How do you know the scientific method gives valid results? Especially

File: 1452832278967.png (20KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x400px

>>7838877
>it's another U CANNUT KNOW NUFFIN thread

>>7838887
>thinks "u can't know nuffin" is what philosophers think

>>7838877
>Science finds truths popsci meme

stop watching black science man

>>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.

A real shame.

File: 1423871368971.jpg (19KB, 501x302px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 501x302px

>>7838877
>How do you know the scientific method gives valid results?

>>7838877
Science gives valid results by definition in a way.

What is a valid result? It's a prediction that is correct within the given margin of error.

In science, when a prediction is out of the margin of error, we investigate and modify the model so that it gives better predictions, that's the scientific method.

If your question were, "How do you know that Science tells the truth?" The answer would have been, "I don't know and neither do I care"

>>7838877
you can prove it scientifically and then it must be true recursively.

>>7838917
This is the best answer in the literal sense,
>>7838912
and this is the best answer in the anagogical sense.

/thread

>>7838877

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?

>>7838938
This.

File: Picture17.png (46KB, 1302x768px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1302x768px

>>7838938
>empiricism is empirically verified

>>7838950
yeah, it is. planes fly, medicines work. money is made.

who the fuck do you think funds the sciences? philanthropists and dreamers? lol, no. its industry.

>>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.

File: Sam.png (895KB, 920x2492px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 920x2492px

>>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.

File: Aristotle.jpg (13KB, 236x274px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x274px

>>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.

File: 411ixacmfno.jpg (846KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1920x1200px

>>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.