Science is the empirical method of determining truth. Science follows the realist doctrine of truth. It has nothing to do with math, other than that it occasionally involves math in the usage of its method.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-01 21:09
Then why do we put so much faith in the big bang, the shape of the universe, black holes, and more than 4 dimensions?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-01 21:17
>>6
We don't. We rely on evidence. Besides, we don't know the shape of the universe yet. There is much evidence for big bangs and black holes, and the dimensionality of time.
no u c we liv in 11 dimensins the 11th is all th universes ever in time
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 5:00
>>6
"Faith" is a misleading term in this context (and it doesn't even apply, really), but basically, the scientific method is the most reliable way of arriving at truth there is. It may only give you approximations, but that's better than the alternatives, which only give you shots in the dark.
>>7
For the record, my money is on a saddle-shaped, finite, unbounded universe. The evidence for that seems to be pretty good.
>>12
no, science is saying "i bet when i throw this stone it'll travel this far", then throwing a stone and recording its distance, or looking at records of the distance of stones thrown already, and deciding whether or not the data contradicts your assertion. then repeating the whole thing until you're too bored to admit the possibility that every experiment has been an incredibly unlikely fluke. at which point you declare it a theory, and the masses accept it as a fact because they don't understand science.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 12:05
>14
No, it's just observation. Observing things like a rainbow and forming your theories. If you had a perfect memory and impossibly powerful vision, you could eliminate things like recording data and form basic theories by observation alone.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 12:08
The sky is blue because it reflects light from the ocean
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 13:41
As I have said earlier, science is precisely empirical realism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 16:32
>>17
Empirical realism does not cover inductive reasoning. Science does.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 16:34
>>16
This may surprise you, but you're an idiot. And also wrong.
It's just observation. Observing things like a rainbow and forming your theories. If you had a perfect memory and impossibly powerful vision, you could eliminate things like recording data and form basic theories by observation alone.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 18:24
>>20
You're completely missing my point. Recording data and using tools to measure is just a crutch for an observer that is not able to observe everything and remember everything.
In the end, you're just making observations and using those to build a hypothesis.
Your example is incorrect. That certainly doesn't invalidate my definition in the slightest because, whether you believe it or not, any kind of scientific observation can produce incorrect results.
We use tools, but only to help us make the observations. The observing and using that information to understand what you're seeing is what science is.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 19:53
Like string theory
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-02 20:15
>>22
String theory falls under my definition. Theories based on observation. Any theory falls under my definition. If we could see down to a sub atomic level, we wouldn't need tools. The fact that we can't doesn't change what we're actually doing, it just complicates our methods.
>>20
It's not just observation, it's also inductive reasoning. Science without induction is just stamp collection, and worthless. Its predictions make it so powerful.
Lurk moar.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 11:30
SCIENCE IS ABOUT SUPPRESSING SECRET MORMON FUSION
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 15:06
So we don't know the first couple minutes of the start of the big bang because we haven't observed it, but we know everything after it because we have observed it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 16:02
>>27
By observing things in nature, you can reach conclusions about things you cannot observe directly.
I'm not suggesting that science is simply seeing something. You make an observation, then you use that information to come to a reasonable conclusion.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-03 21:28
Observe the COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS COCKS.
Actually, things don't exist until you observe them, so doesn't that throw a COCK into the whole thing?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 7:45
Science is about killing time. Good for people who are bored.