5 ms·
That's the kind of argument that could make sense in a vacuum, but does not apply at all in practice. Sure, _in theory_, I would be glad to know enough, to hav
by kalenx 6y ago
That's the kind of argument that could make sense in a vacuum, but does not apply at all in practice.
Sure, _in theory_, I would be glad to know enough, to have enough time and to have enough money to verify every scientific theory since the dawn of times. In practice, it's been totally not scalable for a single person for about 500 years. _Careful trust_, with verification systems in place, is then the second best choice we can make.
The difference with religion lies in the fact that you do _not_ have to blindly accept everything. If you doubt a specific scientific theory, then by all means, put it to the test! But no, you won't be able to do that for science as a whole, not because "we're whining children who like conformting stories" but simply because of the blunt fact that our time here is limited.
- feralimal 6y agoWhen you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? Do you, blame yourself? Accept that everything else is true? Accept that nothing else is true? My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. So, when you say viruses, or atoms, or whatever exist, but you have not personally verified that, you should be clear that you do not know. You may think such-and-such is the case, but if you state something without personal verification, you run the risk of repeating a lie, and misleading the next person.
- kalenx 6y ago> When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? First, you check for external factors which may have affect the test. If you can confirm you cannot reproduce past results, you may consider discussing with other people about your findings, and publishing if no one can find a reasonable explanation. In any case, you are happy because that's how science progresses. > My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. Sure, and that's the point of science: there is no truth, only better and better models. But we won't stop using the verb "to know" altogether. Knowledge is not a binary thing (you know or you don't).
- feralimal 6y agoKnowledge IS a binary thing. Either it is coherent with reality or it is not.
- kalenx 6y agoWe sent Voyager probes through the solar system using Newton laws, although we know that general relativity is more accurate. Knowledge is a spectrum. If you think that anything has a definitive answer, then I don't know what you are doing, but it is not science.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThis makes the mistake that science is there to be verified. It's not. It's there to be falsified. We don't require verification of science above and beyond its contribution to our ability to predict and control the world. As the famous slightly cliched saying goes: all models are wrong, some models are useful. There are some people who think that the point of science is to move us closer to truth. Some of those people are actual scientists, most of them are not.
- feralimal 6y agoI love this comment - thanks.