Understand that science is a name given to both a method, and to a mostly self-consistent body of models that can be used to make useful predictions. Science doesn't get things wrong. Science gets iterated upon.
Good science doesn't get things wrong. Bad science gets things wrong all the time. No scientist is immune to implicit bias and implicit bias is frequently the cause of bad science.
eGFR estimation errors in African Americans is a prime example of that.
It's ironic to refute post-modern ideals with semantics.
And by Godel's Incompleteness theorems, that body of models can never be 100% correct.
This is false. Godels incompleteness theorems only prove that there will be things that are unprovable in that body of models.
Good news, Newtons flaming laser sword says that if something can’t be proven, it isn’t worth thinking about.
Imagine I said, “we live in a simulation but it is so perfect that we’ll never be able to find evidence of it”
Can you prove my statement? No.
In fact no matter what proof you try to use I can just claim it is part of the simulation. All models will be incomplete because I can always say you can’t prove me wrong. But, because there is never any evidence, the fact we live in a simulation must never be relevant/required for the explanation of things going on inside our models.
Are models are “incomplete” already, but it doesn’t matter and it won’t because anything that has an effect can be measured/catalogued and addded to a model, and anything that doesn’t have an effect doesn’t matter.
TL;DR: Science as a body of models will never be able to prove/disprove every possible statement/hypothesis, but that does not mean it can’t prove/disprove every hypothesis/statement that actually matters.
I hate their stage names. Baby, Sporty, Posh? Why tf didn't they use actual spice names? Ginger was already there. Why others weren't called Cinnamon, Pepper, Clove, and Nutmeg? Fucking Brits. 😤😡🤬
Imagine the Brits actually using spice
Scary was the worst stage name. It really hasn't aged well
Americans eat old spice all the time, but Brits try some baby spice and suddenly they've got no taste.
Science isn't a belief, it's a method.
Eh, IMO it's more like four methods stacked on top of each other wearing a trench coat.
Still the best trench coat we currently have.
All the other methods are wearing Borat strings and slinging poop at each other.
It is a method! That method is predicated on European Enlightenment avowals of what constitutes an acceptable boundary of truth, an acceptable methodology, and the primacy of certain measurements. That's the subjective part.
2+2 does equal 4. That doesn't mean valuing 4 as an answer or valuing the act of valuing of the certainty of 2+2=4 is an objective position.
Look into Philosophy of Science - this is not a controversial perspective.
Um, actually, the scientific method as it is currently formulated is best traced back to Ibn Al-Haytham, with elements dating back throughout thousands of years, from the rationalism of Thales to the experimentalism of 墨子. Babylonians were using mathematical prediction algorithms to accurately state the date of the next solar eclipse in 600 BCE. It seems like YOU need to read up on the history of the philosophy of science, and if you claim that 2+2=4 is an "enlightenment" idea, I cannot hope to respond with a level of disdain sufficient to encapsulate your willfully-pompous idiocy.
You say that 2+2 DOES equal 4, and then make claims which suggest that it doesn't. Certainly, 2+2 can only be said to equal 4 because of the axioms of mathematics, which are, of course, purely postulates, since Cartesian solipsism demonstrates that we cannot truly know anything to be true except that we ourselves exist (oh, but wait, your disdain for enlightenment philosophy clearly removes this, the best refuge for your argument!)
However, to accept as a matter of course that 2+2=4 and then suggest that it is only through subjective perception that we privilege 4 over any other number in that equality is not only a clear argument in bad faith, meant only to make others feel stupid, but is also patently ridiculous, since you are reneging on your own given precept.
So, if you're planning on gatekeeping knowledge,
- Do better than "2+2=4, but also 2+2=5 because eurocentrism bad"
- Fuck. Right. Off.
Supposedly...
This sounds really interesting!
The producer of this track.
This is true. We might think that science and tech advanced slowly and steadily, and while that is technically true in some sense, as a general rule science advanced in exponential levels. Like the 2nd industrial revolution of the late 19th century saw such a massive explosion in tech that it created a change that could only be compared to the agricultural revolution.
And let's not get started on the 20th century. Going from first heavier than air flight to landing on the moon in 66 years? Yeah that cannot be overstated.
Still fucks with me that someone could have written an essay about the impossibility of heavier than air flight at the age of 20, and lived to see the moon landing. That's like growing up believing the earth to be the center of the universe, and then living to see the discovery of other galaxies. It would be like growing up a hunter-gatherer and buying a pizza in a grocery store
You know, before Trump and the rise of neo-nazism into the mainstream I used to be huge into interwar media (early talkies, silent films, radio, etc) and one thing I found was a sci-fi radio show (I am not sure if it was Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon or something else) that seemed to treat the very concept of making into space in the 20th century as an impossible feat.
But a little over 20 years after that broadcast Sputnik happened. So many listeners and writers of the time absolutely were eating their own words afterward.
To be fair, Newton was suggesting the feasibility of using chemical propellants to create stable ballistic orbits in space as far back as the 1600s with his cannonball example.
funny thing is that there are a pretty decent amount of hunter-gatherers who wear tshirts and shit, honestly seems like an amazing lifestyle.
So long as you don't use it to spout off some bullshit like electric universe is some pseudo-philisophical bullshit masquerading as science I agree. Sorry of the madness I was watching professor Dave and my mind is mush.
All science is influenced by the current academic landscape and researchers' funding sources. Now let's discuss my new theory that gravity isn't real. First, we have to understand that 1x1=2...
I mean, how technical do you want to get? Because gravity isn't a real force, assuming Einstein is to be believed.
The second spice girl looks like her pants were drawn using brush tool or something.
I thought they just wanted to Zig-a-zig ha
12345
