In my experience, the brainlets who keep namedropping the Scientific Method(tm) invariably mean some variation of pic related. The problem with that pic (and variants thereof) is that it covers, at best, the discovery of empirical laws. A scientific theory is not a collection of empirical laws. A scientic theory unifies an assortment of empirical laws by working backwards towards a set of axioms that logically implies them. That process it not empirical. It's driven by factors like intuition and philosophical/aesthetic preferences and there's no method for it. It's an underdetermined problem in principle.Once you have a theory, you have to test it empirically, but that's only the last step and least of the scientific thinking that went into deriving the theory in the first place. And it doesn't even fit the picture because the hypothesis is logically derived from the framework's premises, not inductively inferred from observations.
>>17075087kindly commit suicide, please
I was in that shit show of a thread as well. Dropping this againhttps://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/
>>17075087So what is the difference between someone deriving those "axioms" and someone writing metaphysical explanations, if experimental confirmation is the least scientific step?
>>17075103I refuse to answer you. I'm going back to gatekeeping science and mocking your ignorant ilk.
>>17075103You're not asking anything coherent.
>>17075106The original claim is that "the most scientific thinking" is done when compiling empirical laws into a theory by expliciting the fundamental axioms, and that experimental comfirmation requires less scientific thinking.So I ask: What is the difference with how metaphysicists or religious prophets elaborate their description of how the world works? Either you outline me the precise distinction or it means that what many consider unscientific actually is. If inducing theories is the core of scientist works, why are we only giving public funds to universities when monasteries are also coming up with religious theories?Or maybe we admit experimental confirmation is at least equally as important.
>>17075110It's just nuts how you can be so abysmally retarded yet so convinced you're saying something intelligent.
>>17075112Well if it is retarded you should have no trouble refuting it.
>>17075116It's self-refuting. Your (poor) recounting of "the original claim" already lists several differences. Then there's the more basic error of your read "last and least" as "unnecessary and omissible". You shit out paragraphs and don't even notice you're falling flat on your face in the first sentence.
>>17075120reading*
>>17075087scientific theories are neither tested nor ever falsified, only hypothesis areYou done rushing and ramming your head into brick walls yet?
>>17075122>another mentally ill retard throws his two monopoly cents
The reason I think this guy is a bot is that he seems to respond in a fixed time interval no matter when a post is made, 24/7
>>17075120So you agree experimentation is important then?I still disagree with you. Yes it is satisfying to have a simple set of axioms and logical rules to explain the world, and many are coming up with theories to better our understanding. Yet in my opinion the core of science is not to think about how we organize what we know into elegant theories, rather coming up with new questions and collecting accurate descriptions of what we do not know yet.So experimentation which drives new data acquisition and requires thinking to be biasless and precise, occupies a place more important than just confirming theories.
>>17075125He's been spamming since approximately September of 2025, at least with this phrase alone. Notice the key difference in posts for this hit prior to September 2025 and after 2025, as well as their frequencyhttps://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&ghost=false&search_text=Mentally+ill+retard&offset=336If an anon is dedicated enough to write a simple script to get the data and plot the frequency versus time for this phase and his other favorite phrases, as well as time stamps, I think we can learn a lot about this creature.
>>17075128Ye it's been going all out recently. Does dozens of threads on this AI garbage at the same time.
>>17075126>So you agree experimentation is important then?Sure, just like taking the pie out of the oven when it's done is important.>Yet in my opinion the core of science is not to think about how we organize what we know into elegant theoriesNo matter what you think the "core" of science is, the fact of the matter is that your simplistic "scientific method" bullshit fails to account for the bulk of the intellectual work that goes into science.
>>17075125>>17075128>>17075130>mindbroken and obsessedDelicious. I will continue psychologically scarring you.
>>17075133Where do you come from that theorization is the "bulk" of thinking?
the main problem with all the bot posts is they are so repetitive and boring. Atleast humans put some effort into trolling
>>17075137The bot isn't "trolling" it's sliding. It's supposed to be boring.
>>17075135Where do you come from that it isn't? Anything beyond a mindless compression of observations involves theorizing about WHY they follow the patterns that they do and that determines how you model them. So even if your work is too minor to be worthy of the title "scientific theory", you're still facing the underdetermination problem and that's where the actual thinking comes in.But maybe you're a lab assistant. Or one of those paper mill retards wasting taxpayer money on an infinite stream of non-reproducible "experiments" whose conclusion is always "results are inconclusive, need funding for another study".
>>17075140I already told you designing proper experiments that provide meaningful results requires as much thinking.If you do not reflect on what part of the problem you have not probed all you theorizing will lead to incomplete nonsense or mistaken conclusion.
>>17075139But why the /sci/ board?
>>17075150Give an example of a "proper experiment" that required "much thinking", where the thinking wasn't rooted in/guided by theory.
>>17075175First of all there is all the work done to increase the performance of measure instruments. An extreme exemple are particle collider which require the work of specialized teams to ensure they work as intended.I can provide you with Meselsohn experiment to assess the Dna replication mechanism.You can also look up how Kettlewell's experiments on moth trying to show color based selection needed to be improved, which eventually led to the discovery of other causes for the observed selection.Finally just comparing the length of the Methods section with the Discussion in a paper should tell you all about the amount of thinking that is needed to ensure the results carry actual meaning.
>>17075195>work done to increase the performance of measure instruments>Meselsohn experiment to assess the Dna replication mechanism>Kettlewell's experiments on moth Either you didn't understand the conditions of >>17075175, or you don't understand the experiments you're referencing (which only go to prove my point and refute yours). Judging by your first "example", I'd say it's both.
>>17075199It is you who understand nothing.I never said theory or hypothesis were useless to design experiences. I said that designing and setting up the controlled conditions that ensure the experiment gives us valuable information is not a trivial task and not just the logical conclusion of a scientific theory. You have to take into account a broader picture.
>>17075201>impotent angry mumblingIf you can't provide the examples you were asked for, just say so. There's no need to make a retard out of yourself by namedropping experiments that couldn't have been conceived of without prior theoretical work done by others.
>>17075212I am done wasting my time.You never adress my points but expect me to do so for yours (by the way it really requires tantamount theoretical work to design Meselsohn experiment when chromosomes replication phases is observed with a microscope and the double helix structure obtained by crystallography and that is all you need)You insult others to bring the debate down to your level.The original post was a topic interesting for discussion, too bad you ruined it.
>>17075225Ok, brainlet.
>>17075225And here's some homework for you: contemplate how much theory had to be laid down before the double helix structure could even be hypothesized, let alone for Meselson and Stahl to make an experiment about it later.
>>17075225>the double helix structure obtained by crystallographythat's literally based on a mathematical theory about how X-rays diffract from helical molecules, which crick helped develop earlier, retard. way to shoot yourself in the foot
>>17075123>nigga is mad that I corrected the category error in OP
>>17075175IF gravity is real, then scientists should be able to bottle it and sell it like water. IF gravity is real, then ANTIGRAVITY should exist. gravity is only a "theory"... 'before it was discovered people could fly' GladiOS from Portal videogame quote Explain how fusion reactors are perpetually two decades away from being feasible? BIG OIL interfering with scientific research and societal progress to maximize profits on a dying planet that's running outta natural resources? Space monkey won't admit Peak Oil has already occurred because oh no the economy depends on that black dearth sludge. When we (humans?) have had ample time to clean up our activities but nope gotta make the rich richer. What about the economix of thermal nuclear war, it cheaper to use the fucking bombs than pay nuclear scientists to decommission them. Just like good old USA spent it's entire fucking five year missile and bomb supply. Not on a "war" but a special exercise on Iran... be funny if they had a tactical nuke and their labs that were bunged up were decoys. Sure as hell could justify using it at this point in #TheGame
>>17075151noticing bots on /b/ too possibly in house bots to generate higher web traffic more clicks more ad revenue
>actual science-related thread with a discussable take>the bots can't help themselves and start spamming it with pointless drivel about muh botsCan't the corpos at least keep their shit-tier LLMs in the AI threads?
>>17075087>no algorithm for thinkingWhat?When you’re confronted with something face to face (not even face to face even) you think about it That’s algorithmic
>>17075958>another insanely retarded replyOk, thanks for the bump.
The scientific method is just checking facts held to be true. Theres no specific reason to group facts into grand theories, science can be just a long list of facts. Feign man used to say he thought a search of a grand theory in physics was idiotic, it could very well be that you needed several theories and that was how it worked.
>>17075952I think it's just bored users running bots to piss people off for the lulz
>>17075991Is this the cancer of all cancers that will kill 4chan for good?
