>>7838877 Read Plato's Protagoras, and go from there. Your study of the topic in question will likely lead you first to Aristotle and Epicurus, then Bacon and Descartes.
Once you've read a few relevant worksby the aforementioned authors, come back and discuss your findings. Then there can be dialogue.
Nobody can force you to learn but you. If you truly wanted an answer to your question, you'd already be working to answer it. And yet, you're wasting time on this imageboard that could be spent in study.
Whether or not scientific results are "valid" is irrelevant. The scientific method allows us to create models which agree with 100% of observations. Furthermore, our models allow us to make verifiable predictions about the future. This is the best method we have at describing nature and so, whether or not our results are "valid", we can be satisfied that we are doing the best that we can possibly do, and we can make accurate predictions about the future. What more could you want?
>>7838950 It's not circular, it just seems that way to you because the question you are asking is backwards. What you should be asking is what we mean by "valid result". The only definition, in terms of empirical knowledge, is a result produced by a scientific process.
>>7838912 Read them all, arrive at the same crackpot theory you most likely adhere to. >well just assume were right till were wrong >except for that we are always wrong Science is its own worst enemy when in the hands of Man. Man is not scientific by nature, Man does not seek to be wrong, to be wrong doesn't necessarily result in the acquisition of knowledge, yet Man does seek knowledge. Science pure and unfettered is inhuman. But Man will try as he might for truth will always, always arrive in the same place, uncertainty.
Science is quite literally too good for "scientists" you should probably just leave it to the philosophers.
>>7838914 >valid All yellow things are trees this is yellow this is a tree Valid, perfectly so, but not sound. But we can be certain, certain though we are wrong, yet certain nonetheless.
>Sound Most trees are green This is a tree but this doesn't exhibit the other properties of a tree, such as having a trunk and leaves or needles, nor does this thing have bark, this thing is insufficient for what we might call a tree therefore it is not a tree. Can we be certain? No. But is it a Reasonable or sound statement? Yes, very much.
>>7839496 On the first part it struck me as slightly ambiguous I meant, I did read all of whom you mentioned already. And on science/philosophers. Science belongs rightfully in the hands of philosophers. Only philosophers can truly partake in pure and wholesome true Science.
>>7838877 That diagram is missing two rather critical parts without which validity becomes a question of faith only.
As for validity of the correct method we see it because it works well enough. Sure, there are many white areas on the map and many discrepancies but we get useful results we can use to build things and explore further. And things are improved on as new knowledge is obtained.
thus Newtonian physics works really well for everyday things but Relativity improves that. The Bohr model also explained a lot but is superseded by quantum theory.
Thread replies: 18 Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 512974
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.