Science is ever evolving, Truth is absolute and eternal. Science becomes outmoded sooner or later. What is Holy and True never stops being relevant. Finally, science is subjective, with scientists bringing their own interpretation, theories and hypotheses, while Truth must be objective.
>>17064208>Science is ever evolvingi feel like this fits engineering moreanyway, science is about uncovering the truth. the theories and hypotheses are all just ways to explain the truth
>>17064208But how do you know what is true
I was surprised how resilient the 4chan boards are to the immense outpouring of deliberate shitposts and bait threads.Then I realized that that is exactly what 4chan is all about, just idiots spouting shit, nothing else, not even on this called "science" board. It doesn't matter if people ( like the frog poster ) deliberately post shit here because other people naturally post shit anyway, because they are either idiots or mentally ill. So whether or not a post is deliberate shit, it makes little difference.At first I was surprised because I thought /sci/ would make some attempt to remove the shit and encourage real discussion. But then I learned that any fuckwit can become a jannie, and those who do are unlikely to be competent enough to distinguish a shit post from a genuine post. In fact I suspect that most of the shitposting is actually done by the jannies themselves. Or maybe they just give up after the first day on the job. There's not even any clever humor to be found here. Anyway I would like to thank the frog poster for making this so obvious, he has saved me from wasting any more time here. Now I can leave this shithole and try to find somewhere else where a broad spectrum of science topics can be discussed in a reasonable and rational manner.So I will leave all you dumb assholes to suck each other's dicks in the years ahead. Bye.
>>17064208I think you gave your brain a sprain
>>17064208You’re thinking this in only human terms. Humans as a species struggle to accept that knowledge evolves over time. The most informed person in the world is one who waged war upon the world. It’s humans obsessing over the Current Truth that are the problem. The stars will always be stars. Humans can interpret them however they wish. Ignorance outnumbers the truth and yet it relies on truth as its bedrock.
>>17064208The truth is that only White men are mentally capable of doing science.
>>17066285*Aristocratic catholic white men.
>>17066022How can i unsubscribe your blog?
>>17064208The act of doing science is different than the result of doing science. Trying to make a philosophical point by isolating a word, and noticing that any single unit of language can point in any direction, was already completely played out by the mid-to-late 80s, primarily by Yale French Studies, in much more esthetically-pleasing writing.
>>17066032If your knowledge "evolves" whenever 10 years passes, why should I take it seriously now? Unless you are a homo lib or woman following trends, there is no reason to want something that is not absolute.
>>17064208>Truth is absolute and eternal.No, the truth is ever changing too.IE "the coastline is at position x" constantly changes because ocean tides are constantly moving, for that truth to be eternal, time would have to stop completely.
>>17067965the only proof that smashing your skull in with a hammer will kill you is based on empirical data and hearsay. Tou have no reason to not let me smash your skull in based on absolute truths.
>>17066032Found the "enlightened" saar.
>>17068166>the reason i won't let you smash my head with a hammer is because the experts said that the science said that it would kill me>yes, i am an absolute golem, how did you know?
>>17068184>expertswhat experts? What absolute truths do you rely on to tell you that it would kill you? Can you give a clear reason from "absolute truths" only? Can you define what qualifies as an absolute and eternal truth? Gut feelings based reasoning is the mark of an NPC, if you can't get there from objective principles then it's clear you don't have an objective reason.
>>17068187>What absolute truths do you rely on to tell you that it would kill you?I don't know that it would kill me. Maybe it won't. I'm supposed to allow damage to my body so long as I'm not sure it would kill me? What kind of retarded animals is this board flooded with now?
>>17068189>. I'm supposed to allow damage to my bodyHow do you know it would damage your body? That requires a lot of empirical assumptions (not absolute) or you taking someone else's word for granted.
>>17068191>How do you know it would damage your body?I don't know that it would. I just expect it to. Reality doesn't revolve around by expectations, but my decisions do. You swing a hammer at me, you get a couple of hollowpoints in your upper body based on my expectation that you'll keep over and die. I don't know that you will, but one can hope.
>>17068192keel over*
>>17068192So you "expect" material reality to follow empirical principles, but you deny it "Truth".Yet you shape your actions around those "expectations", rather than "Truths", meaning your actions are indistinguishable from someone who would believe empirical principles to hold True. That makes you indistinguishable from a hypocrite.
>>17068202>So you "expect" material reality to follow empirical principlesNo, I expect that getting hit in the head with a hammer would be bad. """Material reality""" and """empirical principles""" never figure into it.
>>17068204>I expect that getting hit in the head with a hammer would be bad.If that expectation is rational, it must be informed by something, and you will find it impossible to not at some point invoke a priori/empirical sources at some point. Alternatively you just openly admit that you base your decisions off of expectations with no rational foundation, that is called being delusional/irrational.
>>17068206I don't need to rationalize my expectations about what would happen if I got hit with a hammer. That's only a problem for your delusional cult.
>>17068209Sounds like something someone who already got hit pretty hard in the head with a hammer would say.
>>17068217Sounds like you're an NPC with zero self-awareness, who mistakenly believes he reasoned himself into basic survival instincts based on le science and isn't rationalizing them post hoc.
>>17068209>That's only a problem for your delusional cult.The opposite is true actually. If you consider empirical reality to be True then all these mental gymnastics you need to perform vanish.>I don't need to rationalize my expectations You can't, actually, for reasons that are very self evident.
>>17068225>all these mental gymnastics you need to performWhat mental gymnastics do I need to perform to not want to be hit with a hammer? Why is this board teeming with mentally ill 80 IQs?
>>17068227It was a simple example of you hypocritically picking and choosing when to acknowledge empirical reality. The fact you get hung up on the explicit example and struggle to follow the conversation is some real "but I didn't have breakfast" sort of response.
>>17068217>>17068229Sounds like you're an NPC with zero self-awareness, who mistakenly believes he reasoned himself into basic survival instincts based on le science and isn't rationalizing them post hoc.Note how this post causes you to reset.
>>17068229>you get hung up on the explicit example and struggle to follow the conversationi tried following your conversation and i would say it's the other way around. you're hung up on a faulty example and his refutation generalizes beyond it. you expect the sun to rise tomorrow but you didn't reason yourself into that, either. the astronomical justification is post hoc
Peer review was invented by the royal society to stifle new ideas and innovation.
>>17068231The other guy wasn't me.> basic survival instincts I already know you aren't sentient so you basically admitting that your decision making is entirely based on unquestioned instinct does not come as a surprise to me. But to address both your "argument" (lol) and >>17068236> you expect the sun to rise tomorrowYou do too. To assume that empirical reality continues to operate in the future as it has in the past is a core axiomatic assumption that is usually underpinning empiricism. Braindead cattle like you get lost in middle school epistemological musings, all of which are meaningless because in the real world you would never stake anything meaningful against empiricism. That is the hypocrisy of you morons.
>>17068239>your decision making is entirely based on unquestioned instinctSo does yours, when someone swings a hammer at you. You don't grasp this because you're devoid of basic metacognition.
>>17068240Just because instinct compels you to do one thing does not mean that it is the rational thing to do.We could trivially change the stakes where there is no instinct involved. For example, would you bet all of your worldly possessions against classical mechanics to stop working within its applicable domain tomorrow?
>>17068241Or in favor?
>>17068239>You do too. To assume that empirical reality continues to operate in the future as it has in the past is a core axiomatic assumption that is usually underpinning empiricismyou don't expect the sun to rise tomorrow because of "core axiomatic assumptions underpinning empipricism". you expect it because of implicit learning. all this wank about empiricism doesn't even cross your mind in such a context when you're not sperging out about it on the internet
>>17068241>Just because instinct compels you to do one thing does not mean that it is the rational thing to do.Exactly. You don't care one bit if it's rational or not when someone is swinging a hammer at you and neither do I. Your demonstration fails. Move on.>would you bet all of your worldly possessions against classical mechanics to stop working within its applicable domain tomorrow? Or in favor?If I have to choose between two fallible human predictions, I'll go with the one that better conforms to my experience. Again, your ideology doesn't figure into this.
>>17064208>finding truth and agreeing upon truth is enemy to truthretard alert
>>17065137>science is about uncovering the truthphysics only cares about modeling and predicting, this has nothing to do with the truth
>>17068166Based response
>>17069419what do you think the models and predictions are for? ultimately, the various models and theories we make are to see which ones are the most accurate, the ones that align the closest to what happens in reality. if the model is able to predict something that happens in the real world, then it's useful and describes something true about reality
>>17066022There is no other place.Civilization is doomed once again.
>>17069796Most accurate in what sense? An arbitrary equation can be made to fit any dataset without any explanation whatsoever. Much more accurate than any acientific model, plus the free parameter criteria allows us to model anything in terms of our acientific free parameters. Wow we so vaccinated.
>>17066010subjective stuff literally explains objective stuff all the time though?
>>17066022Oh hi frog poster, you weren't getting enough attention in all your threads, so you thought you could make a scene here and get some (You)s?
>>17066032>The stars will always be stars.No, they regularly learn that some stars were actually planets or asteroids or any number of other cosmic objects.
>>17068204>No, I expect that getting hit in the head with a hammer would be bad.How am I suppose to get those nice well sculpted chad cheekbones without hitting myself in the head with the hammer? How were all those people who got rhinoplasty and chin reduction suppose to stop looking so ugly without some doctor going to town on their head with a hammer and chisel?
>>17064208this is a thread, on /sci/ rn, let that sink in, this belongs on /trash/ at best
>>17068246Imagine believing consensus is truth. Peak soientist midwittery.
>>17069997Hey... you doing okay, soientist?
>>17066012I open the Holy Book, the thing upon which white civilization was founded.
>>17065137False, science is about making up stuff and selling it to the public via school brainwashing.
>>17073203Talked to any cool snakes or donkeys or flames lately, then? The book says the talk, so they definitely can talk, right?
>>17069992>missing the point this spectacularly And those planets will always be planets. Those meteors will always be meteors. Whether they thought the planets (or meteors) were merely other (“wandering”) stars, or gods, etc, it didn’t actually matter in the slightest. The stars will always be stars. The planets will always be planets. Etc. Ignorance is secondary to the truth that reinforces it.
>>17064208>Science is ever evolvingWrong. The scientific method doesnt change and has never changed since the 1700s
>>17064208angry frog
>>17064208Yeah, bro. I also read Dialectic of Enlightment in my teens
>>17065137
>>17075034
>>17064208>Science is ever evolvingIt's not.
>>17064208This is hilarious. Truth is the enemy to religion. It's why religion follows in tow with science as scientific knowledge updates and corrects itself. Science corrects itself. Religion never corrects itself. Science corrects religion. Ergo, science is the enforcer of truth. It is religion that is antagonistic toward truth.
>>17076817Retard detected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superseded_scientific_theories
>>17064208Ok dumbass
>>17076967It means they were never scientific theories to begin with. Show me a single citation in natural science which contradicts another. IT DOESNT EXISTPasting wiki links just means automatically you dont like being taken seriously
>>17077694Cry more soientist
>>17075599The enlightened are a bunch of people who never worked in their life claiming that they know the real truth about the world.
Derp
