6 ms·

>The scientific method is perfect. >The scientific method as practiced by fallible and irrational humans This is giving me flashbacks to Catholic school :) '

>The scientific method is perfect. >The scientific method as practiced by fallible and irrational humans This is giving me flashbacks to Catholic school :) 'Christ is perfect, his earthly church is not. Because the church consists of fallible human clergy and laity it is vulnerable to corruption, ambition, lust, and politics, oh the politics' It's interesting to know that secular students get the same arguments just in defense of scientism instead of Christianity. All apologists sound alike. Not a criticism, just interesting

beebmam 5y ago
Metaphors/analogies aren't an argument, and if you find them persuasive that's your problem
- rajin444 5y ago
  This isn't really a metaphor or an analogy. Modern scientific leaders and religious leaders both act as liaisons between the public and knowledge. Scientists tend to produce a lot more useful knowledge, but the issues faced by both are the same. It's obvious they both end up developing similar patterns for resolving communication issues. The parent noticed this similarity because both are in the same business.
- marivilla 5y ago
  I said 'Not a criticism, just interesting' in the hopes of emphasizing that I was making an observation, not an argument. Sorry I failed to communicate that more clearly! That said, there is something to be said for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
  - ohwellhere 5y ago
    I view your observation as interesting and worth making, and I also believe there's an implicit argument there against that line of thinking. The word "perfect" is problematic to me. It's ascribed to God to contrast with man, as most of us would agree that nothing we do is perfect. Using it implies the same religious status of being above man's foibles. I like the word "useful" here, or "anti-fragile" in the original comment. Further, I like defining context. Useful in what class of problems? For I don't think the scientific method is regarded as particularly useful in all domains. Consciousness and the subjective are valid realms of human experience worth dedicated inquiry, for which the scientific method seems woefully lacking.
gengelbro 5y ago
If you think of them as roughly interchangeable apparatuses then it starts to make a whole lot of sense in my opinion.
- goatlover 5y ago
  One is empirically based and the other is faith based, so no, they aren't he same. The faith is based on beliefs in something metaphysical like a supernatural realm, and on value judgements (morality).
arrosenberg 5y ago
The main difference being that scientists (are encouraged to) update their model of the world as they gain new information.
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  I'm not religious, but isn't that what priests are for? Like to update the church's model of what's right/wrong based on new information... just from god
  - bprieto 5y ago
    No, priest are for keeping the doctrine and serving as bridges between the faithful and their god(s). Theologians are the ones who update (or uphold) the church system of belief.
    - RattleyCooper 5y ago
      Right, I guess the overall point being that religion has a mechanism for change as well.
      - jhbadger 5y ago
        Only in the same sense that clothing has a mechanism for change because fashion exists. Theologians have no way of contacting their gods(s) or even knowing whether they exist. Their opinions are not based on evidence.
        wussboy 5y ago
        Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained. Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this: We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.
spoonjim 5y ago
Is Christ perfect though? Didn’t he fuck up a fig tree just for not having figs at that very moment? Mark 11, starting at verse 12: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011-12&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011-12&ve...
- marivilla 5y ago
  I'm not Catholic, but I think a better question to get from that analogy would be >Is the scientific method perfect though? Isn't it the result of the same fallible human minds that make it's implementation inherently flawed as well? Maybe the scientific method is not perfect, but itself is still open to improvement in fundamental ways. This is more interesting to me than debates about ancient Judaean fig tree parables. But in case you're curious! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree
- antognini 5y ago
  I remember going to a talk once by the Bishop of Columbus about the Gospels. Someone asked him what he thought the hardest passage of the Bible to interpret was and he responded with this one.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    No surprise... I can’t think of a more profoundly un-chill reaction to a fig tree not being in season. Wonder why anyone trying to make Jesus look good would even write it down.
    - antognini 5y ago
      This is related to the "Principle of Embarrassment" in hermeneutics. The idea is that "embarrassing" or inconvenient stories are more likely to have been true because there is no reason for someone to have made them up since they seem to conflict with the broader narrative, or at least complicate it. Another example is the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and possibly some other women. At the time women were considered to be more untrustworthy, so the argument was that if the story was fabricated, surely the author would have decided to make the empty tomb discovered by a group of men since it would have been viewed by contemporary readers that this (already implausible) story was coming from a more trustworthy source. Of course, the most prominent example is the crucifixion itself, since crucifixion was reserved for traitors and the lowest criminals. If you're trying to argue that this man was the Son of God, why write a story in which at the climax he is executed as a despised criminal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment
IIAOPSW 5y ago
All organizations are superficially similar in the sense that they are all organizations.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Well, bewaring human institutions is a universal lesson that more institutions should teach. That you got that lesson there only means that you got at least one good teacher. That said, religion is based on the idea of worshiping a core idea, that shouldn't be contested, while science is based on the idea of contesting your core ideas, and never accepting pure belief. They are similar on the way that opposite things always have some similarity. (Anyway, "the scientific method is perfect" is a very bad misquote of the OP. Believing your method is perfect is anti-scientific, you should be always on the hunt for a better method.)
- marivilla 5y ago
  >"the scientific method is perfect" is a very bad misquote of the OP :o It's not a misquote, the comment I replied to really said that!
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    It's not your misquote. But the original is "the scientific method is anti-fragile, The harder you attack it, the sturdier it becomes." The comment you replied to threw a lot of nuance away when it was replaced by "perfect", and you threw the context that kept it reasonable away when you decided to compare with a similar phrase from anpother context. So, you both together made a misquote.

beebmam 5y ago

Metaphors/analogies aren't an argument, and if you find them persuasive that's your problem

rajin444 5y ago
This isn't really a metaphor or an analogy. Modern scientific leaders and religious leaders both act as liaisons between the public and knowledge. Scientists tend to produce a lot more useful knowledge, but the issues faced by both are the same. It's obvious they both end up developing similar patterns for resolving communication issues. The parent noticed this similarity because both are in the same business.
marivilla 5y ago
I said 'Not a criticism, just interesting' in the hopes of emphasizing that I was making an observation, not an argument. Sorry I failed to communicate that more clearly! That said, there is something to be said for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
- ohwellhere 5y ago
  I view your observation as interesting and worth making, and I also believe there's an implicit argument there against that line of thinking. The word "perfect" is problematic to me. It's ascribed to God to contrast with man, as most of us would agree that nothing we do is perfect. Using it implies the same religious status of being above man's foibles. I like the word "useful" here, or "anti-fragile" in the original comment. Further, I like defining context. Useful in what class of problems? For I don't think the scientific method is regarded as particularly useful in all domains. Consciousness and the subjective are valid realms of human experience worth dedicated inquiry, for which the scientific method seems woefully lacking.

gengelbro 5y ago

If you think of them as roughly interchangeable apparatuses then it starts to make a whole lot of sense in my opinion.

goatlover 5y ago
One is empirically based and the other is faith based, so no, they aren't he same. The faith is based on beliefs in something metaphysical like a supernatural realm, and on value judgements (morality).

arrosenberg 5y ago

The main difference being that scientists (are encouraged to) update their model of the world as they gain new information.

RattleyCooper 5y ago
I'm not religious, but isn't that what priests are for? Like to update the church's model of what's right/wrong based on new information... just from god
- bprieto 5y ago
  No, priest are for keeping the doctrine and serving as bridges between the faithful and their god(s). Theologians are the ones who update (or uphold) the church system of belief.
  - RattleyCooper 5y ago
    Right, I guess the overall point being that religion has a mechanism for change as well.
    - jhbadger 5y ago
      Only in the same sense that clothing has a mechanism for change because fashion exists. Theologians have no way of contacting their gods(s) or even knowing whether they exist. Their opinions are not based on evidence.
      - wussboy 5y ago
        Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained. Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this: We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.

spoonjim 5y ago

Is Christ perfect though? Didn’t he fuck up a fig tree just for not having figs at that very moment? Mark 11, starting at verse 12: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011-12&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2011-12&ve...

marivilla 5y ago
I'm not Catholic, but I think a better question to get from that analogy would be >Is the scientific method perfect though? Isn't it the result of the same fallible human minds that make it's implementation inherently flawed as well? Maybe the scientific method is not perfect, but itself is still open to improvement in fundamental ways. This is more interesting to me than debates about ancient Judaean fig tree parables. But in case you're curious! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree
antognini 5y ago
I remember going to a talk once by the Bishop of Columbus about the Gospels. Someone asked him what he thought the hardest passage of the Bible to interpret was and he responded with this one.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  No surprise... I can’t think of a more profoundly un-chill reaction to a fig tree not being in season. Wonder why anyone trying to make Jesus look good would even write it down.
  - antognini 5y ago
    This is related to the "Principle of Embarrassment" in hermeneutics. The idea is that "embarrassing" or inconvenient stories are more likely to have been true because there is no reason for someone to have made them up since they seem to conflict with the broader narrative, or at least complicate it. Another example is the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and possibly some other women. At the time women were considered to be more untrustworthy, so the argument was that if the story was fabricated, surely the author would have decided to make the empty tomb discovered by a group of men since it would have been viewed by contemporary readers that this (already implausible) story was coming from a more trustworthy source. Of course, the most prominent example is the crucifixion itself, since crucifixion was reserved for traitors and the lowest criminals. If you're trying to argue that this man was the Son of God, why write a story in which at the climax he is executed as a despised criminal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

IIAOPSW 5y ago

All organizations are superficially similar in the sense that they are all organizations.

marcosdumay 5y ago

Well, bewaring human institutions is a universal lesson that more institutions should teach. That you got that lesson there only means that you got at least one good teacher. That said, religion is based on the idea of worshiping a core idea, that shouldn't be contested, while science is based on the idea of contesting your core ideas, and never accepting pure belief. They are similar on the way that opposite things always have some similarity. (Anyway, "the scientific method is perfect" is a very bad misquote of the OP. Believing your method is perfect is anti-scientific, you should be always on the hunt for a better method.)

marivilla 5y ago
>"the scientific method is perfect" is a very bad misquote of the OP :o It's not a misquote, the comment I replied to really said that!
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  It's not your misquote. But the original is "the scientific method is anti-fragile, The harder you attack it, the sturdier it becomes." The comment you replied to threw a lot of nuance away when it was replaced by "perfect", and you threw the context that kept it reasonable away when you decided to compare with a similar phrase from anpother context. So, you both together made a misquote.