Looking back in time we can observe that science as a whole at

>>8602438
damn that is one voluptuous statue

>>8602438
Kill yourself

>>8602438
I would say most of the pseudosciences such as psychology or sociology are going to be reformed from point zero

Medicine will probably be reformed at one point too, but it will happen partially so

>>8602438
do you think the ancient greeks hotglued their statues too

>>8602438

The whole point of "science" is to put what we think we understand to the test by experimentation and further research.

>science is mostly wrong

No, the scientific method only pushes us away from what is wrong.

>>8602486
Which can still be wrong no?

>>8602438
>90% wrong
>odds are 90% is still wrong
>its mostly wrong
bald claims. did you make them up while typing?

File: 1484437257048.jpg (9KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 259x194px

We all know

>>8602438
Science as we know it is a very recent invention.

Historical comparisons from before that point don't make much sense.

That said, i think the most likely science to go through this is physics. It just seems like there's something big missing, that might cause everything else to be reevaluated as well.

>>8602438
HOLY SHIT! THEN I MUST HAVE

ALLDAXP

!

LIKE! ALL OF IT! AND I WANT TO SHARE IT WITH YOU!

BUT IF YOU COULD JUST COME TO MY FUCKING DISCORD/TWITCH CHAT ROOM SO I DONT GO FUCKING BONKERS, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

THANK YOU.

>>8602523
This guy just literally repeated what I just said.

It gets tiring dudes, it really does. So. Come play a fucking game with me already. I LIKE OVERWATCH.

HELLLOOOOOOO.

Hello. My name is Simon. My GOD we are such a stubborn, stubborn bunch.

>>8602506
Agreed. I had a professor explain it like this

Physics is like building a skyscraper. But the foundation was built by many different people with little communication. Nobody was even sure what the ground was like under the foundation. They keep building upward in the same way, always assuming the previous story was built properly. Soon enough it will topple over and hopefully then we will learn the lesson and build it correctly next time.

>>8602438 (OP)
>Things that were obvious, scientifically proven facts ...... blood letting,etc.

Actually, there's recent scientific study which indicates bloodletting may be the key to immortality.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13363
At first they discovered that mice given blood transfusions from younger mice showed signs of age reversal. But this newest study shows they were wrong. There's nothing in young blood that reverses aging, but rather old blood has something in it that makes people age. In theory, blood letting would remove this "something" and reverse aging. Don't jump the gun just yet tho. More studies are needed.

To comment on the original point of this thread, information derived from science may be wrong, but the scientific method is not. It's like saying 3.14 doesn't equal Pi. Of course it doesn't equal pi and no single number ever will because pi isn't a single piece of information(number) but rather mathematical formula that derives a number. Same way the scientific method isn't a single piece of data, but a process that derives data.

File: image.jpg (18KB, 255x200px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 255x200px

>>8602438

>>I think almost all of medicine is wrong.
>>Especially understanding of disease.

>>8602544
YEEEEES

HELLLOOOOO

I AM COMMUNICATING WITH YOOOOU

MY NAME IS SIIIIIMON

FUUUUUUCk

>>8602549
>In theory, blood letting would remove this "something" and reverse aging.
Are you serious?
You're saying that donating blood slows down ageing?

>>8602576
I also said don't jump the gun.
We don't know what this something is. It could be the byproduct of aging that isn't filtered from the blood. Or it could be a byproduct of an aged body producing new blood cells. In which case bloodletting would only speed up the aging process.

If you still feel compelled to do what ever strangers on the internet tell you by all means remove all your blood and you might live forever. Be sure to report back here with the results.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 584x267px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 584x267px

>90% wrong
let me tell you something about statistics buddy..

File: 1480205191866.jpg (382KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 2000x1000px

>>8602438
I agree, we have much to learn and recover.

Theoria Apophasis, you would enjoy his channel.

>>8602557
what do you mean understanding of disease? You mean infectious disease or complex shit like cancer and dementia

>>8602506
>he doesn't realize that using science as a beacon is just as misguided as older people's methods
Truly plebeian myopicism. Continue worshiping, kid

What do u really mean bro?

>>8603003
Don't get me wrong, a lot of what we know today could still be wrong or incomplete.

But the scientific method is better than older ideas on how to build knowledge.

>>8602544
Are you saying Psychics is the Tower of Babel?

>>8602438
You don't understand how science works. Just stop.
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

>>8603307
You can really feel how butthurt Asimov is after getting BTFO by a nameless lit major. Does Asimov really need to put an anonymous letter writer's qualifications in the essay? Does he need to present himself as so much smarter and well qualified before addressing the actual issue? He's very obviously insecure in his knowledge and upset that he was called out so easily.

Bohr > Einstein

>>8602438
>90% wrong
You're retarded.

That being said - most of "economy" is a flat-earth-propaganda right now.

>>8604696
Seriously?

I won't take your bait OP

I want to fuck minerals.