Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality, but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true. Why? Because they can't. Until those who believe in science can prove those assumptions are true we must assume said assumption are unprovable and therefore science is bullshit.
Checkmate science and atheist fags
Guaranteed replies.
You're a fucking moron. Kill yourself.
Provide evidence, faggot
My argument is sound so I doubt they will seriously try
The experience of life is subjective, yes. The tests are done to try to rule out the subjectivity and bias, however there will always be some uncertainty in every bit of science. Science can only go to the limits of our capability. Religion can say anything so long as it makes people feel good.
"It's", Count Knobula.
Then if it is all subjective?
Here is why the scientific method is bullshit: You can't prove objective reality is real, it is all based upon an assumption
>Nigga thinks he's enlightened
>Disregards objective reality
You thought to be an OP, therefore you are a faggot. OP is now listening to Freddie Mercury somewhere in the Horsehead Nebula.
>Go be a nihilist somewhere else tard
This is completely correct. However, we do have evidence, and through times they have been proven to be true. Pretty much every scientific theory has been proven to be true through being tested throughout many years. Everything science has been assumed, say that if I drop an iPhone 20ft from the ground it will break. The the assumption will be tested, so someone would drop an iPhone from 20ft off the ground, then the results of said tests will show weather the assumption was true, so if the iPhone did smash - it would be a correct assumption, if it did not smash - the assumption would be considered incorrect. And the evidence would be the film of someone doing it or witnesses writing down what happened. So even though - yes science is a bunch of assumptions, we will and do have evidence to prove so.
Stop being an edgelord you cuck
Casualty is bullshit. For several reasons besides that if you drop your phone it MIGHT break
See: exhibit A. This thread.
>how to write a 5000 word essay without saying anything.
How is that proof?
I specifically stated 20ft. I did not state the floor in which it would be dropped on therefore you are correct seeing as if you dropped it on to a pile of pillows it obviously would not break. However, it would be proven fact until someone else did it but the phone did not break when they dropped it
Science is by no means perfect, but is rather the best tool we have for understanding the way our reality works -- and it WORKS. That's the difference, faggot. When was the last time you prayed to God to stop suffering in the world and when did it work? That's what I thought, retard.
I mean what kind of science are we talking about? I'm assuming you posted using some electronic device, that's science
You wrote it. If I contacted an expert on mental illness, and had them read it, they would agree, you have retardation of the brain.
Yeah, you're in over your head here, kid. You don't understand what science does. No scientist is going to say that there is absolute proof like you're describing. Science doesn't involve itself in proof, because proof is impossible.
Here's how it works: A scientist runs an experiment and collects data. Then they interpret that data into a conclusion. That conclusion states that the evidence from said experiment would lead one to conclude something.
That's it.
Then other people can come behind them and run the same experiment and make either the same, or a different conclusion. If they run the same experiment and get a different result, then they know that this is something is up and requires further investigation.
Here's your challenge: give me an example of an experiment that's based off of bullshit assumptions about reality.
Agrippa's Trilemma.
Dumb dipshit. But it's cool, keeping the mass's believing what you say only makes me richer as they get poorer. Intelligent, rich people know science is fact.
Let us say if you drop your phone 90 times on hard concrete at a thousand feet and it breaks every single time does that prove that causality is true? I know you are smart and know where this is going
science unlike religion understands that we get less retarded every 10 years.
aren't you the same faggot who tried to troll with the argument that you can't take a picture of an oxygen molecule?
.
your misrepresentation of science is just as weak here.
You are a idiot, for both your statement and you idolization of a planetarium worker.
A objective reality? no reality that is to be tested by any one recreating the experiment.
Jesus challenged their presumption and their
power in His day and He seriously interfered with
their graft when He drove the money changers- out
of the temple in Jerusalem. That act summed up
His entire career He was an indignant, earnest
reformer. The Sanhedrin had reached the lowest
depth of corruption. The murder of Jesus ended
its criminal reign for a time. The Jews as a
mass did not understand what was happening;
they had been misled by the Sanhedrin and the
rabbis. The Sanhedrin consisted of seventy men
who ruled civil affairs. They had previously ruled
criminal affairs which power was taken from them
by the Roman government. There was also an-
other Sanhedrin consisting of twenty men, who
ruled religious affairs.- Jesus fought both of them.
Why did the Sanhedrin frame Jesus? Because
he advocated the law of God and Moses, the law
of limitation, which Moses wrote in the old testa-
ment (Leviticus chapter 25). Jesus wanted excessive
private fortunes limited by law in order to save
civilization from collapse.
Why did the Sanhedrin frame Jesus? Because
he advocated the law of God and Moses, the law
of limitation, which Moses wrote in the old testa-
ment (Leviticus chapter 25). Jesus wanted excessive
private fortunes limited by law in order to save
civilization from collapse.
There is no "IF", it will break on some level. That's a given. Sudden impact loosens the bonds between atoms, the same way magnets lose their power after being struck enough. Jesus Sup Forums cannot science, just go suck your pastor's cock then...
Will it always break?
we have all been taught humans cannot live without a brain. science must be wrong about that at least if op is able to post here. go back to your flat earth and bible you silly Mormon
>yfw the fairy tale that is the bible is a book and thus a product of science
Religionfags BTFO.
>science uses evidence to make predictions about reality
>science is bullshit
>I need evidence from you
kys
Sounds like someone shouldn't have a magic hole in the wall that leads to Sup Forums.
We can still shoot a rocket out in space make sling shot 4 times around in our solar system and hit a comet traveling more miles pr sec than you've moved your entire life and hit it within the length of your penis.. all based on assumptions..
It could be true, it could not be true. It would just be considered to be true until someone proved it wrong by dropping 110 more phones and say 1 did not break therefore it would then not be true, it would become a probability. If you drop a phone from 20ft there is a 1/200 chance of it breaking. Proving the first assumption/theory to be wrong
>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality,
the weak assumption that what we observe to happen regularly (sunrises) should do the same thing in the future.
>but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true.
um, no. I could tldr why, but retards like short videos, so here.
you argue the black swan fallacy.
>Why? Because they can't.
no shit, Sherlock. See previous.
>Until those who believe in science can prove those assumptions are true
go on...
>we must assume
we can make no assumptions of reality, faggot, haven't you heard of brain in a vat?
> said assumption are unprovable
no shit, learn the concept of "the map is not the territory"
>and therefore science is bullshit.
science is a method to learn about the nature of reality, but the fact we will never connect to reality means at best we will only slightly reduce our ignorance. The only way to argue against the METHOD OF SCIENCE is to prove another method is better by predicting all the phenomena science predicts in a better way.
If we cannot ever truly connect to reality (brain in a vat, shadows in the cave), the best we can hope is to reach out from the dark and compare our results.
Thus, the burden is on you to show that some other METHOD does a better job.
I'll wait for your proposal, faggot.
Yes. Every. Time. Micro-fractures are a thing.
take 50 phones you dropped to a crime lab and I'm pretty sure they can recreate how and where the objects fell by looking at the marks and debris the object picked up. shit, they can even tell you how old it is and possibly tell you who dropped the phones. science nigga
I read the first 6 words then did a 360 and walked into the wormhole in the other room and hit reply. suck my taint user.
oh, the damn video for those with a 3-minute attention span on why science can never prove anything (and your claim scientists try is BULLSHIT): youtu.be
The Internet which empowers your whining is a good case against you.
Is there any evidence that said micro fractures will always occur?
"The point of impact will be shown because there will be a significant dent in the casing of the phone" - look around phone - "oh look this corner is so much more fucked than the rest of the phone"
Solved
"There will be DNA and fingerprints on the phone of the person that dropped it." - Take phone, analyse all around phone for finger prints and match them, and analyse DNA and match it to person.
Solved
Etc. CBA to write any more
Popper
Yes, because of force of impact needed to create microfractures in certain materials. Which is working out how fast the phone was dropping which then is used to work out how hard the forces were acting on the materials, then if the practical test matches the math = proved
Seriously. Look up Agrippa's Trilemma.
this
/thread
Maybe I'm just playing into the bait, but what the heck.
>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality
Yeah, we call these assumptions "hypotheses" At that stage they are assumptions. But that's only the first step.
>those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true
And here we have the next steps following the hypothesis. This is called the scientific method. You're on the internet so I trust you can google that. But by utilizing this method, those of us who believe in science can determine whether a hypothesis is true or not. We then document our findings. That, sir, is what we call science.
It is a lot more that "hypothesis", it is about the basic assumption that the data received is true
>hypothesis
>experiment
>if results match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is more likely to be correct
>if not it's more likely to be incorrect
what is flawed with this process?
>Checkmate science and atheist fags
Posts this using hardware and a global network based on scientific principle.
Then provide EVIDENCE that the basic assumptions are true
it's called an experiment dipshit
It assumes things without evidence
Do you know what a "theory" is and how they work ?
Kill yourself now.
OP here: A theory is a set of facts
>A theory is a set of facts
no it's not. did you fail science class in elementary school?
a theory is a PROVISIONAL explanation based on empirical data that fits the data parsimoniously.
.
those big words aren't just fancy, they cover the nuances of the term, but if you're too stupid to look them up, it roughly means the theory is the STORY WE TELL TO TRY TRY to explain something, and to avoid telling crazy stories, we try to tell the story with the fewest assumptions.
.
it's entertaining, tho, when you try and fail ;)
OP here: You guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative nor based on pure belief. So still, fuck you. You have provided no EVIDENCE
the hypothesis is the question which the experiment answers, the experiment's results are the evidence for the hypothesis which we can conclude evidence from. The things which are assumed to be true are based on the recorded results of prior experiments. If everyone was somehow misconstruing the world around them (which is entirely possible as we're only seeing the universe from the human perspective,) it wouldn't really matter since the laws we observe in the universe apply to us and our awareness.
There is no assumption because any sensible scientist would run experiments numerous times until the data was consistent.
>OP here: You guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative nor based on pure belief. So still, fuck you. You have provided no EVIDENCE
if anyone has lost, it's you since you were too much of a coward to disprove the evidence I provided of your faulty argument.
(crickets from OP)
.
once you presumed a faulty premise, it was your burden to dig yourself out of it, not ours.
.
name calling is an ad-hominem fallacy only when it is the only response. if we respond with a well-reasoned response and offer logic and evidence, and then call you a RAGING FAGGOT WHO SUCKS DICKS AND EATS DIARRHEA FULL OF AIDS, we have committed no fallacy, tho we may have roasted you a bit ;)
no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted
A theory is a set of facts, not an explanation of those facts but it is when you take all those facts together.Otherwise, the theory of evolution would just be a "theory" as you explain it rather than a set of facts. A theory is a set of facts, what you described is a theorem
...
What's my faulty premise again?
To anyone who understands logic your logic stands as such
>See Pic
The OP is that
how's your polio OP?
>no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted
not unless you plan on changing the definition of the very words that were stated. the words stated in that post are clear and unambiguous:
>you guys can still insult well but you yet to still prove that the basic assumptions regarding science are provable and not speculative
see my post:
you can try to get fancy and argue it wasn't OP, but that doesn't change the invalidity of the greentext above... but i doubt you're read the perfect rebuttal (linked above) yet ;)
>A theory is a set of facts, not an explanation of those facts but it is when you take all those facts together.
The theory of relativity is the set of explanations (cited in mathematical language) that attempt to reconcile our observations at near light speeds.
>Otherwise, the theory of evolution would just be a "theory" as you explain it rather than a set of facts.
is is a "theory" but you put so much value on the theory that you fear that its place as an explanation somehow makes it weaker than religious explanations, yet it is not; it is clearly a more parsimonious explanation.
A theory is a set of facts, what you described is a theorem.
no, a set of facts alone can be interpreted. You are mistaking the "map" for the "territory". Much like the fact probability is in the mind (the con doesn't have probability), the facts are our interpretation of what we see, and the theory is our best explanation. that is all it is, but it's damn better than anything else humans have come up with.
>What's my faulty premise again?
read above.
Science is indeed flawed else black won't be same species
>>no, if you make any observations about op, your argument is tainted
>not unless you plan on changing the definition of the very words that were stated. the words stated in that post are clear and unambiguous:
I was being sarcastic, OP is a dumbshit
Ok I am going to do this once. You say that this is true, provide evidence for it. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT
You can not
>Ok I am going to do this once. You say that this is true, provide evidence for it. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT
provide evidence for what?
science has never been about PROVING anything: it hasn't been since the time of Locke.
if it isn't about proving things, and I EXPLICITLY said so: then you are asking me to prove a negative, and that's a fallacy
logicallyfallacious.com
I could explain it to you, but you don't read much
You cannot provide any evidence that anything is true
Destroy all the bibles and science books in the world. In a 1000 years which would come back the same?
>science has never been about PROVING anything
Your words, not mine
FUUUCCCKK YEEAAAHHH
"Yeah it was the big bang"
Was it? Fucking prove it faggot, fuck science.
I can make up shit that sounds half realistic, am I a scientist?
I don't see any of the science fags refuting this.
>Your words, not mine
irrelevant whose words they are; the argument (that science is not about proving things) remains.
science is the method of acquisition of knowledge. it is based on both deductive and inductive reasoning, but mostly inductive. The fact it is based on inductive reasoning means it is limited by our senses (the map is not the territory) and the fact we do not possess complete knowledge of the universe (black swan).
tldr: the fact we can't be all-knowing and that our senses can deceive us does not allow us to know anything with certainty. the best we can do is agree that things that are regular probably will continue to be regular (sunrises). we build on that and eventually crack quarks.
but we can never prove science, it's not even good form! true experiments are all about DISPROVING our arguments and seeing if the proposal survives.
>certain assumptions
No one can prove anything when you don't define what it is you are trying to prove.
>science has never been about PROVING anything
Remember this shit
AYYY LMAO
"I've looked at the sky, then the ground, then the sky again, therefore I know what happened billions of years ago"
Proofs are in math. Measurements can be mathematically expressed.
Science has theories, which are made of facts.
Theories are always open to question and testable, if not they are discarded.
These threads always devolve into dumb people demanding definitions of simple words and quibbling about the definitions provided.
Science proves nothing bitch just like that fag said
>I don't see any of the science fags refuting this.
see here:
protip: you can try to move the goalposts... that's a good tactic ;)
>God hates me because I say gay shit like "well played, sir" I know, I'll become an atheist!
FAAGGGOOOTTTSSS
Did you pray for the internet to be? If so bravo
>Science is based upon certain assumptions about objective reality
Yes.
>but yet those who believe in science have yet to prove or provide any evidence that those set of assumptions are true
Those who truly understand the scientific method know that you can't really expect scientific models to be completely true. As a scientist, you always have to assume that a observation can be made or a piece of data can be discovered that contradicts a theory in certain conditions. If that happens, then you either modify the assumptions made or create a new set of assumptions that fit experimental evidence better than before. As the models improve, we will be able to make better predictions about nature and create better technology.
I am not. One of you science fags said it. Science proves nothing
>science has never been about PROVING anything
Dubs of truth.
I mean, I've been butthurt, but I've never been atheist butthurt.
>One of you science fags said it
being this much of a newfag.
the suffix 'fag' is attached to a noun to describe someone who is DOGMATICALLY tied to their noun.
animefags love anime so much
moralfags think right and wrong are very clear
science fags should be those who dogmatically love the method of science.
But (despite my previous tldr posts) I do not believe in science, I ACCEPT IT AS A TOOL just like a mechanic accepts a 17mm socket as a tool to remove his lugnuts (that plus an air gun). Unlike dogmatists who will not let go of their tool, I'd be happy to toss the tool in the garbage if you can show me a tool that does a better job with less work.
when someone comes up with a better tool, we usually adopt it and usher in a new revolution. I for one would LOVE TO BE AT THE HEAD OF THAT REVOLUTION, SO IF YOU HAVE A BETTER TOOL, PLEASE, SHARE IT WITH US ;)
>science has never been about PROVING anything
I think we know who won the debate
SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING
>SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING
correct. thanks for repeating what I posted here:
it is consistent with all my posts ;)
shit I'm late to the party
all science is false. ever notice how often your internet gets slow?? or how often people die on the operating table? or how often your car breaks down??
that is proof that science doesnt work, never did.
prayer, on the other hand, always works.
...