Asklemmy

43336 readers

786 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

If science were empirically complete and an entity could encompass all logical scope and complexity, what epistemological theory wins? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by j4k3@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Science is "empirically complete" when it is well funded, all unknowns are constrained in scope, and (n+1) generations of scientists produce no breakthroughs of any kind.

If a hypothetical entity could encompass every aspect of science into reasoning and ground that understanding in every aspect of the events in question, free from bias, what is this epistemological theory?

I've been reading wiki articles on epistemology all afternoon and feel no closer to the answer in the word salad in this space. It appears my favorite LLM's responses reflect a similar understanding. Maybe someone here has a better grasp on the subject?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Gödel's incompleteness theorem would like a word...

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not really, that theorem says there are true things that cannot be proven, whereas this question is more about running out of proofs that you can make.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago

Really this question has little to do with mathematical proof, because the basis of science is deductive, statistical knowledge.

load more comments (1 replies)