Message from @ApplicationBot
Discord ID: 577116950019309568
newton's mechanics eventually werent good enough to describe everything
so we found relativity
which is completly different
for example your description of temperature might work and the equations might predict well but you say nothing about the real nature of it and thus can't know what is really going on
Something that I learned after hours of debating people (and I'm not kidding about this) is that some people *actually* don't realize that intelligence affects socioeconomic status more than socioeconomic status affects intelligence
the molecules accelatere and the temprature rises as isthe presure
It's something that is so obvious
i literaly found this out by myself when i was 8
called some college to ask if its treu
you can never know if thats the objective reality though
Like hey, this group in our country has a low socioeconomic status, WHY could that be? Well many reasons yes... But, it could be an indicator that that group has lower intelligence.
its just a description using human language
you can look at the moleculair relative accelaration to see what the temprature is
I wouldn't assume that without more evidence though
But god damn the hoops some people will jump through to avoid that
Conclusion
human perception is what humans are and that perception isn't objective but is rather obswserved through consciousness
source wiki
and you can also never know what consciousness is
i think scientific method and thought are the same
science is only "useful" not a truthteller
you get data process it as logical and rational as posible to get a outcome
when you get new insights you gain moa more accurate conclusion
science is based on this
yes
that thoeries get proven and new theoies develop from those discoveries just as more expirances leed to more discoveries in life
then there is flawed thinking and bas science , which i think is your problem with science
well
assume you can have 100% pure science with no paradigm, containing ALL data and be clear
you would only be describing the world through you own lens then
that isnt the way of scinece as you should always look for variables and anomolies
AND you would have the problem of base assumptions
it is open to the fact that it could be wrong
ppl are not, which again leads to bad scienece
and a stacking of mistakes and mis assumtions
you claim that objective science is the one that is simply a concensus among people
no
mainstream science is