Science is just another belief system created by humanity

Science is just another belief system created by humanity.
Sience claims to be true, since it is based on repeatable observations.
However, no matter how often something can be observed, it does not prove that it will stay like that for all eternity.
To claim that science is true in a time bound universe, is therefore by definition a belief.

Other urls found in this thread:

peirce.org/writings/p107.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

bump

You're a nigger

Nice argument, scientist.

>t. someone who failed highschool physics

Read about the 'fixing of a belief' to understand what you are saying

peirce.org/writings/p107.html

If new observations happen to disprove accepted statement, science corrects and proposes new statement.
The essence of science is not to establish true statements, but to make plausible statements under a framework which includes a mechanism to prove any previous statement false.That's basically how science works, and the main difference with religion.

>referencing pragmatism
Pragmatism is defined by not being bound to non changing principles. Therefore what you cited just proves my point even more. Pragmatists agree that science is not a truth.

>The essence of science is not to establish true statements, but to make plausible statements

How is plausibility measured if not in truth?

Since I exist I can say it is TRUE that something created me. Therefore this statement in itself has more truth to it than any science ever had. Infact it is the only truth that can be devised.

Checkmate scientist. The creator is true, but your science is just plausible.

PS: Plausibility is a belief system.

He's right!?!? All synthetic propositions are falliable! There is no truth!

pump

Failure to disprove, not prove. You don't even know the basis of science.

If you disprove something today, does it mean it cant be proven tomorrow?

Someone can fail to disprove it tomorrow but that doesn't matter since it's already been disproven once.

The scientific method is based.
Also many early and influential scientists were religious.


Science today, is mostly political. And those involved in science today are influenced by money and politicians.

"Science" is essentially the new cult religion. It's political, it demands conformity and it stifles dissenting opinions. Just try and bring up climate science at a university campus and you'll see what I mean.

Is once enough to claim it's false?

Good post.

>i am twelve years old and just read hume and now i am very smart checkmate science

And what is wrong with believing science? It seems to be pretty useful.

Still outlines how science is a belief system. One that actually gets used just like other belief systems to manipulate people.

Sit out the next round of whatever you are smoking and use your medpack.

>Sience claims to be true
It doesn't.

>How is plausibility measured if not in truth?
Because science statements works for everybody; you can take decisions to live better; and old statements are basis to develop new useful statements.
>Since I exist I can say it is TRUE that something created me
You're absolutely right, you must have had parents.

if it's a hypothesis yes but you should be able to repeat it, and if it's not replicable then that finding is wrong.

Nothing honestly, but how can you claim it's true?

There is no need to read Hume to come to this simple conclusion. A normal IQ and some contemplation should suffice.

>You're absolutely right, you must have had parents.
Who was the parent of the universe?

You existence with your post on this board is also nothing but a perception of others. So how can you actually prove you're human? Do humans exist? Does existence exist? Does exist? Does? ??? . . . .

...

>Who was the parent of the universe?
A jew most likely

I can't prove anything other than that I exist. That's the only truth, everything is perception, as you say. This leads me to believe that perception is what defines what we are.

>And now we see in this picture the froglord firing his shit cannon on the pleb toads, user. What do you think of this?

Turd Mortar even.

I laughed.
Greetings from Switzerland.

>Sience claims
science is not a claim it is a method

I was to say Satan, but it missed by 3. Therefore only explanation is Spaghetti Monster.

Yea but something created it. How cool is that?

no wonder the swiss are obsessed with clocks
fucking autists

we also produce cheese, chocolate and knives

Spaghetti Monster is very cool. Beer volcano and everything.

Following that definition, nothing can be proved or known. Literally, not figuratively, nothing. And since nobody actually uses that rationale to make decisions (because it's fucking stupid), you're just another dipshit the school system indoctrinated to think he was "intelligent" when really you have the depth and intellect of a tea strainer.

There is one truth. You know that you exist. Everything else can't be falsified, you are correct. Since existence is the only truth we can be aware of, we should trust in it to make the right decisions, I suppose?

I mean you can literally decide to do and believe whatever you want. You are that free. But what actually guides you, if not the only truth we can be sure of?

OP wasn't a faggot today

kinda funny the lengths people go to feel like objective truth is obtainable

>produce chocolate
false. who produced cocoa bean?
>switzerland son of nigger

Some things can change uniformity. The fact that niggers will always be niggers will not change however.

>Sience claims to be true
This is were you are wrong, you uneducated mountain dweller. Only religions make idiotic claims like that. Science claims to provide the method that gives the best approximation to reality with the highest predictive power.

Life itself relies on the fact that physical laws are relatively the same in it's very structure.

If physical laws kept changing randomly, how could life even exist? How could we evolve ears and eyes?