science shit

All the knowledge we have registered about our enviroment and the methods to predict and measure shit.

>>331651
/thread

>>331650
Necessary to make better sex toys.

>>331650
>what does science mean to you?

>>331667
>/thread
So, only one interpretation is possible, apparently.

>>331651
>All the knowledge we have registered about our enviroment and the methods to predict and measure

It also encompasses purely abstract fields of study like mathematics (e.g., set theory).

Of late there are those who have tried insert pseudoscience like anthropogenic global warming and 57 genders.

>>331781
Explain how you apply the scientific method to mathematics.

>>331784
>Explain how you apply the scientific method to mathematics.

>>331650
>what does *science* mean to you?

He didn't say the scientific method, he said science.

However, a mathematical proof begins with a problem, and you apply a formal procedure to prove it. For example: there are couple of ways to formally prove the Pythagorean Theorem.

>>331650
knowledge gained by observation

>>331802
>knowledge gained by observation
Isn't it amazing though, that Einstein formulated his general theory of relativity without any?

File: image.jpg (11KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x250px

>>331808
Until it was validated by observation, it wasn't a theory of anything, it was a hypothesis.

>>331799
Mathematics is purely deduction. It's logic not science.

Mathematics, in fact, specifically discounts scientific methods: Fermat's last theorem was proven scientifically at least as well as evolution by natural selection, general relativity, etc. (by providing billions of corroborating data and exactly zero contradictory data) decades before it was considered proven by mathematics, i.e. deduced from axioms by logic.

Science is something explicitly not welcome in the field of mathematics.

>>331650
>what does science mean to you?
Are you asking what formal definition I would agree with most? Where my passions and/or ambitions lie?

I guess I'd define science as a strategy, ideally a skeptical one, to understand nature, the world around us, with methods varying from rigorous mathematical proofs to merely making inferences from Gaussian (bell curve) statistics and/or Mandelbrotian (fractal) models, while not overlooking conjectures spawned in philosophy and how they may reflect on, or be applicable to, the current state of things. Sometimes even just plain trial and error, tinkering. But in the name of understanding and expanding our horizons of knowledge, getting at the question of "how" we are here, extending and improving the quality of life, etc can all be afterthoughts I suppose. Science is a process.

>>331823
>Mathematics is purely deduction
then explain induction

check m8 atheist

>>331838
Mathematical induction is just a specialised way of expressing deduction. It's not like real induction because you can prove (deductively) that each inductive step necessarily follows.

Whereas with real induction, you can't prove the universe won't end five seconds from now, or that it just came in to being fully-formed yesterday.

File: ec.jpg (48KB, 350x309px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 350x309px

>>331818
I invite you to wonder at Einstein's insight, and you sperg on me.

>>331842
I was just in it for the bantz on that other post, and you're completely right, but it hadn't occurred to me until the parent post of this discussion that induction, in mathematics, does follow from deductive reasoning. Kinda cool m8, have some cool link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_swarm
http://quillette.com/2017/05/26/paradoxes-probability-statistical-strangeness/

>>331823
>Mathematics is purely deduction. It's logic not science.

Not true. Abduction and induction are present very much as well. Look how Grigori Perelman was acknowledged as a Field's Medal winner.

Also, ignoring philosophy and it's subcategories as a field of studies where scientific method can't apply is simply wrong. You are putting the random and the chaos in the same basket.

>Science is something explicitly not welcome in the field of mathematics.

True but only because of mathematicians, not because of mathematics per se. You know it, and you know why it is so.

>>332000
If you use abduction or (true) induction in your "proof", you will be told your proof is not a proof.

Sure, mathematics uses some scientific methods, but so do creation science and esports.

>>332003
>If you use abduction or (true) induction in your "proof", you will be told your proof is not a proof.

Yes, still they are essential part of the process and therefore unavoidable. It's not about liking to resort to these, it's about having to. By ignoring these you are challenging the entire human thought process, including the scientific method.

>creation science and esports

Could we leave these out here.

Mathematics is especially vulnerable to all sorts of fallacies. Fallacies lead to annoying sophism and absurdities. How to clear them (and not just bury them in the backyard) needs not only thinking but a toolset for damage control. Scientific method comes to mind.

>If P, then Q.
>P is a fallacious argument.
>Therefore, Q is false.
>But it isn't. It's Right There.
>No it isn't. I just proved it isn't.

The book "Lapses in Mathematical Reasoning" is a nice book. Recommended.

>>332012
>P is a fallacious argument
>Therefore Q is false
This is itself a fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

>>332004
Well no, because you're engaging in special pleading if you're saying that the use of scientific methods in maths makes maths a science, but the use of scientific methods in esports doesn't make esports a science.

>>332012
Math is like a latest modern negatively stable fighter plane with no avionics, fly-by-wire, no self-guiding weapons, no radar, no flares and no ejection seat because the aircraft designer was asked to make a top notch fighter plane where the pilot himself is in control of everything, and that is Everything.

Some like it that way.

File: 3zqG8A.jpg (35KB, 621x944px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 621x944px

finding new means of destruction

>>332012
O: I have a blue balloon
P: I have a red balloon
R: I have a balloon
P -> R

Just because P is false, doesn't mean R is false.

That would be equivalence, not implication.

>>331650
A method to answer questions at least at a physical level

social and mental level still needs some proper methods

>>331650
Science often leads you into a situation where you are asked to be happy with "how" because no one can tell you "why".

For example we know that light speed in vacuum is about 300 000 m/s because we can measure it. However we don't know why it is that particular speed and not some other speed.