Science isn’t a belief, it’s a method.
science never ends
Submitted 2 days ago by Deceptichum@quokk.au to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://quokk.au/pictrs/image/22fd294a-49d8-40f8-940d-a63ab0749aee.png
Comments
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 1 day ago
rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Eh, IMO it’s more like four methods stacked on top of each other wearing a trench coat.
Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 day ago
Still the best trench coat we currently have.
All the other methods are wearing Borat strings and slinging poop at each other.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 1 day ago
bustrouffi@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
It is a method! That method is predicted on European Enlightenment avowals of what constitutes an acceptable boundary of truth, an acceptable methodology, and the primacy of certain measurements. That’s the subjective part.
2+2 does equal 4. That doesn’t mean valuing 4 as an answer or valuing the act of valuing of the certainty of 2+2=4 is an objective position.
Love k onto Philosophy of Science - this is not a controversial perspective.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and of you claim that 2+2=4 is an “enlightenment” idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.
You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn’t. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)
However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.
So, if you’re planning on gatekeeping knowledge,
- Do better than "2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad"
- Fuck. Right. Off.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Supposedly…
gwilikers@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
This sounds really interesting!
TheBat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I hate their stage names. Baby, Sporty, Posh? Why tf didn’t they use actual spice names? Ginger was already there. Why others weren’t called Cinnamon, Pepper, Clove, and Nutmeg? Fucking Brits. 😤😡🤬
LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Imagine the Brits actually using spice
teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah! It’s not like tikka masala exists or is the most popular British dish or anything.
HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Scary was the worst stage name. It really hasn’t aged well
Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 day ago
Americans eat old spice, but brits try some baby spice and suddenly they’ve got no taste.
Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 1 day ago
This is true. We might think that science and tech advanced slowly and steadily, and while that is technically true in some sense, as a general rule science advanced in exponential levels. Like the 2nd industrial revolution of the late 19th century saw such a massive explosion in tech that it created a change that could only be compared to the agricultural revolution.
And let’s not get started on the 20th century. Going from first heavier than air flight to landing on the moon in 66 years? Yeah that cannot be overstated.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Still fucks with me that someone could have written an essay about the impossibility of heavier than air flight at the age of 20, and lived to see the moon landing. That speed of technological progress is absolutely unheard of in human history. It would be like growing up believing the earth to be the center of the universe, and then living to see the discovery of other galaxies. It would be like growing up a hunter-gatherer and buying a pizza in a grocery store.
Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 1 day ago
You know, before Trump and the rise of neo-nazism into the mainstream I used to be huge into interwar media (early talkies, silent films, radio, etc) and one thing I found was a sci-fi radio show (I am not sure if it was Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon or something else) that seemed to treat the very concept of making into space in the 20th century as an impossible concept.
But a little over 20 years after that broadcast Sputnik happened. So many listeners and writers of the time absolutely were eating their own words afterward.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.
yesman@lemmy.world 1 day ago
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
So long as you don’t use it to spout off some bullshit like electric universe is some pseudo-philisophical bullshit masquerading as science I agree. Sorry of the madness I was watching professor Dave and my mind is mush.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
All science is influenced by the current academic landscape and researchers’ funding sources. Now let’s discuss my new theory that gravity isn’t real…
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I mean, how technical do you want to get, because gravity isn’t a real force, assuming Einstein is to be believed.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you think you have a better method then scientists would love to adopt it. If not, you don’t qualify to be my friend or lover, I don’t even associate with anti-science types.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
12345
poplargrove@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The second spice girl looks like her pants were drawn using brush tool or something.
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I thought they just wanted to Zig-a-zig ha
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Understand that science is a name given to both a method, and to a mostly self-consistent body of models that can be used to make useful predictions. Science doesn’t get things wrong. Science gets iterated upon.
Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Good science doesn’t get things wrong. Bad science gets things wrong all the time. No scientist is immune to implicit bias and implicit bias is frequently the cause of bad science.
eGFR estimation errors in African Americans is a prime example of that.
yesman@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s ironic to refute post-modern ideals with semantics.
lectricleopard@lemmy.world 1 day ago
And by Godel’s Incompleteness theorems, that body of models can never be 100% correct.
hihi24522@lemm.ee 1 day ago
This is false. Godels incompleteness theorems only prove that there will be things that are unprovable in that body of models.
Good news, Newtons flaming laser sword says that if something can’t be proven, it isn’t worth thinking about.
Imagine I said, “we live in a simulation but it is so perfect that we’ll never be able to find evidence of it”
Can you prove my statement? No.
In fact no matter what proof you try to use I can just claim it is part of the simulation. All models will be incomplete because I can always say you can’t prove me wrong. But, because there is never any evidence, the fact we live in a simulation must never be relevant/required for the explanation of things going on inside our models.
Are models are “incomplete” already, but it doesn’t matter and it won’t because anything that has an effect can be measured/catalogued and addded to a model, and anything that doesn’t have an effect doesn’t matter.
TL;DR: Science as a body of models will never be able to prove/disprove every possible statement/hypothesis, but that does not mean it can’t prove/disprove every hypothesis/statement that actually matters.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I’ve taken to distinguishing between science(v), the method and science(n), the body of models and data. Science(v) is imperfect, but basically as close as we can get to objective truth. Science(n) can often stress conclusions further than their rigor justifies, but eventually regresses to the mean for the most part.
You can’t really question science(v) beyond its intrinsic epistemology, and no other method can really do any better. You can often question science(n), heck I can’t count the number of times “consensus” flip-flopped on red wine, coffee, fat, and so on. But eventually science(v) does bring science(n) to a stable empirical baseline.
howrar@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
There’s also the “science” that is your policy choices (personal or public policy) based on the science(n) and your values, risk tolerance, and lifestyle. Since the latter factors can change a lot over time, these policies can also fluctuate wildly and give the impression that “science” fluctuates wildly.