Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:26:49 UTC No. 16285866
>>16285843
Naiive Empiricism
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:29:58 UTC No. 16285872
>>16285843
the development of models to predict the future.
>but what abou-
not science.
>>16285847
>these fuckin kids arent convinced by my anecdotes, they demand my models be reproducible, fuckin kikes man wtf
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:30:53 UTC No. 16285873
>>16285872
but what about botany?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:35:34 UTC No. 16285877
>>16285873
i dont know enough about botany to say for certain, but its probably not science if i had to guess.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 01:54:53 UTC No. 16285896
>>16285843
an epistemological framework for determining reliable knowledge
> epistemology is broadly speaking the philosophical study of knowledge
> determine from what?
It could be determined from physical or mental phenomena, as well as history, language, or society. What a phenomenon is, and whether we can study it or not is determined by yourself and others (which form a collective)
> who does the determining?
A collective of yourself and other individuals, could be referred to as “humanity”
> how do we determine
The methods of studying, determining, observing and experimenting are all decided upon by humanity, and are specifically tailored to meet humanity’s many biases and weaknesses.
> what do you mean by “reliable knowledge”?
Reliability is a criterion that is also established by humanity. Due to humanity’s biases, what is considered assured, certain, or reliable today need not be the case tomorrow.
> so none of this is absolute?
No. There is nothing absolute. Even the choice of mathematical axioms we choose to perform math in order to perform science is also not absolute mathematically; it is but one of infinitely many mathematical axiomatic systems that exist but it just so happens to be useful for the kinds of phenomena we are interested in studying. What we study, how we study, who the observer is, what we mean by reliable knowledge, all of these things are decided upon by humanity and are constantly evolving as to meet our standards. This is a historical and sociological process
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:16:13 UTC No. 16285970
>>16285872
good post
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:01:33 UTC No. 16286081
>>16285866
Retard
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:50:59 UTC No. 16286132
>>16285872
>the development of models to predict the future.
>big bang theory is therefore not science because it predicts the past
k
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:16:29 UTC No. 16286145
"Scientist" specifically is a neologism thought up by William Whewell which all the people we now call scientists fucking hated for like 80 years, preferring to call themselves by the 2000~ year old term "natural philosopher" (philosopher who concerns himself with nature).
Scientia is Cicero's Latin calque of the Greek episteme, which could roughly be translated as objective and disinterested knowledge of things in some domain. This is similar to the German Wissenschaft, which has a broader meaning than English "science," which today is associated with physical sciences, especially those using mathematical methods. Descartes, who along with Bacon, Locke, Newton, and others, massively alters both the meaning and practice of natural philosophy closer to what we are familiar with (but still a long way off), uses scientia in a much more restricted sense related to his method of deduction in his early unfinished text, the Regulae. For Aristotle, scientia is really closer to theoria, which means disinterested contemplation of the totality of nature (phusis), which is the pinnacle of what human consciousness, which is also divine reason, can do, presumably after a lifetime of carefully mastering individual epistemai like Aristotle had, and then seeing them in their complex interrelation "sub specie aeternitatis" (roughly translated: "from a God's eye view"). Before Aristotle, the natural philosophers were often known as "physikoi," which just means, "the guys who have something to do with phusis." Phusis just means, "the nature of a thing." It comes to mean "the nature of things" or "the nature of everything," and Cicero calques it into Latin as natura, just as we still say today both "Nature" (as a whole) and "what's the nature of ... (something)?"
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:17:29 UTC No. 16286147
>>16286145
(cont.)
The idea that a "science" specifically has to be physical in the modern sense, i.e., materialist, or mathematical, is relatively new. The much older conception is that there are simply bodies of knowledge correlated with relatively well-defined domains of phenomena, like astronomy and biology. Natural philosophers have differed on the number and extent of epistemai, Wissenschaften, sciences, etc. Aristotelians are staunchly against assuming a single method applicable to all domains, so they are pluralists. But starting especially with Descartes this changes and by the time of Leibniz there is a sense that a "universal mathematics" (really closer to a universal logic) would include all knowledge, and assuming you knew its abstract parameters (which only God does perfectly) you could deduce contingent facts. The logical positivists of the early 20th century briefly resurrected this goal, with some of them hoping to create a truly generative logic, a logic that is so ironclad that it actually produces knowledge, although most of them were just logical empiricists who thought that logic should clarify and assist scientific inquiry (as Newton's friend Locke said, philosophy's goal is to be "the under-labourer clearing the ground of rubbish").
Kant said that something is a science insofar as it is based on mathematics. Physics is the science par excellence, but biology and chemistry can never be sciences. A generation later, chemistry was reduced to mathematical physical methods (which would have saddened Lavoisier, who wanted to be the "Newton of chemistry"). To neo-Darwinians, biology was reduced to molecular biology and thus to mathematical methods a century or so later - even before the discovery of DNA etc., probabilistic mathematics helped to prove at least the plausibility of macroevolution from aggregate microevolution on a natural selection model with Mendelian inheritance.
So it has meant a lot of things to a lot of people.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:30:49 UTC No. 16286154
Deconstructed Philosophy; a hype for intellectual gain without merit.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:43:30 UTC No. 16286183
>>16285843
Application of the philosophical method of inquiry for accumulating knowledge (or scientia Latin) coined "The Scientific Method".
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:54:14 UTC No. 16286212
>>16285843
Let me show you.....
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:02:27 UTC No. 16286238
>>16285873
Yes by studying botany you can predict the future progression of plants and use subtle cues to anticipate any nutrient deficiencies that might effect future growth, so that you can supplement for those deficiencies and maximize future healthy growth.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:33:53 UTC No. 16286583
oh baby don't hurt me
>>16286212
I have like 85 these hidden currently, mods are dead, We'll literally see them filter off the board instead of them getting nuked...
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:10:17 UTC No. 16288353
>>16285843
Its a topic to arguing with strangers online in
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:34:17 UTC No. 16288375
>>16285866
You missspelled native.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 13:42:33 UTC No. 16288382
science is a social construct by the bourgeoisie
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:43:25 UTC No. 16288605
>>16285843
Science is developing an understanding of things by watching them and analyzing them. If you don't understand this, then you're brain dead.