3 ms·

I agree with most of what you described but I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. For example, the

I agree with most of what you described but I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. And imo the most important part is the process of proving itself, rather than the result. Therefore it's perfectly fine to arrive at various conclusions and sometimes 'I don't know' is the best conclusion u can have so far. You don't really have to believe in anything with scientific framework, instead you do best to approximate and emphasize on the process rather than the result. Otherwise it's just magical thinking.

Supermancho 5y ago
> I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. > For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology.
- flyingchipmann 5y ago
  > This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. I didn't say it's correct, I used the word 'approximation'. Because it's never about the result, it's about the process of 'proving' and 'provability'. And in this sense religion and scientific method/framework is orthogonal. Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is, they carry out the same scientific process, and the answer to their religion/belief is always 'i don't know. not provable' > Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology. But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? How do you decide which religion is the truth? If someone forms a religion by Harry Potter just like the Scientology, how do you pick and choose? Suppose religions is a big set, and new religions getting formed, how do you pick? But in the framework of science this kind of result doesn't matter. Because in the scientific methodology you go through the process, and that's the important part. You can choose to believe whatever religion shaped this reality you like and that doesn't affect the scientific method itself. Scientific method is a tool you can use, it doesn't give you answers to all questions(provable), and it doesn't need to.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is > But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? I don't understand your definition of religion. As I understand it, religion is a set of beliefs that allow explains reality and allows you to reason about it. The idea that it inherently includes an omnipotent being is a particular definition that made it into some dictionaries and is now taken (ironically) as gospel. See the wikipedia entry for Religion (disambiguation). Religion is not solely about explaining the source of reality, but can be part of it.

Supermancho 5y ago

> I don't think scientific method should be put together with religion. I think they are orthogonal. This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. > For example, the scientists' religion don't really alter the research if they strictly follow the scientific method. In other words what they think won't alter the reality. Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology.

flyingchipmann 5y ago
> This is a common belief people hold to protect themselves from altering an existing worldview (or previous statements). I'm not sure how you construct a view that the belief in the scientific method and various derived conclusions (eg atheism or agnosticism) as the "correct" way to explain everything in reality, is not a defacto religion. I didn't say it's correct, I used the word 'approximation'. Because it's never about the result, it's about the process of 'proving' and 'provability'. And in this sense religion and scientific method/framework is orthogonal. Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is, they carry out the same scientific process, and the answer to their religion/belief is always 'i don't know. not provable' > Reality is not altered by any religion. Not sure what this has to do with the belief in the scientific methodology. But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? How do you decide which religion is the truth? If someone forms a religion by Harry Potter just like the Scientology, how do you pick and choose? Suppose religions is a big set, and new religions getting formed, how do you pick? But in the framework of science this kind of result doesn't matter. Because in the scientific methodology you go through the process, and that's the important part. You can choose to believe whatever religion shaped this reality you like and that doesn't affect the scientific method itself. Scientific method is a tool you can use, it doesn't give you answers to all questions(provable), and it doesn't need to.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Because it doesn't matter what the person's religion is > But that's the fundamental differences. How do you get to know the reality through religions? I don't understand your definition of religion. As I understand it, religion is a set of beliefs that allow explains reality and allows you to reason about it. The idea that it inherently includes an omnipotent being is a particular definition that made it into some dictionaries and is now taken (ironically) as gospel. See the wikipedia entry for Religion (disambiguation). Religion is not solely about explaining the source of reality, but can be part of it.