3 ms·
I think the word "science" is too general for this discussion. You're talking about the scientific method, which is a rigorous process for building consistent m
by guscost 10y ago
I think the word "science" is too general for this discussion. You're talking about the scientific method, which is a rigorous process for building consistent models of our shared experience. Godel's theorem suggests that we might never be able to complete any of these models, but the method has still lead to amazing new ways of understanding the universe.
If we're talking about the hand-wavey mysticism of Michio Kaku or Deepak Chopra, or researchers who have decided to believe a particular unfalsifiable interpretation of QM, and will not be convinced otherwise, that stuff is closer to what I would call religion.
- ianai 10y agoIn that reduced way science becomes a study of theory within theory, derived logical connections. Once you assume a logical framework you're out of the hypothesis/test routine completely. I don't think that's a fair thing to do in comparison. Where things start out matters.
- guscost 10y agoI might not understand your point, but are you basically saying that not all science requires math? To be fair, I've been thinking of physics in particular here.