7 ms·

Science is a process and is skeptical by its nature. “Science” isn’t some belief you hold.

Supermancho 5y ago
I respectfully disagree. The process is steeped in the belief that it will give you answers you can accept. It doesn't always, but there is a belief that it will eventually lead to a truth regardless.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  What means "acceptance"? Scientific method if followed correctly should over a long period of time help you make better decisions. The answers you obtain could never be absolute, as a human you are always prone to failure of interpreting something wrongly. And the answer you find may not necessarily be correct, but just the best/most accurate at the time and completely wrong at the same time.
- smegcicle 5y ago
  Science produces models which can be used to view and predict the world in different ways. The idea that models can represent 'truth' in an absolute way is anti-science, and anti-reality.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I respectfully disagree. The process is steeped in the belief that it will give you answers you can accept. It doesn't always, but there is a belief that it will eventually lead to a truth regardless. That's a reasonable position. For myself, I'd modify that statement to read: The process is steeped in an understanding that the scientific method will give you results that inform us whether as to whether the theories and hypotheses that we use to describe the universe do so better than others. And there is a belief that such processes will eventually lead to a more precise description of the universe and its workings. I modified your statement, not because it's wrong, per se, but rather because of its imprecision. Experiment allows us to describe the universe with more precision, leading to greater understanding, not "truth," which implies an absolute. And science doesn't deal with absolutes, it deals with data, and the theories (in the scientific sense) that best fit that data.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision. Fair enough. I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. If you'd expand on that, It would be appreciated.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. You are taking the position that you know something while at the same time you are acknowledging that it might be wrong because science often reveals that we have insufficient models or tenets for some understandings. This fits as belief. You probably think it's a detriment to use a term you associate with spiritualism, so you avoid it. The best way to describe this behavior of denial is that it's baked into your worldview (think supermario bros, not the earth). Thinking that answers that science have provided are more valid (for some value of valid) than other belief means that your belief in science can't be belief and it certainly isn't "faith" (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.)...oh I guess it is. Not sure why people think this does anything but confuse discussions about reality when treating the religion of science differently because it is a practice and tenets born of humans rather than a flying spaghetti monster (which we are quickly outgrowing). It's the SAME THING from a different source and just as likely to be used for evil (eugenics, political messaging, smoking doctor ads, etc).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

I respectfully disagree. The process is steeped in the belief that it will give you answers you can accept. It doesn't always, but there is a belief that it will eventually lead to a truth regardless.

mewpmewp2 5y ago
What means "acceptance"? Scientific method if followed correctly should over a long period of time help you make better decisions. The answers you obtain could never be absolute, as a human you are always prone to failure of interpreting something wrongly. And the answer you find may not necessarily be correct, but just the best/most accurate at the time and completely wrong at the same time.
smegcicle 5y ago
Science produces models which can be used to view and predict the world in different ways. The idea that models can represent 'truth' in an absolute way is anti-science, and anti-reality.
nobody9999 5y ago
>I respectfully disagree. The process is steeped in the belief that it will give you answers you can accept. It doesn't always, but there is a belief that it will eventually lead to a truth regardless. That's a reasonable position. For myself, I'd modify that statement to read: The process is steeped in an understanding that the scientific method will give you results that inform us whether as to whether the theories and hypotheses that we use to describe the universe do so better than others. And there is a belief that such processes will eventually lead to a more precise description of the universe and its workings. I modified your statement, not because it's wrong, per se, but rather because of its imprecision. Experiment allows us to describe the universe with more precision, leading to greater understanding, not "truth," which implies an absolute. And science doesn't deal with absolutes, it deals with data, and the theories (in the scientific sense) that best fit that data.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I can't say I wholly agree, although I support the motive. Using the word "understanding" where I think "belief" is a more accurate term is wordplay to maintain a specific worldview. "results" and "better" seemingly avoid precision. Fair enough. I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. If you'd expand on that, It would be appreciated.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > I am uncertain as to which "specific worldview" you think I wish to maintain. belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. You are taking the position that you know something while at the same time you are acknowledging that it might be wrong because science often reveals that we have insufficient models or tenets for some understandings. This fits as belief. You probably think it's a detriment to use a term you associate with spiritualism, so you avoid it. The best way to describe this behavior of denial is that it's baked into your worldview (think supermario bros, not the earth). Thinking that answers that science have provided are more valid (for some value of valid) than other belief means that your belief in science can't be belief and it certainly isn't "faith" (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.)...oh I guess it is. Not sure why people think this does anything but confuse discussions about reality when treating the religion of science differently because it is a practice and tenets born of humans rather than a flying spaghetti monster (which we are quickly outgrowing). It's the SAME THING from a different source and just as likely to be used for evil (eugenics, political messaging, smoking doctor ads, etc).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]