>tfw your science teacher in high school said that "a

>>8003056
What's wrong with it? A theory is a guess with varying degrees of evidence towards that guess. Gravity and evolution have a lot of evidence, my cats are aliens theory doesn't.

>>8003068
Lol,no. A theory is a fucking fact that has been proved mathematically. That's literally the definition of it, but fucking reatards walking around think it means the layman version of a guess

>>8003068
I'm referring to scientific theories. My bad I should have specified

>>8003069
>proved mathematically
no. you cannot "prove" or "verify" something in science. science is about models that resist all possible local falsation. if you want to know more about this look up philosophy of science, Popper and Hume etc.
it's easier to just tell laymen that "scientific theories are facts" but it's wrong. it's just to avoid the inevitable "HURR IF IT'S NOT FACT WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE IT?" retards

>>8003069
You're thinking of a "theorem". A scientific theory is different.

File: 1459646699051.jpg (87KB, 900x900px)

87KB, 900x900px

>>8003069
>theory is a fucking fact that has been proved mathematically

ayyyyy what's it like being 16?

>>8003056
Theory is an educated guess

>>8003094
>Still relying on popperism and falsifiability
Mate, philosophy of science has evolved since the last century. Start reading up about credibility you inbread fuck.

>>8003912
Not him but could you recommend some texts about credibility?

>>8003919
Any Bayesian book on statistical analysis.
There's plenty of lectures available online, and stuff on arxiv.

Little one to get you started
http://www.phas.ubc.ca/~oser/p509/Lec_05.pdf

>Young Earth Foundational Creationist Religious Boarding School
>Teacher puts on Kent Hovind videos
>Tells us Bible is all true, and Loch Ness Monster is real and a Dragon
>We're told to keep a scientific journal; really a diary of everything Kent Hovind says
>Mine includes corrections and challenges in red ink in the margins
>I receive an F for rejecting Creationism my last quarter of Senior Science

>>8003912
Not him, but you're wrong.
Only the Frankfurt School rejected Empiricism and Falsifiability, because the Frankfurt School stated that Logical Fallacies couldn't be Logical Fallacies because they contradicted Religious, Political, Social and Personal beliefs.
There is a sad and pathetic attempt to remove the Scientific Method from Science by:
- Social Scientists
- Establishment Anti-Progressives
- Third Wave Fallacy Using "Feminists"
- Religious and Political Parties
- Tax-Demanding Shortcut System Users [Government, Courts, Etc]
But you can't throw out Empiricism by using fallacies to commit straw attacks against a method that's been misused.
Popper explained this straw attack in detail in his articles in Falsifiability.

>>8003945
>sucking popper's dick this much

Read Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont.

In no way does saying science has advanced from the methods of falsifiability indicate you're a postmodernist frankfucker.

As a working scientist, it's impossible for me to be an empiricist. Just not enough time.
There are more nuanced arguments than popper's black and white view.

File: 02209180.jpg (10KB, 251x246px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 251x246px

>>8003056
My high school science teacher said that we couldn't melt rocks

File: willy-wonka-wilder.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>8003955
>Read Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont.
I have. It's full of logical fallacies.
Because they're Frankfurt Graduates you stupid fuck.
Do you even know what logical fallacies are?
Do you even have the slightest clue?

>In no way does saying science has advanced from the methods of falsifiability indicate you're a postmodernist frankfucker.
Yes, actually, that's all it CAN mean.
>We don't have to prove anything!
>Everything is either a social construct or true without proof!

Please, go on and tell me there's a flying spaghetti monster over my head.
Tell me the "argument from ignorance" isn't a fallacy.

>>8003992
You obviously don't work as a scientist. The old epistemology of scientific work took no account of the fact that people can't test every property of a system. Falsifiability is not a suitable method to allow us to conduct research.
New methods take into account that people can make intuitive conclusions about systems, and then use these to weigh the conclusions.

Don't try to argue from an idealistic standpoint.

Have you heard of the fallacy fallacy? Maybe you want to have a little read up on why pointing out logical fallacies is not an acceptable argument. I can tell you've never properly read up on philosophy.

>>8003955
And furthermore, they support the concept that empiricism was the only way to go, but the problem was that other members of the frankfurt school were using fallacies but calling it empiricism.

The book was an attack on expanding what science met, not attacking criticism of expansion, as per Popper.

The problem is that they failed because the critical theorists pointed out that the criticisms themselves used as many fallacies and the concepts that they were attacking.

You can't use any fallacies and call something a science, and expanding outside of empiricism automatically does that.
Sorry, the second you stop calling out flawed concepts that use the argument from ignorance, it's not longer science.

*facepalm*

>>8004007
>Falsifiability is not a suitable method to allow us to conduct research.
That's completely irrelevant.
>intuitive conclusions about systems
Yeah, that's call bullshit magical thinking, utilizing logical fallacies and biases in order to reach pre-conceived conclusions for money, grant, ego or groupthink purposes.

>Have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?
I'm not committing that fallacy. Pointing out a systemic issue is using or allowing fallacies is not a fallacy-fallacy.
You just committed the fallacy-fallacy fallacy.

>why pointing out logical fallacies is not an acceptable argument
Actually they are.
It criticized the method, not the conclusion.
>I can tell you've never properly read up on philosophy.
Really? Because you're way out of your element there.
You would know that criticizing methods that use fallacies is not equal to the fallacy-fallacy.
Again: It criticized the method, not the conclusion.

Apparently you don't understand empiricism or the socratic method.
Your conclusion can be COINCIDENTALLY correct, or not be found to be incorrect [or partially incorrect] but that doesn't mean the METHOD was correct.

If I were to dismiss -conclusions- based on ones uses of fallacies, then that would be the fallacy-fallacy.
But I'm criticizing the -method- to arrive at said conclusions.

True scientists and philosophers understand the importance of this.
You're a fraud trying to support "shifting data" bullshit.

File: bait.png (13KB, 622x626px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 622x626px

>Getting this riled up over obvious bait

>>8004015
I can't believe how many fallacy fallacies you're using right now!

The socratic method was disproved by lacan half a bloody century ago!

You can't just dismiss conclusions based on logical fallacies because the conclusions may still be true themselves. The only thing you can dismiss is the argument.

I do not support shifting data, but bayesian methods are the best way to go in modern science.

I bet you're a disgusting dirty frequentist aren't you

File: FORIDIOTS.png (613KB, 2696x1730px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 2696x1730px

>>8004007
Here, in case you don't fully understand.
The SJW Frankfurt Social Science Fallacy Using Support System at RationalWiki has gone full retard, and they refuse to correct their mistakes, even though it's been pointed out to them time and time again.

File: famous optical illusions.jpg (956KB, 2504x2212px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 2504x2212px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Learn the different you mongoloids.

>>8004018
>>8004026
Stop samefagging.
You can't use fallacies and have a rational argument.
The fallacy fallacy means you can't say the conclusion is wrong just because the argument is wrong, but you can criticize the argument itself without committing a fallacy fallacy.

So you're either trolling or you don't understand that logical fallacies basically mean presumptions; and if you don't understand that presumptions can be wrong, and sometimes particular types are inherently wrong to say they're proof or infallible, then there's something wrong with your reasoning ability.

The argument from ignorance is always an irrational argument.

>>8004026
>You can't just dismiss conclusions based on logical fallacies because the conclusions may still be true themselves. The only thing you can dismiss is the argument.

That is exactly what I said. I dismiss the method/argument, not the conclusion.

That is exactly what I said.
But I had the fallacy fallacy fallacy thrown at me when I said I can reject the argument/method.

So, you are a frequentist then?

>>8004032
Never take wiki at face value, always check their citations. Most of the time their citations are circular and the citation of the citation of the citation will be the wiki article itself.

Literally no fedora tipping troglodyte in this thread has real Karl popper

Read books before you spout garbage you regurgitate simplistic dogma from babbys favourite science high school science teacher

>tfw the problem of induction
>tfw scientists undervalue randomness when trying to get a paycheck by typing up the next big "theory"
>tfw literally nothing beyond math physics uses deductive reasoning

No much scientific theory is predicated in literal garbage.

This doesn't even address the fact that most professionals outside of statistics end up using stats improperly

>>8004045
>>8004032
Rational sjwiki is so bad

Their articles on anyone against feminism are crimes against the wiki name.

>>8004026
>Bayesian Methods rely on an entire network of fallacies and psychological effects, proven to hasten scientific progress!
Here is an illustration showing dozens and dozens of way researches end up falsifying data by ignoring what they don't want to see, and just rely on stereotyping!

If Bayesian methods were used to diagnose mental illness, then 100% of the population would fit the bill if 1 person accused them.
How do you not see the inherent error in that?

File: 9112168_orig.png (733KB, 1100x1592px)

733KB, 1100x1592px

>>8004051
Here is the image, I errored out.

>>8004049
Really? Because pro-Popper and Pro-fallacy-dismissing is what my entire argument was about.
To dismiss erroneous methods; not conclusions.
Check the thread you fraud.

>>8004051
Are you an idiot? No professional statistician worth anything uses statistics like this. It's about constructing arguments and using a variety of tools to grow the support for your claim. If someone tries to pull what you described then they're a shit social scientist and a product of an overcrowded university system

>>8004055
OK fair enough. I got triggered before I could finish it. I'm glad someone out there sees these flaws

>>8004054
>>8004051

Would you propose scientists try to falsify every theory in every way then?

You've read on arguments and fallacies, but you haven't on statistics.

Understand scientific methods before taking your epistemological baggage with you.

>>8004050
It's not just that.
RWIKI has tampered with and edited:
- Youtuber critics of fallacies
- Scientist Biographies that criticize uses of fallacies
- Anything related to SJW
- Anything related to political populism
- Anything related to emotion
- Anything related to animal or vegan woo
- Anything related to objective science
- Anything related to philosophy
It's become an echo chamber.
The bibliography sections even include outright insults, and the oppositional arguments contain picks at them with cynicism and straw arguments.

>>8004060
>Would you propose scientists try to falsify every theory in every way then?
Yes, that's call being thorough and intellectually honest.
>You've read on arguments and fallacies, but you haven't on statistics.
That's a presuppositional fallacy right there.
Yes I have actually, and there is an issue in statistics called "the problem of induction".

>Understand scientific methods before taking your epistemological baggage with you.
I do, but you seem to think you can rationalize equating presumptions as solid conclusions.
A presumption can never be a solid conclusion.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand why we need science and how it differs from irrational presumption.

>>8004057
YES THEY DO.
The social sciences do all the time!
Look at psychiatry for christ sakes!
Even if you present them with contrary evidence, they immediately move to Bulverism!
The Justice Department and Social Security had to team up and create the HEAT TASKFORCE to tackle medicare fraud because of the insane increase in fraud in psychiatry [costing medicare] because people that were accused by individuals looking up symptoms and lying about them just 'doctors' to lock people up based on statistics.
I mean, the DSM has statistics in it's name, and they're ALLOWED to ignore contrary data via bulverism fallacies!

And the majority of money based science practices find it hard not to do the same.
Look at news and see how many scientists are getting caught up in fraud due to statistics and data manipulation/misuse.
It's not funny.
I'm calling for a lockdown on science to be used with extreme scrutiny, not open it up to post-modern "interpretation".

>>8004067
You think scientists should falsify every theory? That's impossible. You have a very idealistic view of the universe if you think that you can find the infinite amount of data required to disapprove the infinity of explanations each situation can have.

I agree with you in principle, but it isn't practical. What you have to look at after discounting falsifiability is the best way to approximate that with our finite time.

>>8004077
No. I think if they can't falsify it they should put it on the back burner and not make claims.

It's called intellectual honesty.

I don't care what people's feelings, motives or reasons are, if they can't tackle something straight forward then they're playing games.

The Nash Equilibrium [applied to social/economic/personal goals] combined with Human Motivations and thrown into the mix, while removing falsifiability as a prerequisite automatically increases the number of pseudosciences and misinformation.
People lie; and without falsifiability, then everything becomes true.

>>8004089
You don't give credence to the idea that there are better and worse ideas then? Or do you think all ideas are equally valid?

I believe that some ideas are more appropriate than others, and because there isn't the time/method to disprove them all, we should use informed 'guesses' to sort the wheat from the chaff.

>>8004102
No. I believe people are either right or wrong.
I take into account people's psychology, motivations, and endgame obsessions when analyzing theories/ideas.

There are many egotists that believe their theories are inherently right due to personal incredulity and will both consciously and subconsciously do whatever it takes to tell tell the public XYZ.

I don't true any humans because humans have self-interest. Sometimes for greed, other times for egos, but mostly to save time.
One people reach a conclusions it's hard to shake people from it, and commonly people use common logical fallacies and cognitive biases in trying to support conclusions.
People are inherently intellectually dishonest, that's why had to create/discover science and testing in the first place. Intuition rarely cut it.

>>8004102
>Martha Mitchell effect
>Biases [Cultural, Inductive, Ego, Monetary]
These are serious issues

>>8004109
Sorry for all the grammar/spelling errors I haven't slept in 16 hours.

>>8004109
>>8004111

Ah, ok - this is coming from being burnt by social sciences.

As a physicist I don't expect bias in the papers I read, as we tend to just want to be correct. I can't imagine having to deal with a science where people are very influenced by money in their research, and not as much being correct.

Anyone coming up with a crackpot idea in physics is laughed out. We don't have to deal with agenda.

>>8004118
Well, I went in for STEM but came out in the Social Science field because of personal experience.
Terrible decision.
Just about everyone lies all the time, and people group up to engage in circular reporting.
I don't sleep anymore knowing these people influence our academic, social and legal systems.
It's taxing.
I have zero problem with statistics and induction being used in the physical sciences, but where I work... sometimes I cry.

>>8004131
Do you feel social science is ready as a science, or if not - is it moving on the way to become one?

From my point of view, I can see no building of a solid framework of ideas. Is there even a solid foundation for work in the different social science fields yet?

>>8004142
Not him but most social scientists can't grasp the need for a solid foundation. A few have an good understanding of evolution - which should be foundational, in my view.

The rush to find answers without establishing a proper scientific base has resulted in too many schools of social science and an excessive proliferation of overlapping yet unconnected theories.

>>8003806
hypothesis*

>>8004074

He said real scientists.

>>8003069
even theorems are based on axioms you retard

>>8004074
I said real scientists

Even medical professionals are incompetent at statistics. Most are machines designed to answer tests

A theory is a guess used to explain why various facts are.
For example, gravity was a theory to explain why an apple falls if you throw it up. It's a fact that an apple will fall if you throw it up, but that doesn't mean gravity is a fact.

>>8004461
That's a hypothesis

>>8003056

> Some biology teachers believe in creation

>>8003806
A hypothesis is an educated guess, a theory is an educated guess with a lot of evidence to support it

>>8005264
I have seen some science teachers that believe in creationism, but never a biology teacher. What the actual fuck? How do they reconcile the theory of evolution that they have to teach with their own beliefs? How would that even manifest in a class lesson?

>>8004142
I think the Soft/Social Sciences are internally motivated by [Social/Authoritarian] system justification rather than by the search for truth.

I believe a small percentage [of the most commonly researched social sciences] are actually scientific, and only when they lapse with a hard science or mathematics [neurology/reviewed statistics].

The field is saturated with confirmation bias and "good intentions but using shortcuts due to personal or group beliefs" machiavellian dishonesty.

Here are how I were score a few of the fields:
1.) Psychology 20/100
2.) Social Work 0/100
3.) [Non-neuro] Psychiatry 20/100
4.) Neuropsychiatry 50/100
5.) Sociology 10/100
6.) Anthropology 40/100
7.) Archaeology 20/100
8.) Ethnobiology 40/100
9.) Civics 50/100
10.) Criminology 20/100
11.) Socio-economics 50/100
etc... and the vast majority of the other categories and subcategories are >20/100.

>>8005288
I once made my creationist "science teacher" [no degree... well, one in chiropractic BS] flip out in a rage by leading him in a train of thought that lead to a shread of doubt in his religious beliefs.

I'm the guy from:
>>8003933

>>8005652
What's wrong with anthro and archeology?

If your teacher was some arts teacher, well that just some dumb ignorant fuck mouthing off shit they know nothing about.

If it was a science teacher, then that's you just being too stupid to fill in the blanks yourself.In that case have fun needing to be spoon fed all your life.

>>8005682
Anthropology has issues with circular reporting and declaring things "probably true" based on populist opinion rather than reason or evidence.
Often personal incredulity and false dilemmas are used to justify defaulting to populist opinion.

Archeology has always suffered from anachronistic expectations and cultural appeasement. Archeology has often been a battlefield of puffery and declarations.

>>8005702
Ahh thanks for clearing that up