What topics is /sci/ willing to debate about? Will /sci/ discuss

Is mathematics created or discovered?

Is mathematics a social construct?

File: 1423138156319.gif (44KB, 576x713px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 576x713px

>>7697053
>Will /sci/ discuss philosophy of science and epistemology?
There is nothing to discuss. You can repeat your "u cannot know nuffin" mantra ad infinitum, but don't ever expect scientists to care. We just continue to use the scientific method because it works regardless of whether some autistic "philosopher" fails to understand it.

>>7697084
>There is nothing to discuss.
I think there is a lot to discuss. What is scientific, and why should I trust scientific things? What about 'scientific authority'? What are the limits of peer review, and what should I do if we reach those limits?

>You can repeat your "u cannot know nuffin" mantra ad infinitum, but don't ever expect scientists to care.
Breaking out the strawmen already?

>image
Would you like to substantiate that statistic?

File: 1433480243057.jpg (27KB, 440x260px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 440x260px

>>7697126
>why should I trust scientific things?
Nobody forces you to believe in science. If you lack common sense and want to circlejerk with other denialists, do it on >>>/x/

philosophy is the poor man's science. a "what if" only goes as far as the speaker lets it, and by that he/she can move the goalpost further and further. ethics, on the same side, is filled with subjective bullshit which always, always boils down to "I am against that because i think it's wrong".
nothing is gained from philosophical debates, and it should entirely be viewed as banter to pass the time.

>>7697135
I'm not a denialist. Calling someone denialist for trying to understand science is so ironic that it induces a great deal of cynicism.

>>7697138
There is a better way to debate about ethics that has been effective in my experience. And it does not involve trying to force your perspective on other people, or argue that your perspective is objectively correct.

>>7697157
>better way to discuss about
But it still reaches no where. Ethics is about human nature and human nature is quantifiable.

>>7697157
Shut the fuck up, nobody is going to be impressed with your socratic regurgitations. If you want to understand the sciences, go read books. If you want to piss off people who are much smarter than you, go kill yourself.

>>7697166
>But it still reaches no where.
Oh, so you already know my method? Why don't you tell me all about it.

>Ethics is about human nature and human nature is quantifiable.
What human nature is also involves philosophical interpretation. I can readily demonstrate this with a series of very relevant questions.

>>7697176
Oh look, another underaged faggot thinks he's the master deb8er because he had some "deep" thoughts. If only you spent all that energy on studying science and math instead of shitposting about "muh philosophy"...

>>7697176
>Philosophical Interpratation
I you mean getting a formal definition to have a well established theory then no shit, scientists do this all the time. It is still arbitrary and not part of the rigour per se.

>Know your method
No I don´t know your method you smug faggot, but I care about results which, if we are going with modern theories, are just stating what everyone already knew; its all le relative. This comes from a lack of well defined terms leading to irrelevant questions.

Penne.

>>7697157

ethics are entirely subjective, what seems 'right' to me might seem 'wrong' for you, without any difference in objective information. the problem with a debate on something entirely subjective in difference is that there is no consensus which has any real meaning. There is no usable outcome, no piece of information which could be pursued, since it's all entirely up to how someone views objective data. arguing ethics is solely slinging emotional subtext within a piece of information towards someone else and hoping it sticks. every debate about ethics boils down to that simple action, that emotional shit flinging you call a debate. it doesn't matter how you your aim is, or how far your target is, in the end you are still throwing poo at eachother.

>>7697184
Do you think a scientist could go about defining human nature without making any philosophical implications?

Ethics may be relative, but that doesn't take away any incentive to persuade each other of our ethics, and there is a way we can reasonably do that.

I mastered the fundamentals of logic at age 12(ish) and constructed a system of ethics based purely on logic. I also smoke cigs and fuck sluts.

Debate me, faggot OP.

>>7697198
>There is no usable outcome, no piece of information which could be pursued, since it's all entirely up to how someone views objective data.
But what if a lot of people could view data the same way? Then, they would be in agreement about what is ethical, and that would give debating ethics some very clear use. And there is a way of changing the way people view ethical narratives. Though I can see why you think there is no such method: it requires a bit of intellectual co-operation, which people will seldom lend.

>>7697200
ethic as a whole have done nothing but shit on scientific research. you see it most prominent in wartimes, when ethics fade when it implies 'the enemy'. why do you expect us, /sci/, to give a shit about it?

>>7697200
>scientist could go about defining human nature
We don't have rigorous definitions for things like "particle" or "force" either, but scientists use these terms nonetheless and everyone knows what is meant. Natural language is not mathematics. Not everything needs to be defined precisely. In the same manner we can make scientific statements about human nature, e.g. on the basis of evolutionary biology.

>>7697230
>We don't have rigorous definitions for things like "particle" or "force"

pop sci fag status confirmed

please leave this board

>>7697220
>But what if a lot of people could view data the same way?
that would be the day every human being was dead.
this is a great example why debating this has no meaning. the premise you start with is objectively wrong. to get people to view something in exactly the same way they would need to be clones of eachother, brought up synchronous to the millisecond, from a passing leaf to some sand in their eyes. there is no way your premise could exist, so the argument you make following that premise has no fundament, and therefor entirely pointless.

>>7697241
I didn't say 'exactly the same way'; I just said 'the same way'. Specifically, I meant 'sufficiently the same way' such as to come to an agreement about what to do.

>>7697200
The point is that I could define human nature as the ratio of white matter to grey matter and make a whole theory named the theory of human nature based around these facts. The only implications it can have are scientific ones.

It is the same problem with the philosophical implications of quantum theory. Quantum theory doesn´t fit human intuition or basic human logic (informal and formal) and that´s the best knowledge we have about how nature works. Anything else that is "philosophically" extrapolated is useless and most of the time wrong. The extreme would be quantum mistic bullshit and all the new age shit. But modern scientist do not ponder much on the "interpretation" because is not falzifiable and it has only generated confusion in the difusion of this marvelous theory. It is just really hard to accept the universe is like it is nigga.

>>7697230
>Not everything needs to be defined precisely.
... As long as we all understand it the same way, of course. But I suspect that most people would not agree on what human nature is. And this is important, because it means that there would be controversy in saying you understood what human nature was, and consequently what was ethical.

>>7697275
>and consequently what was ethical.
Ethics is subjective "muh feelings" bullshit. Human nature does not imply "what was ethical" but on the contrary implies that ethics is a pointless endeavour.

>>7697279
I was only operating under >>7697166's presumption... I did not claim that human nature determines anything about ethics.

>>7697256
then we have the trouble of statistics: when would it be sufficient? would having that hot coffee in the morning alter your view? would seeing a documantary when you were little compare the same 'value' as someone having a talk with their granddad?
this is the main problem with philosophy: it presents a broad statement, but has no intention to validate this statement, but merely speculate on it's effects. why discuss something which has no basis in reality?