Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 04:15:37 UTC No. 16067581

>>16067569
Fuck that
Just fumble about and discover shit on accident
Nothing of value was ever discovered on purpose

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:19:38 UTC No. 16067620

>>16067569
The principle of uniformity is a dogma. The scientific method is a method.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:47:10 UTC No. 16067641

>>16067569
Rational procedures like the scientific methodu aren't sufficient to explore the space of true statements.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:11:26 UTC No. 16067685

>>16067569
The best thing is that scientists themselves ignore it. Or does anyone believe that antropomorphic climate change has been proved by the scientific method? What about evolution? General relativity? Germ theory?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:13:25 UTC No. 16067686

>>16067685
You need to reread the diagram since it doesn't mention anything about "proving" anything since that is a mathematical construct rather than a scientific one.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:10:46 UTC No. 16068109

>>16067569
No, it’s just repeatability itself. If it works, it is science.

See, a caveman is going about the scientific method when they go about making the wheel, or just a campfire, regardless of whether or not they acknowledge it as such.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:23:03 UTC No. 16068121

>>16067569
>gaining knowledge is ... le bad

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:29:59 UTC No. 16068126

>>16068121
You don't gain knowledge with science so much as expose ones sociological bias. Most facts are socially constructed, for example anthropogenic climate change is a "fact" settled on by liberal universities interpreting data in the way that suits their political agenda. Likewise with the so-called general theory of relativity, this is a set of "facts" orchestrated to promote Jews in universities and ignore the equally valid input of Christian physicists.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:34:23 UTC No. 16068134

>>16068109
Wrong. The science is only done by institution, not you (a caveman, lol.)

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:06:46 UTC No. 16068176

>>16068126
>look at me, I cannot distinguish between the methodology of science and the sociology of science
Low IQ

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:21:19 UTC No. 16068196

>>16068126
>the scientific method is wrong because .. uhm here are two theories which I don't believe they follow the scientific method ... this means the scientific method is wrong
The epistemological brilliance of a dogmatically contrarian soishitter.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:30:26 UTC No. 16068212

>>16068126
The problem is not in the scientific method itself, but that the theories you've mentioned haven't actually been proved by the scientific method.
The scientific method lets you prove things such as "if you throw a ball into a window, it will break". But how the fuck do you want to prove curvature of spacetime?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:33:21 UTC No. 16068215

>>16068126
>Likewise with the so-called general theory of relativity, this is a set of "facts" orchestrated to promote Jews
Wants to be an antisemite
>You don't gain knowledge with science so much as expose ones sociological bias. Most facts are socially constructed
Justifies his opinion with the most talmudic slop invented by jews to dat

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:46:22 UTC No. 16068230

>>16068134
That’s idiotic.

—“Remember kids, the only difference between proper science and fucking around is writing it down.”

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:16:03 UTC No. 16068290

>>16068134
>trust the scientific institution! they are not ruled by peer pressure at all!
No.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:21:57 UTC No. 16068306

>>16067569
Scientific method is the dogma.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:04:40 UTC No. 16068388

>>16068176
>>16068196
>no arguments
>>16068212
Incorrect. This is what "science" is: a collection of "facts" settled on by whoever holds power.
>>16068215
You're retarded. What constitutes a scientific fact is purely determined by the people that hold power. This is obviously true.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:07:48 UTC No. 16068398

>first there was nothing
>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>then a few billions years after that, through evolution, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence

Now the second point.
Reminder that if you believe in scientific realism, you literally believe that there is an immaterial symmetry group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)× P(1,3) living outside the universe and yet governing every interaction in the material universe without even being able to explain how immaterial rules act on matter.

The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to science, reality is composed by mathematical objects. Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.
It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system is acted upon by immaterial rules
5/in labs, all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

Atheists are so stupid that they deserve to be depressed and commit suicide out of their own-making nihilism.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:08:38 UTC No. 16068403

>>16068388
>This is obviously true.
It's not obviously true. It's a notion that was made popular by sociology, which pretends it proved it scientifically. So it proved scientifically that nothing can be proved scientifically. Go figure that out jew balls sucking retard

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:12:51 UTC No. 16068415

>>16068403
>Go figure that out jew balls sucking retard
I'm no Jew you fucking queer liberal. There is nothing but power and the whole edifice of "science" is just a power play. Again this is axiomatic and only a faggot leftist would ever debate it. Faggot leftists want you to believe that the "climate change", "special relativism" and "The Vaxxx" are all scientific concepts. But these fucks are all lying, they can only make those pronouncements because they currently hold the power to make them.

DON'T reply to me unless you've corrected yourself.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:16:26 UTC No. 16068427

>>16068415
First you faggot retard science isn't academia and science isn't left wing. Kill yourseld for even suggesting it.
>>16068415
>There is nothing but power and the whole edifice of "science" is just a power play.
Again that's a leftist talking point. You pretend to hate leftists and jews yet you have the same opinions they have because you are a brainlet faggot. Feminists are convinced rationality and science are a white man's conspiracy to oppress minorities. Congratulations for thinking like a woman you faggot.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:16:42 UTC No. 16068430

>>16068388
>What constitutes a scientific fact is purely determined by the people that hold power
So what you’re saying is >>16068290 is right

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:19:06 UTC No. 16068440

>>16068398
>Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.
Even worse: I've mentioned this countless times (today's example >>16068047) and no one is willing to debate this point. All the ''intellectuals'' visiting podcasts like the guests of Lex Fridman never get called out on this either.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:19:33 UTC No. 16068443

>>16068427
>science isn't left wing.
So why do scientists support AGW and the so-called relativity? Because it's politically expedient for them to promote those ideas. Everything they do is done through the lens of politics. It's why they won't let anyone look at race and IQ, because that would go against their worldview.
>Science
>Is
>Political
And none of your liberal hand wringing will change that.
> leftist talking point.
>X believe Y
>Therefore you're an X if you believe Y
You're a fucking retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:22:29 UTC No. 16068454

>>16068443
>>Science
>>Is
>>Political

>talks like a hand clapping nigger to make a point
You're either a woman, a leftist a faggot or a tranny. In any case, go back to /pol/ you don't have the minimum required IQ to be on this board

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:22:54 UTC No. 16068455

>>16068430
>So what you’re saying is >>16068290 is right
Anon almost has it right. Except the analysis of any experiment or any data will also be done though a certain lens. You can't have an object experiment. Everything is seen though a political lens. A liberal looks at rising CO2 levels and says "AH! Climate change", a conservative looks at rising CO2 levels and says "Well of course, climate changes". Both, and neither, are correct.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:23:09 UTC No. 16068456

Atheists and theists are both the same sort of dumb since they fail to realize that what is a god is a matter of subjection.

Like, sure, you don’t have to believe in gods, but aliens are likely already transcendent to the point of being gods to us. Are humans gods to ants? Does God view himself as a god? Are his miracles truly miraculous to God? No.

God is God to the Christian. God is a sufficiently advanced (“godlike”) alien to the physicist. To the Christian physicist, it is both.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:24:23 UTC No. 16068460

>>16068454
I see you have nothing to input, instead look to smear me with adjectives like a liberal. Clearly we have nothing more to say to each other, enjoy being a cuck to the liberal establishment.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:24:44 UTC No. 16068463

>>16068455
I think that’s more so an issue with human conclusion than objective empiricism.

“1 + 1 always equals 2, always”
“Show me your theory”
“What?”
“What?”

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:26:16 UTC No. 16068467

>>16068460
I never called you a liberal, you did you hysterical retard. Just stop believing and repeating like a cuck everything the jews tell you about politics and science.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:28:19 UTC No. 16068472

>>16068463
A human can't be objective. It's that simple. There may be an objective reality but humans can't glimpse it. We can't even get close. Experimentation is just a convenient fiction that liberals have developed to spread their own political narrative.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:28:34 UTC No. 16068474

>>16068456
>God is an alien
How is it that insane drug/sex addicts like Aleister Crowley can access basic logic but theists/atheists just cannot?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:31:38 UTC No. 16068486

>>16068472
Science isn't philosophy. No one is asking scientists to be objective you retard. All the pseudo criticism you're making of science are obvious stuff everyone knows about. It doesn't change the validity of physics in practical matters. That being said, since you're bringing absolutely nothing to the conversation besides you personal regardation, go kill yourself asap and let your mom find the body.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:31:59 UTC No. 16068488

>>16068472
>A human can't be objective.
While I am of the opinion that stupidity is a core pillar of the human condition, I also believe that empirical information in the universe predates the human existence/experience. Some get closer to this empiricism than others. Some that got the closest were also simultaneously the furthest from away it—like past genius natural philosophers who laced their limited understanding (for the time) with absolutely batshit insane notions.

Empirical existence existed before humans did, and is lying in wait, for all time.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:32:37 UTC No. 16068492

> Devising alternative
> Devising a crucial experiment (or several of them), with alternative possible outcomes, each of which will, as nearly as possible, exclude one or more of the hypotheses;
> Carrying out the experiment(s) so as to get a clean result;
> Recycling the procedure, making subhypotheses or sequential hypotheses to refine the possibilities that remain, and so on.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:33:14 UTC No. 16068494

>>16068486
>No one is asking scientists to be objective you retard
So you agree with me that experimentation is a fiction? Good, glad we can agree.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:34:12 UTC No. 16068499

>>16068494
I know it's you you dumb cunt

Yes it will be just like that

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:34:37 UTC No. 16068501

>>16068486
>Science isn't philosophy.
Science -has- a (natural) philosophy.

Theoretical/hypothetical physics-talk is already practically indistinguishable from philosophical discussion. Its philosophy narrowed down.

The hatred against philosophy by modern scientists today would come across as alien to the greats of the past, even recently.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:36:06 UTC No. 16068507

>>16068501
>the greats of the past,
these niggers didn't know shit about how nature works despite being LE PHILOSOPHER

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:37:22 UTC No. 16068512

>>16068501
Does it never bother these people that science is predicated on observation, but many of its most important concepts take place at such small or massive scales or across such incredible spans of time that they are unobservable? They resort to faith and educated guesses on those things just as much as any religious/philosophical person would, which wouldn't be an issue if they didn't have such clear contempt for those people.

If anyone actually thinks that science hasn’t become just another fucking religion, you are insane. Humans are too stupid to into semantic nuance to see this. Like morons not noticing the magic all around them in a practically Atlantean age (yes the 21st century) where everything is taken for granted.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:37:27 UTC No. 16068513

>>16068501
Oh look another group of jews pontificating about stuff they don't understand.
>>16068488
An objective reality that literally can not be viewed by humans may as well not exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:39:04 UTC No. 16068518

>>16068513
>An objective reality that literally can not be viewed by humans may as well not exist.
The thing (processes) that lead up to the human existence/experience definitely existed/occurred. Causality. Fire existed before humans did.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:39:21 UTC No. 16068520

>>16068494
>So you agree with me
No I don't agree with anything you say because you are a retard. I enjoy seeing you getting destroyed by the entire board on >>16068464

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:41:25 UTC No. 16068531

>>16068518
>Fire existed before humans did.
Fire is just a label people attached to something they experience through their senses. A person can never experience "fire", only the sensations of fire.
>>16068520
Still no arguments? Why bother replying if you have nothing to say?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:43:54 UTC No. 16068541

>>16068531
>>16068538

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:45:48 UTC No. 16068547

>>16068541
>Why bother replying if you have nothing to say?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:47:10 UTC No. 16068554

>>16068531
> A person can never experience "fire", only the sensations of fire.
I would call that experience. A limited, human experience, sure, but still an experience. We know it burns, destroys, reacts, etc. Humans are blind to the majority of everything, but even in that small window we can “see”.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:47:32 UTC No. 16068556

>>16068547
I forgot this other one pointing out your obvious retardation
>>16068525

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:49:12 UTC No. 16068560

>>16068554
This retard's whole argument is Plato's allegory of the cave. He has conversations from 2000 years ago.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:54:03 UTC No. 16068572

>>16068560
Not quite. My argument is that not only do we only see shadows, those shadows are different based on your personal politics. As I've explained many times now
>A leftist sees rising CO2 and says "ah! global warming". A conservative sees rising CO2 and says "Well of course, climate is always changing".
In each case they're only seeing shadows, but neither of them can claim an actual object analysis, because such a thing doesn't exist. The only thing that exists here is politics and power. Since the leftist holds power, then we have the idea of "AGW". If it were me, or any other rightist, then we would be saying that we're leaving an ice age.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:58:37 UTC No. 16068592

>>16068572
Go back to /pol/ you fucking low IQ monkey

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:00:41 UTC No. 16068602

>>16068592
>muh /pol/
Why are leftists like this? Why can't they just engage with an argument without having to label people with $CURRENT_BAD_WORD?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:03:22 UTC No. 16068607

>>16068572
>shadows
To use this word is to assume the existence of an object. You've defeated yourself.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:06:01 UTC No. 16068615

>>16067569
1. Get triggered by something ->
2. Obsessively research it ->
3. State your intended conclusion ->
4. Contrive a test that supports your conclusion ->
5.Validate that your test adequately confirms your conclusion ->
6. Write down your intended conclusion in the abstract

7. Have someone who doesn't do science check it for spelling errors and publish it

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:20:49 UTC No. 16068648

>>16068602
>calls people leftist
>muuhhh nooo dont call me le current bad word

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:26:32 UTC No. 16068661

>>16068615
>1. Get triggered by something ->
Christians hearing about evolution.
>2. Obsessively research it ->
Christians googling ''why evolution is nonsense.
>3. State your intended conclusion ->
Christians rejecting evolution without explaining how God did it.
>4. Contrive a test that supports your conclusion ->
Christians asserting that macro-evolution is an unverifiable hypothesis.
>5.Validate that your test adequately confirms your conclusion ->
Christians visiting the zoo to see if monkeys have become human yet.
>6. Write down your intended conclusion in the abstract
Christians posting on 4chan.
>7. Have someone who doesn't do science check it for spelling errors and publish it
Other christians agree.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:31:40 UTC No. 16068672

>>16068474
If something isn’t of this earth, it is alien by default. But for some reason calling God an alien is offensive to Christians. Do they think Heaven is terrestrial or something? The universe is more alien than not, and by way of this humans are also more alien than not.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:01:33 UTC No. 16069084

>>16068661
Your argument is that the scientific method isn't abused because Christians do the same thing? I think you need to follow the process and get published before I can take this assertion seriously.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:38:27 UTC No. 16069160

>>16069084
>I think you need to follow the process and get published
I've already made an intelligent contribution in the previous iterations of this thread. You deserve no better than shitposting until you write something worthy of serious consideration.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 23:57:16 UTC No. 16069169

>>16067581
are you a nigger?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:20:57 UTC No. 16069191

>>16069160
>I've already made an intelligent contribution
You are at step 1.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:35:01 UTC No. 16069212

>>16067569
no, hegel's "science" on the other hand?, yes

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:10:58 UTC No. 16069973

>>16068109
>>16068230
Why don't people understand this ... ??
Why does it offend people when I tell them "everything is science", or "everything has a process" ... ??

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:12:39 UTC No. 16069976

No. It's ligma.

Kimjongun at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:16:02 UTC No. 16069981

I'M A MAN BARK BARK WHERE'S CHILD PORN

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:19:31 UTC No. 16069989

>>16069981
>bark bark
t. Shitbull

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:22:56 UTC No. 16069995

Both general and special relativity have been proven using the scientific method. IDK what this dude is talking about

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:32:00 UTC No. 16070015

>>16068398
>>first there was nothing
>>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>>then a few billions years after that, through evolution, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence
There is literally nothing about any of these steps that are illogical or difficult to understand. You just don't like them because you're a religious retard

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:19:54 UTC No. 16070099

I’m convinced 3/4 of /sci/ is a scummy AI enforcing stupidity on the stupid

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:26:14 UTC No. 16070109

>>16070099
Holy based. I want to suck its virtual penis.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:47:53 UTC No. 16071418

>>16068134
Fuck off you moron.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:50:45 UTC No. 16071419

>>16067569
That is a method, not a dogma you idiot.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:52:10 UTC No. 16071420

>>16071418
/sci/ unironically has the most dogshit boomer memes out of any board here
ifunny watermark @ Pro-gun memes

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 05:35:20 UTC No. 16071462

>>16068398
You have it backwards, immaterial rules don't govern the material, material interacts and from those interactions, immaterial rules can be stated.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:51:23 UTC No. 16071933

>>16071419
>processes aren’t dogma
Then how does anything exist/run at all? Science is everywhere.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:54:43 UTC No. 16072044

>>16067569
What if something only happens once? Like if I use telekenesis to move an object, but it only happens once and can't be repeated, then no one will ever know via the scientific method. What knowledge are we missing that is actual magic?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:09:05 UTC No. 16072057

>>16072044
> What if something only happens once?
Like the Big Bang? Or a single (any other rose is a different rose) rose blooming?
> Like if I use telekenesis to move an object, but it only happens once and can't be repeated, then no one will ever know via the scientific method.
That honestly implies a sort of intelligence, behind the scenes. To me, anyway. “Wouldn’t it be funny if I let this ant think it moved something using his mind?”. It’s too conveniently conditional.
All magic, myth and superstition in-general, including religion, come across as highly arbitrary games entertained by *something*.
> What knowledge are we missing that is actual magic?
The “idk” black box aspect is what makes it, anything, magic. “How did that happen?”, or “How did you DO that?”, etc.
Magic exists the same way cold, darkness, or just holes, exist. Terms like the occult, the esoteric, the arcane, etc, denote as much. Hiddenness. Same with mysticism; mystery is even in the name.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:37:47 UTC No. 16073252

>>16067569
yeah? well youre a faggot how about that
>verification not required

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:44:17 UTC No. 16077298

>>16072057
High iq post