My friend does A-level Chemistry, and he told me that everything we learnt at GCSE Chemistry was a LIE.
And apparently, everything I do in Biology and Physics for my A-level isn't even true. We don't even know if it's true. Everything's based on fricking models!
"How do we know that the enzyme-substrate complex works like that?" I ask my teacher.
"We don't. It's all based on a model that scientists designed."
...
So... everything I've ever learnt in my life is made of bullshit? Even the stuff about actual, literal shit?
I'm not sure why you'd describe a model tailored to reality over years "shit"? If you're disappointed that you're not able to grasp reality except through your senses, then I don't know what to tell you.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.No, not at all. It's the best knowledge we have given our capabilities and instruments.
I think this brings up a stark difference between the definition of 'theory' to a scientist and to a lay person. To the lay person, a theory is closer to what a scientist would call a hypothesis - relatively untested, general idea of what might be true. To a scientist, a theory has a lot of experimental and analytic evidence already supporting it, but not so much that everything is accepted as entirely factual. Evolution is a 'theory', but there's tons of evidence behind it. I believe that this difference in definition is why so many people dismiss evolution as 'just a theory', since they're using the lay definition of theory and not the scientific one.
I am posting this because awesome propaganda I am totally on board with:
Mathematics is pretty much the only thing that doesn't have some degree of uncertainty. One of my physics professors explained that there are no proofs in science, only evidence. That uncertainty is necessary if you want to describe the world, though, so it's not a bad thing. (Mathematics doesn't describe the world so much as it defines or constructs formal systems that are often inspired by the world, but may or may not directly relate to it.)
Sort of.
There are no DEDUCTIVE proofs in science. There are "inductive proofs" but that's rather missing the entire point of what a "proof" really is. However, it's fair to say that when people colloquially talk about proof, they're really talking about evidence.
edited 28th Sep '11 1:03:14 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Que Tze Tze linking an SMBC comic...
I could quote Chaitin's arguments that math needs quasi-empiricism, but I don't really buy it myself.
edited 28th Sep '11 1:05:32 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Terence Tao would like to have a word with you all...
A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.Yes, the same Chaitin. You can Google his website pretty easily; he believes that mathematics has to start using empiricism for undecidable problems like halting probability, or unprovable* propositions like the continuum hypothesis I suppose.
edited 28th Sep '11 1:12:11 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Well, I don't know about now, but when he majored in math at age sixteen he said: "It's weird, but it all makes sense". Later he said "I was naïve... but I still stand by those words. In the end it all comes down to common sense. You'll know it when you see it!"
A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.The examples that come to mind easily are the Riemann hypothesis and P≠NP; we don't know whether either is true* , but we have a lot banking on them anyway.
edited 28th Sep '11 1:53:47 PM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Super late, but my favourite subject is Physics. Finding out just what makes our universe tick is fascinating - I've always been interested in finding out how things work, and the universe is the biggest and most complex machine of all, isn't it?
I'm currently doing physics in school, although I'm not the best at it.
Locking you up on radar since '09
Loving something you're not the best at...
I know that feel bro.
A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.

Anyway, I don't know if it's been said, but as far as I can tell, science is ultimately a methodology more than a discipline in itself. What is colloquially called 'science' is really just the set of all disciplines that invoke the scientific method. But enough about nitpicking.
I'm curious as to how one determines what is a 'soft' science and what is a 'hard' science. It seems that from the pieces of the thread I've read, soft seems synonymous with the social sciences, and hard seems synonymous with the physical sciences. However, I can say for sure that psychology and economics are decidedly not light on the mathematics. I have personally read economics papers in journal publications, and I can't understand all the mathematics involved (and I have a degree in both economics and mathematics at the undergraduate level).