>biochemistry/biology/psychology/ neuroscience >a science

>>>/lit/
>>>/x/
fuck off philosotard

>>8212127

Math is a member of the philosophy set: M ∈ P

If something is falsifiable then it is scientific: F ⊃ S

If something is not falsifiable then it is unscientific: ~ F ⊃ ~S

If something is mathematical and falsifiable then it is scientific: (M · F) ⊃ S

If something is mathematical but unfalsifiable then it is unscientific: (M · ~F) ⊃ ~S

>>8212138
The perfect summary

>>8212137

>philosotard

I'm arguing against unscientific philosphy being passed off as science.

I'm arguing in favour of science.

How dense are you?

>>8212143
sorry I saw the word "philosophy" and flew off the handle

>>8212146

That's ok; it happens.

>>8212127
>>8212138
Yes.

>>8212127
biochemistry is pretty much the same thing as chemistry, just with proteins and gene sequences. It's all good.

Same with genetics from biology, but anything else is shit tier.

>>8212384

>reading comprehension

File: 1395185-633664073362858-1000977324-n.jpg (32KB, 500x720px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x720px

>falsifiability is a meme; fuck Popper

>>8212146
brainlet misfired LUL

>>8212874
philosotard detected
>>>>>/x/x/x/x/x/<<<<<

File: 1330987151.jpg (35KB, 500x309px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x309px

>>8212877
>muh ><>>/\V/xXXxxxx/ meme
LUL stay mad, brainlet xD

>>8212927
spiritualism is NOT science
>>>/x/

>>8212874
>>8212927
>>>/b/

Google is correct:
"Psychology is not a science. It's a subject area. And you can either study it scientifically or non-scientifically."

Also about a study from last year which made waves of shitposting on /sci/:

>In an attempt to determine the “replicability” of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology.
..
>Finally, the OSC used a “low-powered” design. When the four researchers applied this design to a published data set that was known to have a high replication rate, it too showed a low replication rate, suggesting that the OSC’s design was destined from the start to underestimate the replicability of psychological science.

Pretty interesting read:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/

>>8213073
>http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/03/study-that-undercut-psych-research-got-it-wrong/
>the OSC made some serious mistakes that make its pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted.

read much, faggot?

>>8213111
>What is misconstrue.

You also had 0 arguments in your sentences.

It's like you're not even from this planet.

>>8213119
>>8213119
The link I provided it's a set of arguments against the study from last year which suggests that 85% of psychology experiments have no replicability.

Is it hard to understand that?

>>8213124

I replied to three people, which one were you?

>>8213128
I am not the anon you replied to. I am an agent of chaos.

>>8213128
I am one of the anons, which you obviously did not understand.

>>8213127

>In an attempt to determine the “replicability” of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as the Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to reproduce the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology.

>Finally, the OSC used a “low-powered” design. When the four researchers applied this design to a published data set that was known to have a high replication rate, it too showed a low replication rate, suggesting that the OSC’s design was destined from the start to underestimate the replicability of psychological science.

I see; you were setting up the history of the study and the shitposting on /sci/.

My mistake.

>not only can you not read the thread, but apparently you can't even read your own sources.

Well now this is just golden.

Kek.

>>8213119

Apparently yes, but we don't.

>>8213131

Oh shi-

>>8213134

Yes, agreed.

I could say your post was a little ambiguous; however, the truth is I was too presumptuous.

>>8212871

I'm refuting that very sentiment.

>>8212877
>>8212954

Anon, read the thread:

>>8212143 (You)

>I'm arguing against unscientific philosophy being passed off as science.

This entire thread is dedicated to the promotion of science over unfalsifiable philosophy.

>>8213134
>>8213135

Statements retracted, anon.

My apologies once again.

>>8213135
It's greentext from the article, I wrote nothing in my post except the first few lines.

File: 1466031500898.jpg (239KB, 848x848px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 848x848px

>>8213145

Yes, understood.

>>8213149
No problem man, I didn't get angry or anything - I was expecting your to realize it anyway if I pointed it out.

File: 1467298706347.png (72KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x357px

>>8212927

>>8213168

Cool beans, bro.

I'd just woken up from a heat induced power nap so my brain wasn’t working properly.

>>8213203
It means you fucked up and entered in dream mode.

If you don't fall asleep in 10 - 15 minutes just fucking get up and do nothing instead of sleeping, still makes the brain restore the chemicals it needs.

File: 1454706247606.jpg (13KB, 285x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 285x320px

Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion. Deal with it and educate yourself, pop sci kid.

>>8212138
This is cringeworthy and wrong. Please keep your simpleminded misconceptions to yourself and stop spreading ignorance.

>>8213302

How can you have science without testability?

>>8213308

Not that anon, but what's wrong with it?

File: takingthebait.jpg (13KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 308x308px

>>8213302
>Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion
why? how? are you sure you are not a "pop-sci kid"?

>>8213302
>Falsifiability is simply a shitty and outdated criterion

what's the criterion then?

>>8212127
I hope rejecting biology and biochemistry entails rejecting modern medicine.

>>8213143
nice same fag

>>8213317

I was quoting myself, in order to highlight a previous post to another anon.

>>8213315

It would.

Medicine is a mess, due to approx 90% of studies being industry funded.

We can't even look at the methodology or stats analysis of most papers and have no idea how many negative studies have gone unpublished.

File: 1461555216347.jpg (24KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x320px

>>8213311
>>8213313
>>8213314
If you're even too dumb to duckduckgo criticisms against Popper's bullshit and to find the reasons why nobody in academia takes him seriously anymore, then I'm not gonna spoonfeed you. Perls before the swine.

>>8213324
So you are just talking bullshit. Thanks
I guess someone called you out on your bullshit "hypothesis" because it wasnt falsifiable and now you just claim it is an "outdated" criterion

>>8213327
Yeah I support man made global warming and some /pol/tard told me it's not falsifiable.

>>8213313
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/

>>8213332
You can believe whatever you want. In the scientific community things have to be AT LEAST falsifiable

>>8213342
Fuck you. Man made global warming is scientific. Falsifiability is not necessary.

>>8213346

Define scientific.

Do it now.

>>8213346
> Man made global warming is scientific
yeah, manmade global warming is what caused ice age to end....wait...

>>8213308

Plase explain what is wrong with it.

>>8213346
>Falsifiability is not necessary.
it is. At least if you want people to take your ideas seriously
>>8213358
what are you even on about? nobody is talking about the ice age. Are you implying that the fact that the climate is always changing means, that humans cant possibly have an effect on it?

>>8212138

This is absolutely correct; ignore this >>8213308 anon.

>>8212138

This is absolutely wrong; ignore this >>8213390 anon.

>>8213391

No reason provided; statements disregarded.

>>8213390
No reason provided; statements disregarded.

jesus christ, can somebody please tell me what's wrong with this >>8212138 ?

>>8213430
The first three sentences are wrong. Using pseudo-formal notation doesn't hide this fact. Just like writing "unicorns exist" with an existential quantifier doesn't make it less wrong.

>>8213442

How are they wrong?

Please expand on this; I am genuinely interested, anon.

>>8212138

The first sentence is incorrect.

I'd change this to:

Math is a tool used by humans, in order to expatiate our powers of logical reasoning.

If something is falsifiable then it is scientific: F ⊃ S

If something is not falsifiable then it is unscientific: ~ F ⊃ ~S

If something is mathematical and falsifiable then it is scientific: (M · F) ⊃ S

If something is mathematical but unfalsifiable then it is unscientific: (M · ~F) ⊃ ~S

>>8213457
>If something is falsifiable then it is scientific
What do you even mean by "it is scientific"?
falsifiability is a criterion for hypothesis in the scientific context. It alone doesnt make something a proper hypothesis

Ok so which one is more scientific? Computer science or biology?

:^)

Philosophy, psychology, psychiatry. Great fields. I wouldn't argue they're necessarily science but philosophy is, in my mind, equal to science in how interesting it can be. Meanwhile psychology and psychiatry, while valid medical professions, are hard to reproduce and rely on some shreds of subjectivity. As a result, you COULD argue they're not science. Personally, I wouldn't, because it's semantics to argue if a field rooted naturally in the sciences is a science.

However, you could also hypothesize that philosophy, too is a science. Not one in the most natural of senses, but it is a study and observation of current structures and ways of thinking and believing. Put simply, philosophy is the science of science and modern thought (this can arguably be labelled epistemology) external to thought structures examined in psychology. Because while psychology examines disorder, philosophy explains why disorder occurs from less of a medical perspective and more an introspective one.

Again, though. They're not easily reproducible and rely on subjectivity. Specifically, I'm talking about psychology and psychiatry because philosophy doesn't even meet the bare minimum of subjectivity.

Anyway, final point: if you're truly taking opinions on what is and what isn't a science from 4chan, and taking it to heart, you're probably not ready for the sciences anyway.

>>8213445
First of all, math and philosophy are not sets, let alone math being a subset or even an element of philosophy. Secondly, falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific". Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

>>8213476

>are hard to reproduce and rely on some shreds of subjectivity.
> They're not easily reproducible and rely on subjectivity
[citation needed]

>However, you could also hypothesize that philosophy, too is a science.

Unfalsifiable = not science.

>>8213476

>if you're truly taking opinions on what is and what isn't a science from 4chan

I'm not; I'm attempting to inject some reason into this shithole.

>>8213496

>Secondly, falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific".

Well then, how do you define science?

>Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

Ok, will do.

>>8213499
>[citation needed]
Anyone with a shred of knowledge in psychiatry and psychology, even at the highschool level, should know that the unconscious is immeasurable and attempts to measure it in the most literal sense are not psychology, but neuroscience. It's so basic knowledge that you can just google it yourself (I'm not at home and will cite it when I am, I promise -- and if I can't find anything I admit defeat).
>I'm attempting to inject some reason into this shithole.
Good luck.

>>8213476
You have no idea what philosophy is.

IF SOMETHING IS NOT TESTABLE THEN IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Agree?

>>8213516
You have no idea what philosophy is

>>8213496

>Please read about the refutations of Popper's nonsense.

There isn't a single valid one.

If you disagree, please provide one.

>>8213516
Good point, I actually don't. My knowledge of philosophy is limited to postmodernists.

From what I know, philosophy is the study of why it happens, how it happens, and what will happen, without as much scientific involvement as other (arguably, and I'm not a student of physics) predictive fields like physics.

>>8213496
>falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific"
>>>/x/

>>8213541

>the study of why it happens, how it happens, and what will happen

No, that's science.

Philosophy is based on informal logical hypotheses that can't be tested.

Therefore, it is useless.

>>8213534
Nobody knows what philosophy is. We cannot know nuffin.

>>8213548
>Therefore, it is useless

It changed my fucking life tho.

>>8213550

How?

Please tell me.

File: 1463509829624.jpg (45KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 240x320px

>>8213541
>My knowledge of philosophy is limited to postmodernists.

>>8213546
Your ignorance of science is showing. I'm not even talking about fringe science.

>>8213580

Please state one scientific theory that is unfalsifiable.

Nobody has managed to do this throughout this entire thread.

>>8212127
>Falsifiability is a meme

No it isn't.

>>8213583
Evolution. Someone else already mentioned "man made" climate change as well.

>>8213603

Evolution is entirely falsifiable and has an abundance of evidence supporting it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>8213603

>If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.

>If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.

>If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.

>If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.

>If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

You're an idiot, anon.

>>8213615
>Evolution is entirely falsifiable
Macroevolution isn't, because it makes no predictions. It is merely a theory about the past. Your claim is like saying history is falsifiable.

>and has an abundance of evidence supporting it.
I never doubted this.

>>8213603

Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.

>>8213622

>Macroevolution

Ok, creationist detected.

>>8213620
>>If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
Mutations have been observed many times, so this clearly could not be shown.

>>If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
This has also been observed already.

>>If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
This has also been observed.

>>If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
Again observed.

>>If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
Observed.

I don't think you understand what falsifiability means.
1. "If all our evidence we already collected in the past magically vanished" is not a falsification. It's not even possible.
2. Even if it was possible, then it wouldn't be a falsification because falsification means a contradiction with the theory's predicitons. Lack of evidence is not a contradiction.

>>8213623
So what? Somehow they must have evolved earlier. We'd find an explanation within the framework of evolution.

>>8213625
Strawman detected.

>>8213615
> has an abundance of evidence supporting it
No there isn't. There's only bacteria mutating their cell walls and thats it, thats the only demonstrable measurable evidence you have in favor of evolution and its pretty flimsy.

I believe in evolution but get your facts straight. There is no abundance of evidence for evolution. Fossils are entirely up to interpretation and has tons of missing links wheres over 90% of the transition fossils are nowhere to be found. This is why people like Dawkins have a hard time trying to support evolution when creationists ask for evidence(even though they don't bother showing theirs)

>>8213633
If you studied evolution beyond high school level, there's certainly more evidence than your cell wall example.

>>8213639
Show me the observable and testable evidence you have for evolution.

>>8212127
I'm planning on becoming an Applied Mathematician in dynamical systems or something and I'd never call myself a scientist. I know I'm not a scientist nor do I care if I am. I've met professors and people, however, who have studied Mathematics and identify as scientists and I just find that to be almost incorrect.

>>8213641
You can start from wikipedia article "Experimental evolution". Michael R. Rose's research group has done some nice work.

I'm leaving /sci/.

Goodbye and good luck everyone.

>>8213603
>Evolution.
A real case of irreducible complexity would falsify it.

>>8213633

>missing links

You have no real understanding of evolution.

>>8213691
Nope. We'd just assume that it evolved.

>>8213580
yes you do
>falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific"

>>8213603
both falsifiable

>>8213703
If you still believe in Popperian falsificationism, then you're simply ignorant. This shit has been obsolete for more than 50 years now.

>>8213707
wrong, think again

>>8213710
Thats bullshit. You cant just come up with some random hypothesis that nobody could possibly prove wrong and call it "scientific"
>>>/x/

>>8213712
how is that wrong?
I dont want to repeat what other anons said already. So please ellaborate first how it is not falsifiable

>>8213713
I didn't claim that every bullshit is scientific. Learn to read, idiot.

>>8213714
What other anons said so far was wrong and has been refuted in this thread. But let's turn to the other problem: "man made" climate change. How would you disprove that it is man made? There is no possible falsification.

>>8213718
>falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be "scientific"

>>8213721
Yes, that's what I said. What do you not understand?

>>8213720
>has been refuted
lol no. where?

You could very well prove that that things like CO2 have no effect on climate. You could also prove that humans dont increase the amount of things like CO2 in the atmosphere.

evolution:
for example:
>>8213691

>>8213730
>You could very well prove that that things like CO2 have no effect on climate
CO2 has already been proven to have an effect on the climate.

>You could also prove that humans dont increase the amount of things like CO2 in the atmosphere.
Again, it has already been proven by observation that humans do increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your argument boils down to saying that "If our evidence we collected in the past instantaneously vanished and was deleted from our memories" would be a falsification. Which is wrong because 1. that's impossible and 2. this still doesn't falsify the hypothesis.

>>8213723
So what is it you dint understand? If falsifiability isnt important, then you could just come up with some random hypothesis that nobody could possibly prove wrong and call it "scientific". Thats stupid and wrong
>>>/x/

>>8213737
>If falsifiability isnt important, then you could just come up with some random hypothesis that nobody could possibly prove wrong and call it "scientific"
This does not follow logically. You must have failed the logic section of the IQ test.

>>8213737
Can you please stop polluting /sci/ with your shitty strawmen? This board's quality is already at an all-time low.

>>8213736
>CO2 has already been proven to have an effect on the climate.
yeah, so? Something being theoretically falsifiability, doesnt mean it IS proven wrong.

>it has already been proven by observation that humans do increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
exactly. see above. Whats your point?

Something being falsifiable doesnt necessarily mean that it will be proven wrong. Holy shit, anon

>>8213743
Not sure if trolling ...

If an observation has already been made, then the negation of said observation is absolutely impossible, even hypothetically. Look up what falsifiability actually means.

>>8213739
it does

>>8213740
this is also (You)

Please explain how it is a strawman or doesnt follow.
You say falsifiability is not important for something to be "scientific". Therefor something that isnt falsifiable (hypothesis that nobody could possibly prove wrong), could by your logic be called "scientific". Thats /x/-tier shit

>>8213749
Please learn some basic logic or set theory. I'm not willing to talk to someone who is either baiting or mentally dysfunctional.

>>8213746
>Something being falsifiable doesnt necessarily mean that it will be proven wrong

How do you not understand this. Just because the hypothesis was already proven right, doesnt mean it isnt falsifiable.
But make one experiment/ find one planet, where for example CO2 doesnt act like a "greenhouse gas" and it is disproven.
Have one year that totally goes against the trends of our current model and the theory is at least weakened

>>8213752
You seem to be unable to distinguish between the observations which led to a theory, and said theory's predictions. I am not willing to debate someone who lacks such fundamental conceptions of abstraction.

>>8213750
What a intelectual dishonest non-reply. You cant even explain how I was wrong or illogical. You samefagged and now pull the "I'm smarter than you anyway, I dont have to explain my reasoning" card. Thats really pathetic
>>>/x/

File: 1445039074170.png (53KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 625x626px

>>8213758

>>8213757
I am not. You are not willing to argue, because you ran out of arguments.
You didnt even respond to my points. BTFO
>>>/x/

>>8213759
Thats just sad. Any points to make?

>>8213760
>>8213763
If you want to waste your time trolling, that's fine. Just look for another victim. Sure someone else is gonna fall for it. You're free to come back once you're willing to accept logic.

>>8213766
Explain what was illogical.
You are basically resorting to namecalling, while ignoring all the points I made.
You are the troll here

>>8213766
see
>>8213758

File: 1468688792400.jpg (36KB, 493x342px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 493x342px

>/sci/ is so epistemologically ignorant that they still believe in Popper's falsificationism
holy shit, just nuke this board

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#KarPop
>Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science (Hansson 2006) and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific (Agassi 1991; Mahner 2007, 518–519). Strictly speaking, his criterion excludes the possibility that there can be a pseudoscientific claim that is refutable. According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it “has the untoward consequence of countenancing as ‘scientific’ every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions”. Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted (Culver and Ianna 1988; Carlson 1985). Similarly, the major threats to the scientific status of psychoanalysis, another of his major targets, do not come from claims that it is untestable but from claims that it has been tested and failed the tests.

>Logical falsifiability is a much weaker criterion than practical falsifiability. However, even logical falsifiability can create problems in practical demarcations. Popper once adopted the view that natural selection is not a proper scientific theory, arguing that it comes close to only saying that “survivors survive”, which is tautological. “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (Popper 1976, 168).

>>8213780
Yeah, fuck Popper.

Scientific hypothesis still need to be falsifiable.

Guys GUys!

God is now a scientific theory! Cant prove him wrong? Doesn't matter!

File: 1454519156832.jpg (21KB, 609x621px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 609x621px

>>8213785
Very true, anon. Science is whatever we want to believe science is.

>>8213783
Anon posted examples of hypotheses which are considered scientific even though not falsifiable.

>>8213788
According to some people itt, yes

>>8213789
Which? Evolution? Thats falsifiable

>>8213780

>falsifiability = it is refutable and therefore scientific
>psuedosciece can be packaged into a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore be deemed scientific
>therefore falsifiability is inadequate

Is this why people have been losing their shit over falsifiability?

Let's expand on how science works:

1) Draw up an informally logical and falsifiable hypothesis that may or may not include a formally logical mathematical model.

2) Design an experimental or observational study in order to test the predictions of the aforementioned hypothesis.

3) Subject the results of said experiment/observations to statistical analysis and the methodology to informal logical analysis, in order to check the viability of the experimental design and determine whether the results are positive or negative and to what degree.

4) Repeat experiment and design new experiments.

5) Subject the results and methodology of all studies pertinent to one area of study to systematic review and meta-analyses.

6) Refer to hypotheses with a high degree of supporting evidence as theories.

7) Pat yourself on the back as you now have a pretty good idea of how things work, but keep testing theories and thinking up new approaches to unsolved problems.

8) Ignore shit posters on /sci/

So, a falsifiable hypothesis based around psuedosciece will fall at the third hurdle.

It doesn't matter if aspects of pseudoscience packaged in hypothesis can be considered scientific, as they will fail when it comes to testability.

>>8213954
By this reanoning we should consider all of today's science "pseudo" because it might happen that someone in the future finds evidence falsifying our hypotheses.

>>8213954

>testability

I mean fail when it comes to being tested.

As they will already be testable.

They will fail when it comes to evidence, is what I mean.

>>8213968

Today's science is backed up by evidence.

Psuedosciece is not.

There's your difference.

>>8213974
If "falsifiability" is your only criterion, then evidence is irrelevant.

>>8213977

Anon, read my original post.

Evidence is what separates hypotheses from theories.

Theories are what we base our decisions and beliefs on.

There is the separation.

>>8213954
In this paradigm, """"""man made"""""" climate change fails somewhere between step 1 and 2. Since it makes no testable predictions.

>>8213982
So you agree that Popperian falsificationism is bullshit?

>>8213983

I honestly don't care about global warming, but ok.

>>8213985

It applies to hypotheses and is a necessary aspect of science; however it is not the all encompassing definition people claim it to be.

There needs to be evidence for a theory and therefore for polished science.

>>8213968
not at all

> it might happen that someone in the future finds evidence falsifying our hypotheses.
thats needed to make it a scientific hypothesis.
It not being falsifiable would be pseudoscience

>>8214017
Then astrology has to be scientific, since its hypotheses are falsifiable.

>>8214023
see
>>8213954

there is more to it

>>8214023

But it has no supporting evidence.

Therefore, we (scientifically minded jazz players) don't base decisions or beliefs on it.

>>8214025
I don't see how there is more. Please explain.

>>8214023
I dont know much about astrology. How is it falsifiable? Isnt it about how "space magic" manipulates our lifes?

>>8214026
In Popper's view evidence doesn't matter. All you need is falsifiability.

>>8214029
see
>>8213954

this anon summarized the steps quite decent. What exactly is your problem?

>>8214031
Every horoscope is full of predictions. Some of them turn out to be right, others turn out to be wrong.

>>8214035
Why do you bring up Popper again and again and again?

see
>>8213783

>>8214039
My problem is that I don't see the difference between astrology and quantum mechanics in his step-by-step manual. You can set up both to follow these steps. So why is one science while the other is pseudo-science?

>>8214043
Because OP mentioned Popper and the discussion has been about Popper and Popper is a retarded piece of shit and everyone who takes him seriously is a cancerous reddit pop sci moron.

>>8214040
Yeah, but what is the actual hypothesis? I dont know shit about it. I assume it is some spiritual shit about stars and planets

>>8214044

Because astrology has no evidence to support it.

>>8214047
What do you mean "actual hypothesis"? Every horoscope is full of different hypotheses.

>>8214046
ah, oh.

but again, see
>>8213783

>>8214050
By point 6 it then is only a "hypothesis" and not a "theory" yet. Where's the problem? A "hypothesis" is still scientific.

>>8214040

You need a hypothesis anon, not just a prediction.

>>8214046

OP didn't mention Popper.

>>8214057
>You need a hypothesis anon, not just a prediction.
Every prediction is a hypothesis.

>OP didn't mention Popper.
Nice illiteracy. Read the 5th line.

>>8214044
Astrology is entirely based on wild assumptions, cant make predictions and doesnt even try to explain anything

>>8214051
Astrology
not individual horoscopes. They are just predictions based on astrology

>>8214061
1. Horoscopes are full of predictions.
2. Neither Popper nor >>8213954 says anything about the quality of "assumptions" or the necessity of explanatory power. Those are apparently not needed in order to call something "science".

>>8214056
it already fails at point 2

>>8214063
Astrology claims that reasonably many horoscope predictions will be true. This has been confirmed many times.

>>8214066
It doesn't. The observation is simple. Just read the horoscope and wait whether it turns out to be right or wrong. Simple experiment.

>>8214064
>Horoscopes are full of predictions
but they are wrong or articulated in a way, that they are completely meaningless

It cant make predictions

>>8214073
There is nothing meaningless about them. Every sentence in them has a meaning the reader can relate to. They turn out to be right more often than wrong.

>>8214072
yeah, and it fails

>>8214060

No anon, a hypothesis is not a prediction.

A hypothesis is an explanation.

An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined.

A prediction made by a hypothesis is a statement about an uncertain event, which can then be tested.

>>8214076
Often it accurately predicts what happens.

>>8214078
>No anon, a hypothesis is not a prediction.
But a prediction is a hypothesis. A implies B but B doesn't necessarily imply A. Learn formal logic, bro.

>A hypothesis is an explanation.
Of course not. But nobody ITT, nor Popper, demanded that science needs to be explanatory.

>>8214075
how dense are you? They are totally meaningless. Most of the stuff can be interpreted in many different ways and are purposfully vague.

>>8214078

In addition, the reason astrology is pseudoscience is because it does not provide a hypothetical explanation for how it is expected to work.

Also, the horoscopes are written so ambiguously and generally that they pretty much apply to everyone in some way.

>>8214084
>Often it accurately predicts what happens.
No shit. Because it is phrased in a way, that it is always right. It is a simple scam.

>>8214085
The vagueness makes them even more meaningful. This way they convey much more and deeper information.

>>8214086
>it does not provide a hypothetical explanation
As said many times already, "explanations" are not necessary for the classification of "science" or "pseudo-science". Popper only demands falsifiability, and that anon with the list only demands falsifiability + data.

>they pretty much apply to everyone in some way.
That's even better. More evidence that they work.

>>8214084

Anon, you are redefining the term 'hypothesis'.

The explanatory aspect is implied by the hypothetical aspect.

A hypothesis is an explanation.

That is how it is defined.

>>8214089
It is most certainly a scam, but that's not the issue here. We're talking about philosophy of science.

>>8214095
>A hypothesis is an explanation.
No, that would be an "explanatory hypothesis". I can claim "tomorrow the sun will rise". That's a hypothesis. It is also a prediction. But it doesn't explain shit.

>>8214091
No. Astrology doesnt make precis predictions. Every newspaper has different predictions and they are all vague as fuck. It is not falsifiable. There shouldnt be any room for interpretation. Either the prediction is wrong or right

>>8214105
Of course it's falsifiable. Read the horoscope and wait to see whether its predictions were right. Why do you pretend to be so dense?

>>8214101

>No, that would be an "explanatory hypothesis".

A hypothesis is an explanation.

Saying 'explanatory hypothesis' is like saying 'wet water'.

>I can claim "tomorrow the sun will rise". >That's a hypothesis

No anon, it's a prediction.

Why the sun rises is a hypothesis.

That it will rise is a prediction.

>>8214099
ok. but the point is, it cant make predictions. If you say something extremely vague, that will most likely happen, but is based on pretty much nothing. Thats not a prediction in the scientific context. Thats using common sense to make a good guess

>>8214108
The horoscopes are not the hypothesis. The horoscopes arent predictions in the scientific sense either.

>>8214110
So general relativity is also not a scientific hypothesis? It only gives a mathematical description but not an explanation. It says space and time will behave like this. But it doesn't ultimately say why. Your idea of what a "hypothesis" is is false.

>>8214111
>>8214114
How is it not a prediciton? It makes a claim about events in the future.

>>8214108
see
>>8214105
>>8214111
>>8214089

>>8214119
see
>>8214120

>>8214115

Anon, you are so fucking dense and uninformed I honestly want to euthanise you.

General relativity explains a fucking smorgasbord of observable phenomena and makes predictions, that have been verified by experimentation.

Honestly, you can fuck off now; you've achieved your goal of being profound.

>>8214119
>How is it not a prediciton?

literally answered in the posts you replied to
>arent predictions in the scientific sense
>f you say something extremely vague, that will most likely happen, but is based on pretty much nothing. Thats not a prediction in the scientific context. Thats using common sense to make a good guess

>>8214120
>>8214122
You can't just repeat statements I already refuted.

>>8214125
General relativity merely describes how spacetime behaves. It doesn't explain the why.

>>8214129
You didnt refute them. You keep asking the same question

>>8214126
Those posts didn't answer shit. They merely repeated a demonstrably false claim. Any prediction about the future is a testable, and thus scientific, hypothesis.

>>8214134
See >>8214135

Also, you fixing idots:

A prediction is a statement made about an uncertain event, not a statement about a certain event.

Horoscope 'predictions' are simply statements about certain events that are realised every single day, framed as though they are explaining the uncertain.

Statements made in horoscopes are based on things that humans are certain to experience; it's simply a numbers game.

They are not predictions.

On top of this, that's also why we have statistics.

The 'predictions' made by horoscopes are actually based on known events that humans experience very commonly.

Therefore, the horoscopes are merely making statements about certain events, not uncertain ones.

I hate you all.

>>8214135
>They merely repeated a demonstrably false claim
demonstrate it

>Any prediction about the future is a testable, and thus scientific, hypothesis.
no. Thats not how hypothesis is defined
see
>>8214095

You are walking in circles.

>>8214140
>Horoscope 'predictions' are simply statements about certain events that are realised every single day, framed as though they are explaining the uncertain.
Things like "you will find a new friend today" are not certainties in the common sense of the word. On the other hand you might say that everything is determined (scientific determinism) and then every prediction made by a correct scientific hypothesis is a certainty, thus again invalidating your stance.

>>8214140
Everybody knows this, except this one faggot here
>>8214119

>>8214143
>no. Thats not how hypothesis is defined
If you redefine the word "hypothesis" for your own purposes, that's fine. But don't expect others to take you seriously.

>>8214147
Thats what you did, tho. You claimed:
>Any prediction about the future is a testable, and thus scientific, hypothesis.
thats wrong you retard. look it up

>>8214132

Here's just three things that it explains:

>the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit

>the deflection of light by the Sun

>the gravitational redshift of light

It also makes predictions, here's just one of them:

>gravitational lensing

You have been corrected, anon.

>>8214147
>A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
kill yourself, brainlet

>>8214152
Then tell me how general relativity is a "hypothesis" in your (wrong) meaning of the word. Because it only postulates that space and time behave in a certain manner but doesn't explain a causal why to this behaviour.

>>8214154
No, those were predictions and not explanations. At no point does it explain why space and time obey the "laws" Einstein proposed.

>>8214144

>Things like "you will find a new friend today" are not certainties in the common sense of the word

It is certain that X amount of people will meet somebody new on any given day.

>On the other hand you might say that everything is determined (scientific determinism) and then every prediction made by a correct scientific hypothesis is a certainty, thus again invalidating your stance

You have no idea what determinism is.

>>8214155
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
>an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
>an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
>an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
>a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
>the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
kys brainlet

>>8214160
>It is certain that X amount of people will meet somebody new on any given day.
That's not certain at all.

>You have no idea what determinism is.
Cool projection m8.

>>8214158

>No, those were predictions and not explanations.

General relativity explains what it predicts, anon.

You're now redefining the term 'explain'.

General relativity explains gravitational attraction and planetary motions too.

>At no point does it explain why space and time obey the "laws" Einstein proposed

That's not what general relativity attempts to explain.

It attempts to describe the nature of space and time, while explaining numerous phenomena and making predictions.

If you want to know why space-time exhibits the curvature it does, or why certain laws are the way they are then you'll need another hypothesis/theory.

>>8214169

Contribute or fuck off.

>>8214182
>General relativity explains what it predicts, anon.
That's a vacuous statement, and it actually doesn't. Predictions are not explanations. Descriptions are not explanations. You can derive some shit mathematically in GR but that doesn't really explain it.

>General relativity explains gravitational attraction and planetary motions too.
No, it only describes them in a certain mathematical framework.

>It attempts to describe the nature of space and time, while explaining numerous phenomena and making predictions.
So its "explanations" are based on arbitrary assumptions? Well, then they're not real explanations.

>>8214188

You're either trolling or an idiot.

Well done lad m8; you win either way.

Goodbye.

>>8214195
>You're either trolling or an idiot.
Pretty much sums up the entire field of "philosophy of science".

>>8214158
general relativity is a theory

>>8214165
We are talking about scientific hypothesis. And none of your definitions say it as prediction either. You really shot yourself in the foot, brainlet

>>8214212
>>a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
This obviously describes predictions.

>>8214208
But it's not even a hypothesis, as it doesn't really "explain".

>>8214219
See >>8214227

>>8214227

>A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

>Hilborn, Ray; Mangel, Marc (1997). The ecological detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-691-03497-3. Retrieved 19 July 2016.

Go fuck yourself, anon.

>>8214256
I already linked an actual dictionary definition in >>8214165

>ecological
Hahaha.

File: 1461817022084.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>8214256
>Source: a pop sci book

>>8214290
>>8214294

It's mathematical biology, applied to ecology.

The entire book is based on mathematical modelling and computerised modelling.

It's not a popsci book.

>>8214323
Math is not a science though, and poorly applying statistics is not even math.

>Hypothesis

>A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypothesis

Now you can go fuck yourself.

Dear fucktard,

As for your retarded as fuck comments about GR:

>description

1) A spoken or written account of a person, object, or event.

1.1) The action of giving a spoken or written account.

>describe

1) Give a detailed account in words of.

2) Mark out or draw (a geometrical figure).

>explain

1) Make (an idea or situation) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts.

1.1) Give a reason so as to justify or excuse.

1.2) Be the cause of or motivating factor for.

>explanation

1) A statement or account that makes something clear.

2) A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com

Based on the above definitions of these terms and this definition of hypothesis >>8214357 the statements made here >>8213954 remain valid, GR both describes and explains, as well as makes predictions and all of your arguments are void.

You can kill yourself now.

>>8214408
well put, anon.

ayy >>8214290 BTFO faggot!

>>8214408
Sorry, I don't understand your post. Could you please post the dictionary defintion of "dictionary"?

>>8214427

Oh sure thing lad m8:

>A book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

>>8214227
nope

>>8213073
Psychology is a social science as well as a subject area so you can study Freud and Jung etc. non-scientifically aka as a "pseudoscience" (-karl popper) and you can study other parts scientifically (with falsifiability) but you cannot study the or practice psychology on-a-whole unscientifically.
Also part of psychology is biopsychology and the study of the cns+pns+sns. So all in all, some practices performed only by some psychologists may be unscientific but psych is a science.