3 ms·

> religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick Your phrasing makes it sound like

> religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things. I think that's an important distinction. We can't credit science with creating the natural world or its mechanisms, though it has enabled us to understand and work with it.

xvector 8y ago
I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality. However, in general discussion no one is going to say > "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses" No, it's much more reasonable to say > science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > I think that is very pedantic. I know it is... hence the apology. But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world. > but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.

xvector 8y ago

I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality. However, in general discussion no one is going to say > "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses" No, it's much more reasonable to say > science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses

TimTheTinker 8y ago
> I think that is very pedantic. I know it is... hence the apology. But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world. > but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.