Science is kind of bullshit

>>8598405

Prove you wrong for what? Of your opinion?

>>8598420
That empirical science is not, on it's face, bullshit

It's great for making things like microwaves, but it's just useless for determining absolute truths. We know gravity works because it deforms space-time, but we don't know why the fuck it does that. Even the scientific model of gravity is kind of shitty, because it can't explain the rotational speed of the outer rim of the galaxy (the stars should be flying into space but don't). We need to make up shit like Dark Matter to make it fit.

Before you get on my ass, Dark Matter is absolutely invented horseshit.

>>8598405
>conventionalism
>empricism

If you continue on the same plane everything is bullshit
But science is still less bullshit than anything

Yeah the extreme trust on science might be misleading for brainlets, but still it is still necessary for pragmatic reasons

>>8598430
Do you really think you're educated enough to state "the scientific model of gravity is kind of shitty"?

You're saying shit like "it can't do this, it can't do that, blah blah blah" but do you really understand what you're saying? You just read some pop-sci article and now you think that you're qualified to discuss the intricacies of modern gravitational theory?

>>8598439
You're free to address my criticism, but please don't engage in attacks on my character, thanks.

>>8598430

Define absolute truth.

>>8598461
There is no language to do so yet. That is one of the problems with science. It relies too much on the language of math which, while again useful, is not adequate.

You can not explain why a flower is beautiful with maths.

>>8598430
Making shit up is literally hiw science works. Built on crackpot ideas.

>>8598430
You also misuse absolute truths and misidentify a strength as a flaw. Go back to your mothers teet paeon

>>8598452
He didnt attack your character

>>8598468
Yes you can. Absolute truths dont exist either.

>>8598468

The great truth is there isn't one.

>>8598475
To clarify

Instead of addressing the question of "why does classical gravity break down at great distances" he chose to attack my lack of qualifications.

>>8598485
Hes probably right. Plus, why theories cant explain things and why they can build things are in the same ballpark. You cant criticise one and praise the other. Its just a fact of life we dont know everything.

>>8598485
Your criticism of gravity has nothing to do with absolute truths and all to do with microwaves. You half empty or half full?

>>8598494
>You half empty or half full?
The engineer is me says I'm twice as big as I need to be

>>8598499
Are you a cybernetician?

>>8598491
>Its just a fact of life we dont know everything.
My main criticism is that science won't be the thing that leads us to Complete Understanding. But you have guys like Stephen Hawking saying "philosophy is dead", like the argument is over. Doing this, even for pragmatic reasons, seems to me incredibly stupid and dangerous to critical thought.

>>8598499
I mean that you can either look on sciences achievements optimistically i.e we build microwaves, or pessimistically i.e. we dont know shit about gravity in galaxies.

>>8598516
Understanding of what though? Subjectively? Yes thats philosophy (or in that sphere). Science was never meant to do that. Theres no inherent objective meaning. People often think evolution gives that but it doesnt.

File: venndiagram.png (9KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 263x192px

>>8598524
A fusion of the physical and metaphysical realms.

I made a picture to illustrate this.

>>8598536
No. That makes no sense. The first step to truth is realising there is none. You create your own framework of how you see the world and theres no reason to think that picture is the key. There is not even a dichotomy necessarily. The problem is when people claim their frameworks as absokute or universal or make unsubstantiated claims in science. God i
Bridges both. It shapes peoples moral subjective views and oughts yet claiming god exists immediately brings it into the realm of science. Any "is" is in the realm of science or secular evidence based academia no matter what certain spiritualists say.

I mean, it does exactly what its supposed to, but its le bullshit haha right??? XD

>>8598601
I did qualify it with "kind of".

Like >>8598431 said
>science is still less bullshit than anything

It's great, it's just going all-in on science is kind of stupid. The condition of Man requires more than just empirical evidence.