Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Scientific method motherfucker, do you use it

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-19 19:46

in this tread we state basic principles in the scientific method and see howmanny trolls can we sapwn...like this:


"in science we dont desing an experiment to prove that our theory is rigt, but to check if our theory is wrong"

now you

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-19 22:01

In science we look at existing evidence and draw conclusions in order to declare facts.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 4:46

>>2
BS: Science doesn't declare facts, just increasingly accurate models of how things are.
Science does not seek to explain nature, just describe it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 6:06

The same could be said of all religions.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 7:00

SCIIIIEEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 7:10

>>4
Religions do the opposite, they explain why things are, rather than stick to describing them.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 11:10

>>6
Fail

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 12:10

>>7
Perhaps you could tell us why?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 12:24

>>8
Because religions are made of shit and poo, and their sacred books are like "Then god created the first man, period". No why or how.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 12:39

>>9
That's the point. Science doesn't purport to explain why things happen, just describe how they do. Faith posits explanations without justification.

Note that you can use science to offer an explanation, but proper epistemology dictates that we may never be fully certain of the validity of the results, and thankfully so, as science often corrects itself.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 12:43

>>10

science does explain why things happen. stuff like why sky is blue and why sperm is yummy.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 13:56

>>11
Tries to explain, nothing can be proven, it's all just theory.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 14:23

>>12
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 15:15

>>13
Which is a bit ironic, considering how they explain things...

>>11
as >>12 said. You can USE science to offer explanation for phenomena. In fact you are jus positing increasingly probably theories (per the amount of evidence supporting them), which is the main difference between science and faith. However science itself sticks to describing phenomena and how they relate to other phenomena. That's why it's so rigorous and consistent, or at least tends towards increasing consistancy.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 18:42

The same could be said of all conspiracy theories.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-20 20:09

>>15
Well yes, that's basically it.
Conspiracy theories and faith say "The best explanation (to me) for Y is X", so that X causes Y.

Science just observes Y's reaction to X, describes the causal relationship, and thus describes how X causes Y. If it cannot, then it does not affirm it, even if it is the best explanation. It can only posit in hope the proof of the relationship (or lack of relationship) can be established experimentally.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-21 3:15

The same could be said of all pseudoscience.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-21 5:25

>>10

Just for semantics sake, the question is more correctly poised: "How is the sky blue?"
As for "Why is the sky blue?" Shucks, cause God hates red commie bastards!

It's quite accepted that the Sciences are an (attempt) to answer the "how?" questions and Humanities are an (attempt) to answer the "why?".

Besides, doesn't everything boil down to faith in arbitrary yet self-evident axioms anyways?
*throws nihilism card to get people pissed*

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-21 5:29

>>17

Part of the scientific method is falsification, thus pseudoscience such as Astrology (which relies on empirical data ironically) as well as Freudian psychology and Marxism cannot be demarcated as SCIEEEENCCCCEEEEEE!!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-22 18:20

The same could be said of all studies funded by special interest companies who use lobbyists to bribe congressmen and pass self serving laws allowing dangerous substances to be considered harmless due to SCIEEEENCCCCEEEEEE.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-24 9:38

Freud said we're thinking on something sexual 97% of the time. He was fucking genius. I actually think he was short by 1%.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-24 12:25

>>21

ingeneious?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-24 13:46

I like science except for when it is flawed.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-24 19:32

You mean like results based on inaccurate tests, faulty data, limited samples, and the wrong conclusions? 

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 21:50

>>24
You mean like when someone tries to discuss something serious on 4chan?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-29 14:31

Science is based on observation and experamentation and describes what seems to be in mathematical ,physical, chemical, and logical terms. Religion (idealy) is thinking something that is undefined and unexplainable. There is no conflict. Fanaticism however holds that something that is undefined is actually defined and explains everything neatly. (see politics, severe romanticism, and stuipid relgious people)

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-29 14:32

DESU~

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-29 18:45

>>26
No.
Science = logic. Religion = idiocy. They're opposites.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-30 0:03

>>>28
there are at least FIVE X BOX HUGE mistakes in this statement, acording tho aristotelic logic, spot them and you win a pretzel!!

(wrong definitons don't count, only logical mistakes)

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-30 1:47

>>27
FUKKEN SAVED ~DESU.

Name: J3ph42 2006-05-01 14:26

>>1
"in science we dont desu an experiment to prove that our theory is rite, but to check if our theory is wrong"

linguistics aside, yeah.
religion just means "Well, lets re-translate it across a couple more languages, assume an allegorical reference to King David's second son's cousin's left testicle being an angel from heaven sent to kill gays, and call it a day, and if people don't like it we'll just issue another papal edict, declare we're right and anyone who doesn't like it WILL BURN FOR ETERNITY"

Name: Anonymous 2006-05-02 16:44

>>31 tru.dat

Name: Anonymous 2006-05-06 14:53

in science we say desu alot

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List