3 ms·
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
by 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.