientific method and you just ignored that.

The photoelectric effect and even conductance itself disproves the idea of electrons as particles with mass.

If electricity doesnt actually flow, how does it move faster and create amperage?!

This is what Veeky Forums has devolved to.

I blame /pol/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Can you please read this and stop being retarded?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Philosophy_and_sociology_of_science

Can you please read this and stop being retarded?

We think it does flow, either in a sine or direct path around the conducting material and terminates inside insulators.

That's trivial. Makes it only more sad, that you don't understand it. If you actually read it, you'd know why you're wrong.

>In his book Against Method he argues that scientific progress is not the result of applying any particular method. In essence, he says that for any specific method or norm of science, one can find a historic episode where violating it has contributed to the progress of science. Thus, if believers in scientific method wish to express a single universally valid rule, Feyerabend jokingly suggests, it should be 'anything goes'.[105] Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science.
>this is somehow trivial to the topic of whether or not the scientific method exists
you are a genuine retard, congrats

>quoting Feyerabend
Do you also consider creationists a reliable source? This is a science board and you go here and idolize a moron who says "science is shit"? You serious, m8? Back to

explain why he's wrong

The guy isn't wrong. You can't be gullible enough to fall for 'Laws of Physics'.

Races are real because we can see come rates.

No. Instrumentalism/Positivism is retarded.
Now back to

instrumentalism has nothing to do with positivism.

susanfleck.com/Philosophy/401Logical_Positivism_w2w.htm

Positivists are not welcome on this board.

Daily reminder that Feyerabend unironically believed in werewolves.

It wasn't theorized though.
That's the point.

You are right that you shouldn't believe every single thing you are taught in school.
But you should also learn in school how to approach things objectively to find out what is true and what isn't, and thus expand your knowledge.
Only a fool would leap from "some of the things they tell us aren't true" to "don't believe anything they told us".

And the scientific method is basically just a method of removing other possible explanations.
As long as you are doing that you're following the scientific method. If you aren't removing other possible explanations then you're wasting your time.

that seems like a good price
I'll take two, young lady

Oh dear. How do you know gravity exists? It's just a theory after all. Like electrons.

>by that logic
Lrn2logic fgt pls

Instrumentalism is worse than creationism. To believe in creationism you must reject parts of science. To believe in instrumentalsm you must reject all science.

These instrumentalist arguments are as old as the hills and were refuted a zillion times already. See the inference to best explanation, the no-miracles argument, Grover Maxwell's argument from the continuum etc. etc.

Conclusion: Bigfoot is real.

The idea that an electron can be a particle and a wave should set off enough redflags for everyone.

You're thinking of a photon.

Aren't both considered?

Yep. So are you, but you have a very small wavelength.

The existence of electrons is a good model for the observations that were made. It is not more convoluted than it needs to be, yet is accurate enough for predictions at many levels of abstraction.

Bigfoot is one possible explanation for large footprints; there are lots of other ones that are more probably true.

You are assuming that there is a cause for the movement of an object towards another one.
You are assuming that objects exist and that you can trust your various senses when they tell you about the behaviour of objects.
You are assuming that your model of a simplistic system comprised of two objects that move towards each other is a complete description of the reality in which your experiment takes place, implying that the cause for the objects' movement towards one another must be caused by properties of those objects.

Most importantly, you are assuming that a given event is the cause for another event.

underage pls go

Forgot pic

Well what's an electron?

A model that has utility when trying to explain certain physical phenomena or when trying to predict the behaviour of certain systems.

No one cares about models. It's right or wrong.
The 'model' that electricity is flowing through a conductor in two contradictory physical states fucks with the reality of the system.

OK, so is an electron "right" or "wrong", in your opinion?
What is "the reality of the system"?

Anyone this ignorant of how science works should not post here.

Define reality of the system

Speaking of models, you yourself are just a vastly simplified abstraction used to describe the behaviour of an immense collection of particles.

You can't get anywhere with it anyway because the duality of the electron exists in people's heads. The very idea of that, especially in the mechanistic determinism of current physics and whatnot, something can be in two physical states and is simply accepted as such because of double slit experiment outputs is short sighted.

Then you have to define what a wave is and its place in a Relativistic sense, but no one seems to want to define that in-full.
Eventually someone will pull out the photoelectric effect, but then what is light if you're questioning the photon too?

What about the mass of an electron? What about the mechanics around free electrons and separating from the outer valences?
What about current and charge?

What about magnetism in all of this? There are too many questions from the get-go and people are all too happy to cite wikipedia entries and gloat at their ability to laugh at people when the reality is no one understands any of it completely.

Forget the bullshit analogies about models and the human body.
Anyone can make circular abstractions all day due to the supposed understanding/misunderstanding of something through language or senses or culture.

You just have to think simple: What's electricity doing?

That thing flies. It has hollow bones. Lets invent the name for it - "bird".

OP: How do we know it's a bird. wtf

No-one understands anything completely. That doesn't mean we can't invent useful models to describe the phenomena around us. I'd argue there is no point in asking what "actually is", because any definition of "being" includes some element of observation or interpretation, which introduces limitations to the extent to which an observer can perceive what "is".
You can say that the electron is a bad model because it doesn't account for certain phenomena. Fair enough. Come up with a generalized model that includes your fringe case plus the entirety of what made the electron model useful. Be aware that your new model STILL has limitations, that there are STILL fringe cases where it doesn't apply and that it might be unwieldy and unnecessarily powerful for simple predictions. If you want to predict the outcome of a car crash at 120 km/h, you can pretty much eliminate the effects of the Earth's magnetic field, Earth's curvature and wind speeds from your equation and still arrive at reasonably accurate results. The results will be off by a minuscule amount compared to those obtained from a more complex model, but not to any significant degree that offsets the increased complexity of the computation.

In short: The duality of the electron (I think you meant the photon, though this applies to all particles / waves) is nothing more than the fact that people found two models that describe certain characteristics of electromagnetic phenomena that are useful in different scenarios. Neither one is more "correct" than the other. The mass of an electron isn't a useful metric in the double slit experiment; the particle model is not useful in this case whereas the wave model is. Both models share certain characteristics; for example, you can express the energy that is inherent in this particle / wave. From that metric you can derive others -- measure the time it takes for the particle to pass between two points, you calculate its speed and from there its mass.

I missed the point here actually. It's all about the usefulness and predictive power of the model and the electron is a very good one.

But that's my point you idiot, electrons are real in that they are a useful way to accurately predict reality. Just because you may be able to invalidate them on some level in some context is meaningless.

Explain a CRT television without electrons.