I see the philosotards on this board talking shit about scientism.
somehow they give me the impression that belief (whatever that means) in the scientific method and in science as the ultimate method of finding the truth, is somehow wrong.
Sure, some advanced alien race may have something better, but I don't think mere humans will find a better system.
I see you faggots keep showing those books that showcases faults in the system, sure, the scientific method may not be perfect.
but what's the alternative?
what do you propose then instead of the scientific method?
Undergrads in philosophy fundamentaly missundertand science and viceversa.
>>8041671
The "philosotards" on /sci/ are just pseudo-intellectual math or CS freshmen who want to believe they are the deepest thinkers for spouting preschool platitudes along the lines of "cannot know nuffin".
>>8041695
The worst thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.
>>8041671
>>somehow they give me the impression that belief (whatever that means) in the scientific method and in science as the ultimate method of finding the truth, is somehow wrong.
mathematical truths are not contingent on scientific facts.
>>8041695
>spouting preschool platitudes along the lines of "cannot know nuffin".
>"cannot know nuffin".
said no one ever.
>>8042153
pls, answer my question, oh superior anon who studied epistemology.
>>8041671
you can't use the scientific method to verify if the statement "the scientific method is the ultimate method of finding truth". its circular logic at best
i'd say a priori knowledge is the ultimate way of knowing not discounting a posteriori knowledge and that logical tautologies like (A and not A) are the only undoubtably true statements
>>8042156
your question is as retarded as you
>>8042177
so you can't answer the question.
mmmmm....
>>8042186
so you're actually 12
mmmmmm....................
>>8042187
so you can't offer a superior alternative to the scientific method.
mmm........
>>8041671
I agree with you, but semantically, you're wrong. Science cannot prove anything and it cannot "find truth," as you write; it can only strengthen inductive arguments. That being said, it is by far our best tool to understand the universe and predict future events.
Science can strengthen inductive arguments to the point where the probabilities of them being false can be negligible, but those probabilities are still nonzero and therefore cannot produce any "truth" or "knowledge".
>>8042189
mmmm..................................
>>8042211
>probabilities of them being false can be negligible
you were doing ok until you got here
you can't measure the probability or something being true, it's always 0. all measures of certainty you can construct are only local and dependent on the paradigm
