• TokyoMonsterTrucker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The moron who made this meme did it on a computer that requires literally thousands of innovations that are a direct, replicable product of the scientific method. It is the most powerful philosophical system on the planet, despite its sloppiest practitioners, and it doesn’t require the belief of fucking idiots to work.

    • Zloubida@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      The scientific method is wonderful, but to call it a philosophical system is a misunderstanding on what philosophy and/or science is/are.

        • Zloubida@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are other arguments, but if you confuse a method and a system, you clearly don’t know what you’re speaking about.

            • Zloubida@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Your bluntness and link-dumping will not hide the fact that you make no sense. Science is not a subset of epistemology… epistemology, among other subjects, studies the links between science and truth.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      Computers are feats of engineering, which is related but distinct from science and the scientific method. Vastly overstating what the scientific method is for isn’t helpful.

      • CosmicSploogeDrizzle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        10 months ago

        Engineering is a branch of Science. Specifically, Engineering is applied science. For example, scientists discovered that microwaves existed. Engineers made them heat up your food. How did we make safer and better microwaves appliances? Engineers applied the scientific method and iterated on the design and performed tests.

        To say engineering is separate from the science is incorrect.

        • Count042@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It was actually a scientist who made the first microwave.

          They were doing experiments with hamsters with cryogenics, and warming up the frozen hamsters with hot paddles. It didn’t work that well, and the scientist felt bad for the hamsters.

          So, he built the first microwave to warm the hamsters more evenly and ‘humanely’.

          That’s right. The first thing cooked in a microwave was literally a hamster.

          EDIT:

          First Desktop microwave that matches what we consider a microwave today, I should have said. My apologies.

          References:

          A Smith, J Lovelock, A Parkes, 1954: Resuscitation of Hamsters after Supercooling or Partial Crystallization at Body Temperatures Below 0° C… Nature 173, 1136–1137

          R K Andjus, J E Lovelock, 1955: Reanimation of rats from body temperatures between 0 and 1° C by microwave diathermy. The Journal of Physiology, 128.

          Lovelock, J E, Smith A U, 1959, Heat transfer from and to animals in experimental hypothermia and freezing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 80: 487-499.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          Engineering and science are separate though. They may share many characteristics and share knowledge between them, but the focus and results are fundamentally different.

          Engineering is quite different from science. Scientists try to understand nature. Engineers try to make things that do not exist in nature.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Science

      • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Engineering is applied science. It’s literally an entire community of people who volunteered to test Science. And then apply it.

        And everything that came out of it is evidence that science works.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          Except that’s not actually how it worked. We didn’t always have solid scientific models before things happened. Bicycles are the more famous example of something that existed for years before science could explain why it works, it’s still not perfectly explained. Flight is also somewhat week in the scientific model for lift, but we can still make planes.

          While there have been instances where scientists have theorized/discovered X is possible and then a way to do X was built, it’s not required.

          • zea@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hypothesis: adding this part or doing that thing will make it do what I want.

            Experiment: do that change and see if it does the thing you want.

            If it doesn’t do what you want, go back to hypothesis step. If that’s not science, idk what is.

            • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              You don’t know what is. Science isn’t do something and see if it works, it’s about explaining why something works. Scientific experiments only disprove a hypothesis or can’t disprove. Eventually a collection of results can be evidence of proof, but it’s not actually proof.

              You’re more in engineering of wanting to do a thing and finding a way to accomplish that thing based on the current understanding of the relative science.

              • zea@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                I literally just described the scientific method. Sure, it’s not the kind of question most scientists would ask, but it’s the same scientific method.

          • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Just because the theoretical was finalized after the practical, doesn’t mean that it isn’t applied science.

            We made wheels. We didn’t know why it made sense for them to be circular, but we knew it was easier to load them.

            Later on, we learnt about catenary tracks and how circular wheels are great for reducing friction by reducing the contact surface area, as well as the fact that rolling is easier compared to pushing or pulling.

            All of these are things that we instinctually understood but didn’t know how to explain.

            This was, is and will be how science works. You see something happen, and you try to understand the how and why.

            All of theoretical science comes from experimentation, which means on some level, you will require engineering. Similarly, all of engineering comes from the gradual process of perfecting how things works (or can work), which is science.