[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

When did you realize that the "scientific method" is

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 51
Thread images: 8

File: 1505525154224.jpg (145KB, 750x851px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1505525154224.jpg
145KB, 750x851px
When did you realize that the "scientific method" is literally just glorified trial and error?
>>
>>9171240
why did it take you so long to realize this? trial and error plus mathematical formalization.

the more depressing thought is that we actually don't have a better method for testing theory about reality.
>>
>>9171252
Well machine learning and data sci has given us a powerful way to look at data we've collected.
And through Topological Data Analysis we can more precisely see assertions and connections in the data.
>>
>>9171240
> glorified
Implying that trial and error isn't the best method for obtaining truth that we have ever come across, "glorified" or not? How else were you going to find out how things work? Think about it really hard for a while?
>>
>>9171240

this makes me want to edit some youtube videos
>>
>>9171252
>the more depressing thought is that we actually don't have a better method for testing theory about reality.

couldn't you theoretically mathematically formulize all of what we know of physics and then just put it into a giant computer simulation and see if the results matches up with the what we know about the universe?

So say we blast some atoms with lasers in the LHC and observe what happens at a subatomic level, then crunch some numbers in a giant supercomputer and compare the simulations to what we observe in reality. Couldn't this potentially become a better method than trial and error?
>>
>>9171272
Comparing reality to theoretical models is what people are already doing in physics. Where empirical methods still reign supreme are in medicine, biology etc. because the systems are just too complex for hoomans to just come up with a formula, but trying to simulate them with computers is a growing field
>>
File: Screenshot_54.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Screenshot_54.jpg
47KB, 600x600px
>>9171240
I want to hear a t rex honking
>>
>>9171272
> tfw this is literally what scientists currently do and have always done even before computers
>>
>>9171304
>>9171319

so why haven't we just put all of physics into a giant supercomputer and see if it outputs the big bang?

seems pretty simple
>>
>>9171341
We did this. We have mathematical models that describe the Big Bang, and when we put it in the computer the Big Bang happened. You realize that the point of models is to replicate the real world right? If we think the Big Bang happened, then our models will reproduce the Big Bang. Because that's the point of the models.
>>
>>9171355

So why don't we run that simulation all the way to the subatomic level and fast forward billions of years, zoom into earth (it should be there assuming what we know of physics is accurate) and wave at all the tiny people?
>>
>>9171365
I don't think our current supercomputers can do that much calculation...
>>
File: trex.jpg (77KB, 540x719px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
trex.jpg
77KB, 540x719px
it also looked like this
>>
>>9171365
Yes at some point, maybe we'll be able to do this.

Like, is it possible to encode *all* the information describing the entire universe, at a tiny point on a pale blue dot within the universe itself? The universe itself might be the best information encoding of the universe. Maybe not. I don't think anybody knows.

IMO it's fundamentally impossible. That isn't to say that smaller-scale simulations, or "zoomed in" simulations of the/a universe, are impossible though.
>>
>>9171365
A couple of reasons.
A) there is no point. The mapmakers dilemma: there is no utility in creating a model that is just as complex as the thing it aims to describe. Why would we simulate a universe when we can just observe the one we have now? The whole point of a model is to simplify the world to the point that we can actually talk about it and make meaningful predictions.
B) it would never work like that. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim that our models are so perfect that if we choose the right initial conditions we could reproduce the universe we see now to exact precision. If we tried to do this, there is no way that we would ever recreate earth. That is nonsense.
C) solving a model numerically is important for basically every field of science, but the truth is that you can't really do this for every model. Some principles of physics cannot be simulated, and this is a big problem for people trying to study these principles and it would be a massive problem for your campaign to simulate the entire universe.
>>
File: 1486019921615.jpg (21KB, 300x289px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1486019921615.jpg
21KB, 300x289px
>>9171365
>why don't we run our universe on a limited amount of matter in our universe
>>
>>9171240
when did you realize "thinking" is literally just using your brain
>>
>>9171375
Spielberg could make a lot of money just by re-mastering all of the JP films with feathers added to the dinosaurs. It'd turn the films into the ultimate parodies.
>>
>>9171240
>"scientific method" is literally just glorified trial and error

That's science in the 50's. Science in 2017 is

> I need the PhD to stay in the country
> Mass produce fake publications with effects noone else is able to understand or reproduce
> Research that is of no use to anyone but sizing up the researcher
> Research that is only possible because gov

Pic related, chiral graphene quantum dots. Yep.
>>
>>9171265
By using your brain.
>>
science is basically just a systematic way of noticing correlations in our experiences

we observe: x follows y, x follows y, x follows y, over and over, which then turns into "x causes y", and then people come up with narratives around the cause, based on how 'expansive' the theory around why x causes y. as in, how well the theory correlates between previous explanations, and throughout different domains, math, sciece, geology, etc, without contrdaticing the previously accepted theories.

that's basically it.

science is just humans noticing patterns in our experiences, changing 'x follows y' into "x causes y", into "here is why x causes y". and so it becomes a predictive tool, for figuring out when again x will follow y.

science would function perfectly fine without the explanatory narratives
>>
>>9171341
No man. Imagine that we put all the physics into a computer simulation and then God appears in it. Scientists would be BTFO and would need to be put on suicide watch. How would they ever recover? They can't risk it.
>>
>>9171240
But it works.
>>
empricism has been a joke and a plague on this earth since Socrates. Look what we got from it, misery
>>
>>9171257
But isn't it the same thing ? Collection of experimental data plus mathematical modelling, the mathematical tools differ but it is the same empirical principle.

It's all a posteriori knowledge which is what I think >>9171252 found depressing.
>>
>>9171257
But in the end all of the learning techniques are still just a glorified trial and error
>>
>>9171663
We have learned zero truths about the world using this method alone. Trial and error is essential
>>
>>9171240
How can you make sweeping statements like that about all dinosaurs
>>
>>9171240
acoustics was the same as when the dinosaurs existed as it is now.
>>
Go ahead OP. Tell us about how science is bullshit, and the Earth is flat and all of its lifeforms were created 4000 years ago by the almighty God.
>>
>>9171981
And why is that bad? What would you like to have in it place? The point of science is to analyze the world and find explanation of shit works.
>>
>>9171240
>When did you realize that the "scientific method" is literally just glorified trial and error?

I thought it was a religion from Satan that is threating "our society and values"?
>>
File: IMG_1197.png (25KB, 310x310px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_1197.png
25KB, 310x310px
>>9172043
>>9172093
>>
>>9171272
You pretty much described theoretical physics. The problem with this approach is that multiple different kinds of systems can lead to the same results, even if those systems arent a true representation of reality. Classical mechanics for example. Newton was a smart guy, and we have him to thank for a lot in modern science (like calculus) but his model for gravity and motion is objectively wrong. Sure, it predicts our observations to within the margin of error, but general relativity has showed us thats not the entire picture. Classical mechanics and general relativity are clearly different when you get to near light speed but the difference between the two in everyday scenarios is very small. Classical mechanics is easier, and will get you close enough, so we still use it. However its not an exact model of the universe, if we were to assume it was we would literally not be able to make GPS work.
>>
>>9172104
>everybody I dont like is from reddit or is a libcuck
>>
>>9172108
>True tho
>>
>>9171240

day 1 of being taught. its what we were told in class and is painfully fucking obvious.
>>
>>9172106
>but his model for gravity and motion is objectively wrong.

lol. scientific theories are tools for specific purposes. your post is like saying a hammer is not objectively true because it fails when you try and chisel with it
>>
The scientific method is the stupidest retardation brainlets have ever come up with.
><theory> is right because there is no other way to explain <phenomenon>
><theory> is right because noone has proven it wrong
><theory> is right because <probabilistic statement>
><theory> is right because many scientists agree
><theory'> is wrong because <author'> works in <industry'>
Literally a fractal of logical fallacies.

Also, reminder that every single breakthrough in physics over the last 150 years has been possible because someone didn't give a shit about the scientific method.
>be English physicist
>add [math]\mu_0\,\varepsilon_0\, \frac{\partial\mathbf B}{\partial t}[/math] to an equation because it looks cool
>physicists go ape shit because no experiment to back it up
>predict electromagnetic waves
>physicist autistic screeching
>fast forward 20 years
>German physicist confirms predictions
>theory becomes the bedrock for both relativity and quantum physics

Want another, older example?
>be Italian polymath
>want to debunk Greek faggot's theory
>problem is experiment has always proven Greek faggot right
>fallback to a formal logical proof
>prove Greek faggot's theory is contradictory
>become so bad ass I can publicly humiliate the Pope and get away with it
>>
>>9172705
You are actually using the internet to post this comment, which means that you have the opportunity to read about the scientific method to make sure you don't accidentally say something stupid about it. Ignorance was a choice in this case and for whatever reason you chose ignorance. Proud?
>>
>>9172613
You can apply relativity calculations to literally everything that you would use newtonian mechanics for and get a more accurate result. The difference is miniscule until you get near light speed, which is why i said
>Classical mechanics is easier, and will get you close enough, so we still use it.

You, being a brainlet, didnt understand that the point i was trying to make is that, if you were to simulate a universe using classical mechanics(instead of GR), you might get a universe that looks and operates similar to ours, but you couldnt get any useful data from it. Thus, running a simulation of our universe to gain insight into how our universe works, requires that we first know how all of the basic laws of physics work. Which we dont.
>>
>>9172613
Also
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+theory+in+science

The word you are looking for is probably formula. Even then your tool analogy is still a shit one.
>>
>>9172769
Yes. I'm proud I just showed everyone how scientific method shills have no argument.
>>
File: 5GgefZj.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
5GgefZj.jpg
25KB, 600x600px
>>9171663
>>9171265
This boils down to Rationalism vs Empiricism.
Which is a retarded debate that was settled fuckin centuries ago.

Rationalism claimed the only real truths are those we can arrive at without our senses, like mathematical logic. 2+2=4 no matter what. You do not see, smell, hear, taste, smell, or feel the concepts of "2"s, "4"s, addition, or equality.

Empiricism claimed that the only real truths are those that can be directly sensed. "Objects fall when dropped", "this object is red", "the temperature is high today", etc.

Rationalism's problem is sense information is typically required to perform rational processes.

Empiricism's problem is how do you directly sense something like a magnetic wave, or the transfer of momentum from one object to another, or infinity in calculus?


How did we solve this?

BY ADMITTING WE NEED BOTH. SO WE USE BOTH. PERIOD.

You can view rationalism vs empiricism as physics class vs physics lab, or analytical math vs discrete or numerical math.
>>
>>9172769
> anti scientific method
What a fucking bizzar opinion
>>
>>9171240
I vote for honking, dinosaurs just got hilarious.
>>
File: 1451499931422.jpg (430KB, 800x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451499931422.jpg
430KB, 800x800px
>>9171240

Yeah, well it's too fucking late now. Dinosaurs Rawr and if you don't like it, fuck off.
>>
>>9172806
>You can apply relativity calculations to literally everything that you would use newtonian mechanics for and get a more accurate result

your mistake is thinking that 'therefore relativity calculations are 'more true' than newtonian'
>>
>>9171240
Pro-tip: news articles are dumb. All that's been said is that we don't know what kinds of sounds that dinosaur made, but that their modern relatives don't "roar". But really, have you ever heard an alligator bellowing or a cassowary growling? They probably sounded a lot scarier than any mammal.
>>
>>9173999
Accurate and "more true" are synonyms. Man you really suck at this english thing huh?

>Protip: yes relativity calculations are in fact "more true" even at low speeds. The difference is miniscule, but with accurate enough measurements you could definitively prove that relativity is the correct method.
Thread posts: 51
Thread images: 8


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.