Don’t you think that hypotheses are always underdetermined by data...

Don’t you think that hypotheses are always underdetermined by data, so that theories can only ever be selected on the basis of usefulness and aesthetics, which are completely subjective metrics? In other words, isn’t science itself subjective?

E.g. What objective metric could possibly be used to justify favouring one theory vs the same theory which also includes FSM?

Inb4parsimony/Occam’s razor — totally subjective/dependent on priors

Attached: F4F1A321-3D44-43AA-AF4F-A0711879D6E7.png (612x960, 1.39M)

Other urls found in this thread:

preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/03/what-is-science/
youtu.be/K626gMvu2ds
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No. Stop trying to sound smart, kid, because you're failing miserably.

Read up on the scientific method, if, that is, you are referring to a scientific theory, which has common sections and usually tested by the scientific method (usually with reproducible evidence that confirms your theory_

This. It's better to speak clearly and intentionally than it is to be vague so as to sound smarter than you really are. But, I think OP is a shitpost, or perhaps written by someone in the midst of a psychotic break.

what you mean, long nose tribe lie about holobunga?

I have math & physics from a t20, papi. It’s a serious investigation into the foundations and philosophy of science that I’ve been thinking about.

If you want access to my working definition of the scientific definition, view it here (great blogpost by Sean Carroll, the Harvard/Caltech cosmologist):
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/03/what-is-science/

Executive summary:

>Essentially, science consists of the following three-part process:

>Think of every possible way the world could be. Label each way an “hypothesis.”
>Look at how the world actually is. Call what you see “data” (or “evidence”).
>Where possible, choose the hypothesis that provides the best fit to the data.

He basically equates science with the hypothetico-deductive method.

>What you very often find, however, are folks who try to be a bit more specific and programmatic in their definition of science, and end up falling into the trap of our poor lexicographic enthusiasts: they mistake the definition for the thing being defined.

>Along these lines, you will sometimes hear claims such as these:

>“Science assumes naturalism, and therefore cannot speak about the supernatural.”
>“Scientific theories must make realistically falsifiable predictions.”
>“Science must be based on experiments that are reproducible.”
>In each case, you can kind of see why one might like such a claim to be true — they would make our lives simpler in various ways. But each one of these is straightforwardly false.

Get bent, you pseud. I guess they don't teach social skills where you studied.

***my working definition of the scientific method

What is your problem dude?

I just realized I accidentally posted on Jow Forums and not /sci/ which explains the level of retardation. :)

Science is literally confirmation bias with the illusion that it is not confirmation bias.
Welcome to hell.

Attached: 1516788534265.jpg (960x960, 42K)

Nice way of putting it, thanks.

youtu.be/K626gMvu2ds

Your words have no meaning. In fact, neither do mine. nothing is real and communication is impossible.

*bitcoin

I think I am pretty clear and concise.

If we presuppose a positive future then it’s welcome to heaven.

>I think
Subjective.

How can a lake of fire and chaos be heaven?
In fact why would you need such concepts.

Never called my post “scientific.” :^)

Bitcoin proved to me that our market is a total sham. When they say "regulate" bitcoin, they really mean destroy competition.

Just because we don’t need something doesn’t mean they cease to exist, the best we can do is prepare a place to store them safely.

I also like shadow-boxing.

Oh, so you are just baiting.
This brings me relief since there is plenty of postmodernists that use the same kind of reasoning to gain power.

I like real boxing better.

No, I mean I never called “scientific.” OP as I said is the result of recent serious investigations into the foundations and philosophy of science. I eschew postmodernism and believe in objective truth, in general.

Bump

Bump