User Controls
Captain Falcon Explains Everything: Science Edition
-
2017-04-13 at 8:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Take it as it comes... It's not logical because you're making a proposal with variables ABC and skipping out all the other letters/numbers that are relevant to the reality of the situation.
This has nothing to do with the pure logic of your argument, which is demonstrably flawed (as I have demonstrated through simple set theory).Science is applied logic to describe real world phenomena to the best of our abilities
That is a very different statement to your initial claim:
"human activity can be considered scientific if it has a logical-mathematical basis, and a human attempting to harness these forces is performing scientific experiments. "
Which is completely ridiculous and demonstrably illogical. Specially the part about scientific experiments being about "harnessing these forces"; the purpose of scientific experimentation is to compare your hypothesis and it's hypothesised implications against what happens in the real world. No more, no less.and if variables deduced from perception are insufficient to construct a proper model of the real world, we revise the logic until the results can be replicated.
This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read on this website, and borders on incoherent babble.
The scientific method is simple; observe phenomenon, formulate hypothesis, test hypothesis.
You don't revise your hypothesis due to the insufficiency of variables; you formulate your hypothesis according to the observed phenomenon, then conduct experiments by controlling for one specific variable.
You don't understand half the words you are saying. This is a hypothesis. Let's test it.Bluejays and cardinals still exist today after indefinite periods of darwinism
Literally not indefinite.of competing ecological niches.
Concept literally not relevant to specific discussion.We do not fully understand how animals perceive the world, especially other animals. What may seem to be the antithesis of camouflage to humans could be effective for them hunting their prey because who knows what wavelengths the prey is able to understand.
You are not making a positive statement unless you do, I'm not sure what your point even is supposed to be.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-13 at 8:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon This has nothing to do with the pure logic of your argument, which is demonstrably flawed (as I have demonstrated through simple set theory).
you made an example about how you could incorrectly come to the conclusion that all mammals are dogs based on pure logic, this is because you're not accounting for the other variables which cause this statement to be false.
That is a very different statement to your initial claim
actually it's the exact same thing
You don't revise your hypothesis due to the insufficiency of variables; you formulate your hypothesis according to the observed phenomenon, then conduct experiments by controlling for one specific variable.
actually you do. if you try to test a hypothesis and it doesn't work, it means variables were unaccounted for, like with your dog argument. You're taking the word "variable" literally, what i mean is every tidbit of data
Literally not indefinite.
indefinite in this context means "not totally defined"
Concept literally not relevant to specific discussion.
that's what darwinism is
You are not making a positive statement unless you do, I'm not sure what your point even is supposed to be.
i'm saying the colors can help them catch prey because you dont know how prey sees the colors red or blue
learn how to fucking learn m8
Post last edited by Take it as it comes… at 2017-04-13T20:21:21.462698+00:00 -
2017-04-13 at 8:37 PM UTC
you made an example about how you could incorrectly come to the conclusion that all mammals are dogs based on pure logic, this is because you're not accounting for the other variables which cause this statement to be false
Neither is the claim that all human endeavours involving logic or mathematics as a basis are scientific. As can be demonstrated by basic set theory.actually it's the exact same thing
No it is not. It's also not correct still. But your initial claim was directly that human activity can be considered scientific if it has a logical or mathematical basis. Not only is this statement vague to the point of uselessness, it's also demonstrably false with formal logic.actually you do. if you try to test a hypothesis and it doesn't work, it means variables were unaccounted for, like with your dog argument
Actually you don't. If you try to test a hypothesis and it doesn't "work" (i.e. It is ever contradicted by experiment), it is simply wrong. Sometimes this can be simply due to unaccounted variables. Sometimes it can be because you are just not remotely on the right track, despite accounting for all variables. For example if I were to predict that the speed of light is 2x10^8m/s, no variables would be unaccounted for; one would simply be wrongly accounted for. You are putting the cart before the horse.indefinite in this context means "not totally defined"
The i nothing not totally defined annoy it; just because we don't have precise knowledge of a time spam does not make it indefinite.that's what darwinism is
Nope. I'll give you one skit at defining what an ecological niche is.i'm saying the colors can help them catch prey because you dont know how prey sees the colors red or blue
If you're saying that then that would be a non-sequitur.
All that the statement that we don't know how their prey sees those colours does, is establish that we don't know that; it does not in any way establish that it does help the birds catch their prey, and only that we cannot prove or disprove that their colouration helps them catch their prey.
And ignoring the logically broken statements, cardinals' and bluejays' diets primarily consist of seeds, grains and fruits, although bluejays can (but prefer not to) eat insects and worms... Primarily the blind insects, and worms are also blind.
You fuckwit. -
2017-04-13 at 8:42 PM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 3:08 AM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 5:41 AM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 2:29 PM UTCyour all shitposters ALL SHITPOSTERS OFF TOPIC RTAWRRRRRRRR
-
2017-04-14 at 2:54 PM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 3:02 PM UTCTickle the dragons tail if your so fucking smart captain faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core -
2017-04-14 at 4:01 PM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 4:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by SCronaldo_J_Trump Tickle the dragons tail if your so fucking smart captain faggot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
I'm going to explain multiverse theory first but while I do that, could you specify exactly what you would like explained? I'm familiar with the events surrounding the "demon core". -
2017-04-14 at 4:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon That's quite broad but on a basic level I would say that you "do science" when you ask a question, propose an answer for it with a falsifiable statement, then test it.
Could you specify your question a bit more so I can give a deeper answer?
An issue with the falsifiability criterion is that is seems to include things commonly considered to be non-science in the realm of the scientific. Homeopathy seems to be falsifiable and it is often tested. Empirically it doesn't succeed as a theory but it seems to meet your criteria, yet we don't consider it scientific or not in the same sense as other failed scientific theories. -
2017-04-14 at 4:38 PM UTCWould you say Conways Game of Life is analogous to life and the universe?
-
2017-04-14 at 4:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny An issue with the falsifiability criterion is that is seems to include things commonly considered to be non-science in the realm of the scientific. Homeopathy seems to be falsifiable and it is often tested. Empirically it doesn't succeed as a theory but it seems to meet your criteria, yet we don't consider it scientific or not in the same sense as other failed scientific theories.
A theory is fully capable of being scientific, and dead wrong.
Homeopathy is not unscientific because its hypothesis is unscientific; its hypothesis is wrong, and therefore the belief and practice of homeopathy is wrong and unscientific.
It is perfectly within the frame of the scientific method, and the scientific method has proven that is is false. Now, ignoring this evidence and persisting in the belief that homeopathy works despite its contradiction to experiment, is unscientific.
I think the issue here is that you are conflating two different, but related, concepts. -
2017-04-14 at 5:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Would you say Conways Game of Life is analogous to life and the universe?
I guess. The significance of Conway's Game of Life in my mind is that it demonstrates that an incredibly simple set of rules in an incredibly simple framework can generate this fascinatingly complex "game". It's really just dots being generated according to some simple constraints, but it looks something like life, like an ecosystem. The laws of the universe are also pretty simple, not to describe (certainly not) but definitely in nature. -
2017-04-14 at 5:05 PM UTCI'm trying to write about multiverse theory without writing a wall of text, so stand by.
-
2017-04-14 at 5:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny An issue with the falsifiability criterion is that is seems to include things commonly considered to be non-science in the realm of the scientific. Homeopathy seems to be falsifiable and it is often tested. Empirically it doesn't succeed as a theory but it seems to meet your criteria, yet we don't consider it scientific or not in the same sense as other failed scientific theories.
maybe the placebo effect is like a real thing?? -
2017-04-14 at 5:09 PM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 5:17 PM UTC
-
2017-04-14 at 7:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Of course. At its most basic level, all this stuff is energy differentials within the 19 fundamental fields in the Standard Model. That is all.
What do you think are the philosophical implications of this on concepts like life and death, individuality, consciousness, "I", etc.
