Sup /sci/ I've been hanging out on our new /his/ board a

File: de-spooked.png (265KB, 500x669px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 500x669px

It's sad that /his/ neglects the other humanities so much...

Anyway, yeah, you can't seem to get around the induction principle
(Just like you e.g. can't prove that it's not the case that 10 minutes ago aliens came to us and implemented memories in our brains that do not involve them + that make most people disregard the possibility that aliens just did this manipulation.)

So you adopt the scientific method as a <method> that has been proven useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Also, Feyerabend reminds me of Feynman...
"Fey" \implies student fucker

>>7642070
Some anons seemed to be making the point that due to these problems, science should not be taken more seriously than other branches of thought.
e.g. saying 'science proves x=y' is not necessarily any better than saying 'Marx has shown y=z'
Apparently the scientific method is not impartial or neutral and is in fact an ideological tool of the powerful to enforce their own interests.
I just went there to talk about the Romans, but I got interested in a lot of the philosophy threads, and how people were not genuflecting to empirical research and being very skeptical of any claims of sciences superiority to other disciplines.

Surely fucking students is the only reason anyone goes into academia? Hawking knew he wouldn't get pussy on the street

File: david_hume.png (73KB, 200x206px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 200x206px

>is itself an ideology
a completely uncontroversial statement to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of philosophy of science

>not necessarily to be trusted
we knew there were problems with the scientific method long before Feyerabend was even born

>>7642127
>we knew there were problems with the scientific method
Of course. Nothing's perfect. The argument was that this meant that eg Derrida's deconstructions were just as valid a system of inquiry, and their findings should not be treated as of less value than scientific research

>>7641984
Feyerbend was just envious that humanity respects science much more then philosophy. Ultimately every criticism he made of science and its methodologies could very easily be made against his own positions, trapping us in a horrid epistemological hell were, yes, you really can't no nuffing.

File: vag_lube_stirner.png (570KB, 758x547px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 758x547px

>>7642117
I'd say Marxsim is a non-formal science (with axioms to delicate to calmly talk about it).

>is in fact an ideological tool of the powerful to enforce their own interests.
I'd say what "they" use is a system of which the method is part of, but that's not central to the economics.

>>7642137
we ultimately have to resort to the same crutches that most empiricists do in the face of the problem of induction: what's been more successful at uncovering new knowledge by some any given metric of success you care to examine

the "value" that we place in science is context dependent anyway. science tells us litlte to nothing about ethics, but philosophical research into ethics is still valuable

i think the question is just bait, honestly. claims that science is "superior to other disciplines" is either deliberate trolling or an ignorance so profound it's not worth acknowledging

>>7642155
>non-formal science
How does that differ from acupuncture?

And if the method is part of the system, how are they using it? Is there some conspiracy to falsify the results of experiments to suit their diabolical ends?

>>7642179
>How does that differ from acupuncture?
FYI, the man himself would have called you an elitist/racist for dismissing acupuncture, like he did with scientists who dismissed rain dance. In his opinion, science isn't equipped to answer these questions.

>>7642189
But acupuncture doesn't work any better than a placebo. It's hardly racist to dismiss it

>>7641984
>and not to necessarily be trusted
>trusted

I do believe you don't understand what science even [math]is[/math] and are probably holding a Aristotelian view that science somehow uncovers the source code of the universe. All science theories are are only models that break down when you push their domains out far enough.

http://theweek.com/article/index/268360/how-our-botched-understanding-of-science-ruins-everything