Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?
Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.
Albert Einstein?
As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Carl Sagan?
Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend … to have attained it. But the history of science—by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans—teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.
We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge.
I’m going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity. How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on. Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity
That’s an awful sloppy use of language on their part then, which would be very out of character. Where I come from, “anything” means “anything”.
How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
By a basic understanding of scientific epistemology. All knowledge comes through the senses and is interpreted by the brain. Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena. Sure I’m extremely certain that gravity exists, but not 100%. I’m not 100% certain that I exist.
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on.
Fucking lol
Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
He didn’t, he acknowledged its use at the atomic scale but didn’t believe it was a complete theory.
But pretending he did for a moment: you’re saying that one of the top experts in his field expressed absolute certainty about the field he was an expert in, and yet later he was shown to be wrong? And you think that supports your argument?
Do you think you’re more of an expert in this topic than Einstein was in physics? Yet you proudly declare the hubris of his certainty? Arrogance. I used to think like you, when I was a teenager. People like you are going to make more arrogant little teenagers just like you, and it makes me sick.
Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena
Science is only trying to explain observed phenomenon. And if everyone is measurably observing things the same, then we can be certain such a thing exists ion our observed reality.
Fucking lol
Since Einstein died we’ve invented computers, the internet, we’ve decoded the entire human genome, we’ve come up with ways to image the structures of proteins, and visualize individual atoms within a molecule, and so much more. Yeah, I do know more than Einstein did.
And you think that supports your argument?
Yes, because he’s the one you quoted, and he didn’t even believe his own statement. And I am only expressing absolute certainty in things that have shown absolute evidence for, such as gravity, evolution, the fact we are made of trillions of tiny cells. These are absolute certainties.
when I was a teenager
You still are a teenager, you have never once said otherwise when I have called you a bratty teen, so you are one. You also have not given me any credentials still.
and it makes me sick.
You’ve done nothing but insult me for ages now, and I make you sick? Fuck off you little prick.
I’m not, but you’re behaving like a teenager cosplaying. You have done nothing but show you don’t understand the fundamentals of science. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, you’re arrogant, logically illiterate, and just generally unpleasant. If you’re not cosplaying, you’re the worst kind of science professional. The fewer we have like you, the better.
You’ve insulted my integrity as a scientist, said I add nothing to scientific discourse, and said I have brain rot. Only after all that shit you threw at me did I become unpleasant and call you an idiot.
Look in a fucking mirror.
And once again, what the fuck do you even know about science? What re your fucking credentials? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question Mr. astrology is great, but I’m not so sure about gravity?
Nowhere did I say that I was more confident in astrology than gravity. In fact, several times now I’ve said that I do not believe in astrology, and that I do believe in gravity. I have repeatedly acknowledged the vast relative difference in their supporting evidence. I only claimed that your statements that all astrologers were con-men and all horoscopes were fundamentally vague were incorrect, by virtue of the absolute nature of the claims. My only positive claim was that there is a non-zero possibility that there is an incidental correlation between approximate date of birth and certain personality traits. Not that it’s probable, not that it isn’t unlikely, but that at some future date we might find some effect, totally unrelated to the stars and planets in their courses, that corresponds to certain other effects.
I said only that absolute certainty is brain rot. If you hadn’t claimed absolute certainty, it would not apply to you. I provided several authoritative scientific sources which reiterate that absolute certainty is fundamentally unscientific, falsifiability being central to the concept of scientific thought. You then persevered in your insistence on the unambiguous truth of unfalsifiable facts.
You claimed to be more of an expert on the philosophy of science than Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, by virtue of the irrelevant matter of time and technology. As if the fundamental precepts of the discipline have changed because we have more data and better processors. Science is science, fundamental uncertainty in science is one of those definitions like 2 + 2 = 4, or that carbon had 6 protons. No amount of experience supercedes axiomatic properties.
I haven’t revealed any credentials, because credentials are irrelevant to science. That’s the point. It’s a methodical approach to incremental knowledge increase based on rigorous rationality, appropriately supported by evidence and reason. It’s only after your repeated disrespect to that fundamental property that I partially abandoned civility.
This is why I question your reading comprehension. This is why I question your logical literacy. This is why I have serious doubts that you are the scientific professional you claim to be. This is middle school stuff. If you had any scientific education, you would know better.
Science fundamentalism is a cancer that erodes the dignity of scientific pursuit. People like you who claim absolute certainty in the name of science are the cells that propagate that cancer.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
Whatever you say dude, brain rot has set in. Do you know more about this than Richard Feynman?
Albert Einstein?
Carl Sagan?
I’m going to go with the actually experienced scientists. They know more about this than you.
They are talking about theories, not established phenomena like gravity. How can you not be certain that gravity exists?
And they actually don’t, because I have an extra 50+ years of science advancement over them to go on. Einstein denied quantum mechanics existed, but it is now very well established for example.
That’s an awful sloppy use of language on their part then, which would be very out of character. Where I come from, “anything” means “anything”.
By a basic understanding of scientific epistemology. All knowledge comes through the senses and is interpreted by the brain. Absolute certainty even of observed phenomena forgets that these are observed phenomena. Sure I’m extremely certain that gravity exists, but not 100%. I’m not 100% certain that I exist.
Fucking lol
He didn’t, he acknowledged its use at the atomic scale but didn’t believe it was a complete theory.
But pretending he did for a moment: you’re saying that one of the top experts in his field expressed absolute certainty about the field he was an expert in, and yet later he was shown to be wrong? And you think that supports your argument?
Do you think you’re more of an expert in this topic than Einstein was in physics? Yet you proudly declare the hubris of his certainty? Arrogance. I used to think like you, when I was a teenager. People like you are going to make more arrogant little teenagers just like you, and it makes me sick.
Science is only trying to explain observed phenomenon. And if everyone is measurably observing things the same, then we can be certain such a thing exists ion our observed reality.
Since Einstein died we’ve invented computers, the internet, we’ve decoded the entire human genome, we’ve come up with ways to image the structures of proteins, and visualize individual atoms within a molecule, and so much more. Yeah, I do know more than Einstein did.
Yes, because he’s the one you quoted, and he didn’t even believe his own statement. And I am only expressing absolute certainty in things that have shown absolute evidence for, such as gravity, evolution, the fact we are made of trillions of tiny cells. These are absolute certainties.
You still are a teenager, you have never once said otherwise when I have called you a bratty teen, so you are one. You also have not given me any credentials still.
You’ve done nothing but insult me for ages now, and I make you sick? Fuck off you little prick.
I’m not, but you’re behaving like a teenager cosplaying. You have done nothing but show you don’t understand the fundamentals of science. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, you’re arrogant, logically illiterate, and just generally unpleasant. If you’re not cosplaying, you’re the worst kind of science professional. The fewer we have like you, the better.
I hope you learn some humility when you grow up.
You’ve insulted my integrity as a scientist, said I add nothing to scientific discourse, and said I have brain rot. Only after all that shit you threw at me did I become unpleasant and call you an idiot.
Look in a fucking mirror.
And once again, what the fuck do you even know about science? What re your fucking credentials? Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question Mr. astrology is great, but I’m not so sure about gravity?
Nowhere did I say that I was more confident in astrology than gravity. In fact, several times now I’ve said that I do not believe in astrology, and that I do believe in gravity. I have repeatedly acknowledged the vast relative difference in their supporting evidence. I only claimed that your statements that all astrologers were con-men and all horoscopes were fundamentally vague were incorrect, by virtue of the absolute nature of the claims. My only positive claim was that there is a non-zero possibility that there is an incidental correlation between approximate date of birth and certain personality traits. Not that it’s probable, not that it isn’t unlikely, but that at some future date we might find some effect, totally unrelated to the stars and planets in their courses, that corresponds to certain other effects.
I said only that absolute certainty is brain rot. If you hadn’t claimed absolute certainty, it would not apply to you. I provided several authoritative scientific sources which reiterate that absolute certainty is fundamentally unscientific, falsifiability being central to the concept of scientific thought. You then persevered in your insistence on the unambiguous truth of unfalsifiable facts.
You claimed to be more of an expert on the philosophy of science than Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman, by virtue of the irrelevant matter of time and technology. As if the fundamental precepts of the discipline have changed because we have more data and better processors. Science is science, fundamental uncertainty in science is one of those definitions like 2 + 2 = 4, or that carbon had 6 protons. No amount of experience supercedes axiomatic properties.
I haven’t revealed any credentials, because credentials are irrelevant to science. That’s the point. It’s a methodical approach to incremental knowledge increase based on rigorous rationality, appropriately supported by evidence and reason. It’s only after your repeated disrespect to that fundamental property that I partially abandoned civility.
This is why I question your reading comprehension. This is why I question your logical literacy. This is why I have serious doubts that you are the scientific professional you claim to be. This is middle school stuff. If you had any scientific education, you would know better.
Science fundamentalism is a cancer that erodes the dignity of scientific pursuit. People like you who claim absolute certainty in the name of science are the cells that propagate that cancer.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
God, what a joke.
Yeah, see? You keep making banal statements like this. Credentials mean nothing. Sure, they might lend an initial air of credibility, but real credibility ultimately lies in evidence and reasoning. Generally those with high credentials support their claims with evidence and reasoning, but it is not the credentials themselves that provide credibility. That would be another deeply unscientific belief. Another for the growing mound.
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming you are a research chemist, you are so hopelessly mired in The Game that you actually base credibility on titles and credentials instead. That hypothesis would be consistent with your observed behavior. And yet, credentials meant nothing to you in the case of Einstein, as you were so eager to point out, and you are certainly no Einstein.
Keep playing The Game, mixologist.