/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10152107
based and scipilled

>>10152107
I don't understand this.
> The flat Earth model is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> The Ptolmaic model of the solar system is a correct and incomplete description of reality
> Nazi Eugenics is a correct and incomplete description of reality

>>10152107
>Quantum Mechanics is a correct and incomplete description of reality.

I would disagree with this one, unless you specifically mean nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.

>climate change is a real threat is a correct and woefully incomplete description of reality
ftfy op

>>10152107
>>Everything single thing is a correct and incomplete description of reality.

>this thread again
If a theory were fact, it wouldn't be a theory now, would it?
meh, hidden, get bent OP

>Vaccines are safe and effective.

Sure, show me how many deaths in a year we have from vaccines, I'll wait while you realize we don't know and that vaccines are blind medicine.

>>10152446
Enjoy watching your kid die of Hep B.

>>10152107
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
so you are agnostic about Russel's teapot?

>>10152449
I dunno how you plan to raise your kid, but mine won't be sharing needles or having sex with people at the age of 1 day old.

I am not afraid of my child magically contracting a fucking S.T.D before they're able to talk.

>>10152107

Everything you posted is a legitimate truth, with exception to;
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Incorrect. Everything that exists is a physical phenomenon, without any physical evidence to support it, it does not exist.

>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.

>is a real threat
Not really.

>mostly caused by humans
Mostly correct, but "caused by humans" is a misnomer. It is caused by a much more advanced and full ecology change that, in most ways, was caused by humans. But climate change is not all the way directly being caused by human technology or manufacturing.

>>10152454
>Everything that exists is a physical phenomenon
[citation needed]

>>10152454
>>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>>is a real threat
>Not really.
Let's be specific. Human accelerated climate change is an empirical threat to the planet's biodiversity and the stability of many of its ecosystems.

>>10152107

>>10152107
I disagree.

>>10152107
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There are two well known applications of this phrase.

1. Carl Sagan in response to SETI's failure to find evidence of alien signals

2. Donald Rumsfeld in response to the failure of the UN's search for WMDs.

Now in both cases we had a probability of finding evidence but evidence was absent. Let us be generous and define evidence "E is evidence of X" as E increases the probability of event X:

P(X|E) > P(X|¬E)

Where ¬X is the absence of X.

This statement is mathematically equivalent to

P(¬X|¬E) > P(¬X|E)

Which by our definition means that ¬E is evidence of ¬X. In other words, if E is evidence of X then the absence of E is evidence of the absence of X.

Thus the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>10152451
>so you are agnostic about Russel's teapot?
What position should be taken when there's an absence of evidence to base a position on?

>>10152453
Your kid sounds like a real lame-o.

>>10152454
>without any physical evidence to support it, it does not exist.
He's wrong, but he's talking about known evidence.

>>10152107
>The Moon landings happened and space travel is real.
Yeah, but the moon is man made so it doesn't really count now, does it?
>vaccines are safe and effective
They cause autism but the people trying to ban them are eugenicists who want to rid the world of autistic people. I'd rather be a sperg who writes shitposts like these than die of smallpox or something.

>>10152107
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.
I don't want this!

>>10154495
I'm sorry reality did not meet your expectations. There is no complaints department.

>>10152107
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>...and incomplete description of reality

Then don't claim shit is "impossible" immediately after.

>>10152107
good list

>>10152107
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.

The way you have defined perpetual motion machines as making energy "from nothing" have made it so it's a-priori impossible, so of course it's impossible. Surely it's the claim from people who think there could be such machines that the energy does indeed come from some unknown physics, nevertheless NOT from nothing. Thus, you cannot rule out these devices a-priori because of some metaphysical claim that was never really made.

>>10152107
You mistakenly added this:
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The rest of the post is accurate.

>>10152107
Energy from nothing is impossible, but you live in universe full of stuff. e.g. gravity, heat in air.

Keep your facts straight.

bump

>>10154766
There's those who claim "over-unity" all the time, and then when pressed about it give you an ad-hoc explanation about hidden energy fields, etc. But technically you're right, you can't rule that out a-priori. That's one of the reasons it works on some people.

>>10152107
This is the one and only true shape of the earth

>>10152107
>>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
Climate scientists can't even predict the weather 24 hours into the future. But let's believe what they think it will be like 100 years into the future, despite them constantly failing to predict climate change in the short term, last 20 years in particular and having to cook the data to get the numbers to look less embarrassing for them. Sure. It's totally real.

Shadow is faster than light. If you made a bunny shadow with your fingers, you could move it across the galaxy in one second.

>>10152454
>Incorrect. Everything that exists is a physical phenomenon, without any physical evidence to support it, it does not exist.
U R A Retardo

>>10153968
Nobody wants to ban vaccines. People want voluntary vaccines where the manufacturer has a liability.

Vaccines kill more people than they will ever save.

>>10156903
That's the dumbest shit I ever heard. Or am I? So do things spontaneously start existing when we find out that they exist? Or did they already exist before we knew that they did.

>>10152107
You should have added
>general AI is impossible
>cybernetic mind uploads are physically impossible
>genetic engineering will never exist for long enough to generate a new race of man and will almost certainly cause serious health problems for the first few cohorts subjected to it
>the Earth is headed towards a sixth mass extinction event that will directly imperil humanity and almost certainly is under way now
>colonizing other planets is metabolically and logistically impossible and a con used by industrialists to farm money from investors and good will from the public
>economics is not science, experimental economics fails to live up to the rigor of even the softer sciences like biology and is baded in axioms that are mechanically retarded and concocted for the benefit of the political, economic and academic elites who shill these models
>engineering is not science
>computer science is not science
>logic is not mathematics and mathematicians don’t need to care about mathematical logic
>third world nations are biohazards to first world populations and cause most pollution and GHG emissions but first world nations are still producing astronomical sums of pollutants and GHG emissions that would not be sustainable even if the much needed culling of the biological detritus of our species was carried out
>/sci/ shitposters are unfunny and the iq scores people bandy around here are not correct, you must take a proctored exam to have a legitimate assessment of intelligence
>iq is neurobiologically and genetically substantiated and the most accurate psychometric psychology has produced
>this holding true does not make psychology a science
>OP is an incorrigible faggot and needs to learn to control himself around cock

>>10152107
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Agreed, not because it's impossible to go "faster than light" but because light has no "speed". It's a rate of induction.

>Climate change is real, is happening right now,
yes
>is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
No. We don't control the sun or the spin of the earth.

And last but not least.
>established science

>>10156440
Nice

>>10158476
I enjoy part two much better than the first.

>>10152129
>Nazi Eugenics
brainlet detected. Eugenics are the Jewish way to control the gene pool, the NATIONAL SOCIALIST application was called ARYANISATION which was in complete OPPOSITE of natural selection, aka selection of noble traits instead of barbaric/survival ones.

>>10156461
It's easier to study patterns than to predict single phenomena. That's why we have standard climate models to begin with: "Rain season" in the Savahanna doesn't mean it will rain all day every day from the 21 of September to the 21 of March sharp, it means the likehood of having rain at all is much greater; and the steppe can have rains, but that doesn't mean it stops being arid.

>>10152107
>Vaccines are safe and effective.
I am living proof that that "fact" is wrong. They are GENERALLY safe, but there is always a risk.

bump

>>10156461
>>>Climate change is real, is happening right now, is a real threat and is mostly caused by humans.
>Climate scientists can't even predict the weather 24 hours into the future. But let's believe what they think it will be like 100 years into the future, despite them constantly failing to predict climate change in the short term, last 20 years in particular and having to cook the data to get the numbers to look less embarrassing for them. Sure. It's totally real.
This is such a dumb argument, reading it surely just killed some of my brain cells. You do realize there are different types of metereologists in the world, and that their predictive capabilities work mostly on the basis of statistically calculated outcomes.

And to dumb it down for you even more. Let's say, I have a coin. I flip it once a minute. Two people are there to predict the coin's behavior: one to always predict the outcome of the very next flip, and one to predict the overall trend of how often each side comes up. You guess which one will actually be more accurate in the long run.

>>10153733
The phrase does not refer to an absence of evidence to base a position on. It refers to an absence of evidence for a specific claim. See the examples in >>10152583. A failure to find evidence for X is evidence against X.

>>10152107
>The Earth is round. (Yes oblate spheroids are round.)
This poor anon, locked in his parents' basement, has never seen a mountain, cave or tunnel.

>>10152107
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

>>10156440
Based and redpilled

>>10152107
>Perpetual motion machines, over-unity devices, energy-from-nothing generators, propulsionless drives and the like can not and will never work.

this is already proven wrong.

>>10153733
The position that makes the fewest assumptions.

>>10163237
By what?

>>10158476
>general AI is impossible
>cybernetic mind uploads are physically impossible
>genetic engineering will never exist for long enough to generate a new race of man and will almost certainly cause serious health problems for the first few cohorts subjected to it
>colonizing other planets is metabolically and logistically impossible and a con used by industrialists to farm money from investors and good will from the public
t. person who probably would have thought flying machines are impossible if he lived during the 1800s

>>10152107
>The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Wrong

>>10152107
>Faster-than-light communication is impossible.
Unless it's possible to travel using wormholes or Alcubierre drives

>>10159570
>>10162813
Don't call it a "dumb argument" and then conflate observing rainy season vs. dry season trends with making predictions about cataclysmic, permanent changes in the climate.

>>10163251
there are working devices that operate on zero point energy field and quantum vacuum.

and now you have two choices. Call me an /x/ retard and move on or check this for yourself.

>>10163397
It's possible even with heat pump and heat engine... But those more advanced, can you post manuals?

>>10156527
But anon shadows don't exist.

>>10152107
prove it XDDD

>>10163293
You still aren't travelling faster than light.

The earth is flat you retard

>>10163443
yeah, but information will make it to the other end faster than light.

>>10163293
>Unless it's possible to travel using wormholes or Alcubierre drives
Except it isn't. They require unphysical negative energy to work. Which is like saying you can build a perpetuum mobile by lubricating the machine with something that has negative friction. You simply moved the impossibility, you never circumvented it.

>>10152207
Then what's a fact?

>>10163397
No there aren't.

>>10152107
>using a word in its definition
you're not capable of having a entertaining or enlightening discussion.

everything except for
>quantum mechanics
hate this meme field so much. Pretentious retards who do little more than nonlinear algebra
t. Math minor

>>10152107
Geocentricism is a correct and incomplete description of reality too.

>>10152583
(also >>10152454)

Your definition of "evidence" and its translation into probabilistic theory is too loose and has to be further constrained.

It can be shown that there exists a situation that conforms to your mathematical definition and yet is absurd.

Consider the following: there is a chest of drawers with ten drawers. You are informed that there is a ball in one of the drawers.

We denote X to mean the event "a ball is in the chest of drawers" and E to mean the event "drawer 1 contains a ball". Now, we can trivially compute P(X|E), which equals 1, as well as note that P(X|¬E) is smaller than that. Hence P(X|E) > P(X|¬E).

Assuming the mathematical transformation is correct (I am poor at maths and frankly don't know), then P(¬X|¬E) > P(¬X|¬E) also holds. Therefore we should be able to apply "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" to this situation by saying: the absence of a ball in drawer 1 is evidence that there is no ball in the chest of drawers. This conclusion is absurd because only a minority (one-tenth) of the search space has been considered.

---

Side note: your argument resembles the following logical proposition:

(E -> X) <=> (¬E -> ¬X)

which is unfortunately only true if

E <=> X is true, i.e., if E is the complete search space for the evidence.

>>10163505
but is it more correct than the heliocentric model?

>>10163585
>This conclusion is absurd because only a minority (one-tenth) of the search space has been considered.
I don't see how this is an absurdity. Even though only one tenth of the search space has been considered, the absence of a ball in that space does indeed increase the probability that the entire chest does not contain a ball. It's clearly evidence. Are you perhaps confusing evidence with proof? Because generally empirical investigation does not result in proof, it results in an increased probability.

>>10163691
Yes.

>>10152107
>Newtonian Mechanics appears to be a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Quantum Mechanics appears to be a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Special and General Relativity appear to be correct and incomplete descriptions of reality.
>The Standard Model of particle physics appears to be a correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Big Bang cosmology (The Lambda-CDM model) appears to be correct and incomplete description of reality.
>Darwinian evolution appears to be a correct and incomplete description of reality.
Fixed all that horseshit for you.
No researcher on Earth worth their salt will ever claim anything you just said. Absolutely none. The best any of them will give you is, "These models are the most accurate ones we have produced to date." Any claim otherwise is 100% bullshit and might as well be a religious belief.

>>10163725
that's all subjective now tho, "appears" isn't a scientific term
>it appears that God exists and created the world

>>10163725
Which is exactly the point made in the OP, even without your correction.