undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdefrost1y ago0 comments

> Science has proof or nothing. There is no assumptive state.

And which philospher of science said that then? Which others disagree?

Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences .. and yet Mathematics rests upon assumptions, some that contradict each other. You know, Axioms.

Basic axioms | assumptions of science, for which no proof exists and yet without which science is and has nothing include:

* That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

* That this objective reality is governed by natural laws

* That reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

* That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.

0 comments

randomdata1y ago

> And which philospher of science said that then?

I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.

> Which others disagree?

Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.

> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences

In other words, not science?

> yet without which science is and has nothing

I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.

defrostOP1y ago

> I did. Obviously.

So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing.

I haven't, just presented positions held by others .. and with no convincing case I guess we must conclude that science is nothing.

Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

randomdata1y ago

> So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

Wait. If it were a universal absolute, for what reason would I present it? A universal absolute offers no remaining opportunity for me to learn, and why would I enter into a discussion that provides no learning opportunity? That would be a pointless waste of time. Whichever philosopher gave you the idea that I would waste my time like that did not think things through and has severely misguided you.

> I guess we must conclude that science is nothing. Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

Either way. As feeble humans (or LLM bots), we are not science. We can make assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

randomdata1y ago

> And which philospher of science said that then?

I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.

> Which others disagree?

Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.

> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences

In other words, not science?

> yet without which science is and has nothing

I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.

defrostOP1y ago

> I did. Obviously.

So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing.

I haven't, just presented positions held by others .. and with no convincing case I guess we must conclude that science is nothing.

Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

randomdata1y ago

> So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I guess we must conclude that science is nothing. Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

Either way. As feeble humans (or LLM bots), we are not science. We can make assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse