4 ms·

Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. That's literally what the scientific method is all about and ho

by superq 3y ago

Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. That's literally what the scientific method is all about and how a hypothesis, supported by evidence, becomes a theory, and thereafter a law, based on observable and measurable phenomena. We all have our pet theories (read: ideas and biases) on the distant past, where we have an infinite number of possibilities; in this universe of possibilities, there is only one possible truth. Some of these observations and theories we might not have even tripped over yet as we literally stumble around in the dark. Anything beyond that, even to a large extent cosmological theories such as the existence of a multiverse, let alone observations of the distant past, is, by definition, less about science and more about philosophy or even religion. This knife cuts both ways and we should remember our own biases. In what way would you live your life differently if you believed the opposite of what you believe right now?

slushh 3y ago
>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Technically, hypotheses cannot be proven because it's possible that all measurements were outliers.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Also, defining something as <X> doesn't necessarily cause it to be that, but with adequate ~training[1] (basically, cultural beliefs and behavioral norms) it can make it appear as such. This phenomenon surrounds us constantly, and is filtered out from our experience. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
haswell 3y ago
> Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. That's literally what the scientific method is all about and how a hypothesis, supported by evidence, becomes a theory, and thereafter a law, based on observable and measurable phenomena And yet these laws, for all of their increasing accuracy at labeling and predicting phenomena, emerge from subjective human understanding, which itself we have no ability to explain. The maps we build are ever more intricate, but I think we tend to overestimate the role of those maps in getting closer to truly understanding what’s going on. This is not in any way an endorsement of metaphysical beliefs, but points at why “spirituality” (not the religious or woo woo kind) emerges from and drives science forward. I think of it as a kind of humility and willingness to embrace awe and wonder, and a recognition that science is only one pillar of understanding, and is ultimately just an increasingly intricate map of the territory. This isn’t to say that we won’t eventually find bigger answers, but we’re certainly not close. > In what way would you live your life differently if you believed the opposite of what you believe right now? I do think this is an interesting thought experiment, but I don’t think there needs to be any opposition here. Believing in science has sometimes become synonymous with believing that science somehow is the stuff of base reality. While it’s certainly closer than older beliefs about spirits and gods, there is still underneath it all a primordial and mysterious quality to everything that science has no answers for. To me, this points not at the need to adopt a specific belief, but to hold space for the fact that we still understand so little. > Anything beyond that…is, by definition, less about science and more about philosophy or even religion. Philosophy and religion are just other language games that explore other aspects of the same territory. Over time, religion has proven to be less useful, and certainly isn’t backed by empirical evidence. Philosophy points to the unknowability of things, but even a scientific stance is in some sense a philosophical stance. Often these approaches are pitted against each other, but with the exception of religion, I think they are all necessary pillars of a broader understanding. Science without a philosophical understanding of science is arguably just another form of religion. This is not to say that science is invalid or not useful, but rather that it is not sufficient. Maybe that will change as our scientific knowledge grows.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  > which itself we have no ability to explain. Patently untrue. We've made great strides understanding how human minds work in the world, both at the psychological and the fundamental physical level. To suggest otherwise is prevarication at the very least.
  - haswell 3y ago
    The Hard Problem of Consciousness remains as hard as ever. The “Understanding” aspect of our cognition is still very poorly understood. Our growing understanding of psychology and the mechanisms of the brain have not gotten us much closer to understanding understanding or consciousness itself. This is not to say that progress thus far is not meaningful, or that we won’t get there. The point is that we have barely scratched the surface, but often behave like we know much more than we do.
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      It isn't as if our process of understanding the world is even remotely mysterious, nor is the basic mechanisms underlying neural computation. Thus, to me, it seems like saying that we haven't begun to understand this stuff is ridiculous.
      - haswell 3y ago
        We do not have a single working model that explains consciousness itself. And until we do, all formulations from this context of consciousness still reduce to a fundamental mystery. Similarly, our ability to make increasingly accurate observations has not gotten us closer to understanding the context of existence itself. It’s possible that this is just unknowable to human minds, even though I hope we’ll eventually get there, but I’d argue it’s all pretty mysterious. Most scientists working at the edges of these frontiers would, too.
        nathan_compton 3y ago
corethree 3y ago
>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Just one thing to note with science. You cannot in actuality prove anything with science. It's a fundamental and logical consequence of the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven. Science can only disprove things. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Einstein This occurs because of the following reason: If I make a hypothesis and I make 10,000 observations that are inline with my hypothesis I still haven't proven my hypothesis correct... because at any point in time in the future, I can make an observation that contradicts all my previous observations. Thus no amount of observation can prove something, but one contradictory observation can disprove something. I get where you're coming from but this property of science is literally what makes all these arguments of "spirituality" more attractive because science is indeed fundamentally crippled with reliability issues. That is a fundamental statement about reality in itself. We don't definitively know if anything is true. We only know certain statements are false. Anything we think is true is literally in your words: "a bias" Proof is the domain of math and other logical games we make up to play. Proof doesn't actually exist in reality.

by superq 3y ago

slushh 3y ago

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Technically, hypotheses cannot be proven because it's possible that all measurements were outliers.

mistermann 3y ago
Also, defining something as <X> doesn't necessarily cause it to be that, but with adequate ~training[1] (basically, cultural beliefs and behavioral norms) it can make it appear as such. This phenomenon surrounds us constantly, and is filtered out from our experience. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

haswell 3y ago

> Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. That's literally what the scientific method is all about and how a hypothesis, supported by evidence, becomes a theory, and thereafter a law, based on observable and measurable phenomena And yet these laws, for all of their increasing accuracy at labeling and predicting phenomena, emerge from subjective human understanding, which itself we have no ability to explain. The maps we build are ever more intricate, but I think we tend to overestimate the role of those maps in getting closer to truly understanding what’s going on. This is not in any way an endorsement of metaphysical beliefs, but points at why “spirituality” (not the religious or woo woo kind) emerges from and drives science forward. I think of it as a kind of humility and willingness to embrace awe and wonder, and a recognition that science is only one pillar of understanding, and is ultimately just an increasingly intricate map of the territory. This isn’t to say that we won’t eventually find bigger answers, but we’re certainly not close. > In what way would you live your life differently if you believed the opposite of what you believe right now? I do think this is an interesting thought experiment, but I don’t think there needs to be any opposition here. Believing in science has sometimes become synonymous with believing that science somehow is the stuff of base reality. While it’s certainly closer than older beliefs about spirits and gods, there is still underneath it all a primordial and mysterious quality to everything that science has no answers for. To me, this points not at the need to adopt a specific belief, but to hold space for the fact that we still understand so little. > Anything beyond that…is, by definition, less about science and more about philosophy or even religion. Philosophy and religion are just other language games that explore other aspects of the same territory. Over time, religion has proven to be less useful, and certainly isn’t backed by empirical evidence. Philosophy points to the unknowability of things, but even a scientific stance is in some sense a philosophical stance. Often these approaches are pitted against each other, but with the exception of religion, I think they are all necessary pillars of a broader understanding. Science without a philosophical understanding of science is arguably just another form of religion. This is not to say that science is invalid or not useful, but rather that it is not sufficient. Maybe that will change as our scientific knowledge grows.

nathan_compton 3y ago
> which itself we have no ability to explain. Patently untrue. We've made great strides understanding how human minds work in the world, both at the psychological and the fundamental physical level. To suggest otherwise is prevarication at the very least.
- haswell 3y ago
  The Hard Problem of Consciousness remains as hard as ever. The “Understanding” aspect of our cognition is still very poorly understood. Our growing understanding of psychology and the mechanisms of the brain have not gotten us much closer to understanding understanding or consciousness itself. This is not to say that progress thus far is not meaningful, or that we won’t get there. The point is that we have barely scratched the surface, but often behave like we know much more than we do.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    It isn't as if our process of understanding the world is even remotely mysterious, nor is the basic mechanisms underlying neural computation. Thus, to me, it seems like saying that we haven't begun to understand this stuff is ridiculous.
    - haswell 3y ago
      We do not have a single working model that explains consciousness itself. And until we do, all formulations from this context of consciousness still reduce to a fundamental mystery. Similarly, our ability to make increasingly accurate observations has not gotten us closer to understanding the context of existence itself. It’s possible that this is just unknowable to human minds, even though I hope we’ll eventually get there, but I’d argue it’s all pretty mysterious. Most scientists working at the edges of these frontiers would, too.
      - nathan_compton 3y ago

corethree 3y ago

>Science is, by definition, based on observation and proving hypotheses through that observation. Just one thing to note with science. You cannot in actuality prove anything with science. It's a fundamental and logical consequence of the scientific method itself. Nothing can be proven. Science can only disprove things. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Einstein This occurs because of the following reason: If I make a hypothesis and I make 10,000 observations that are inline with my hypothesis I still haven't proven my hypothesis correct... because at any point in time in the future, I can make an observation that contradicts all my previous observations. Thus no amount of observation can prove something, but one contradictory observation can disprove something. I get where you're coming from but this property of science is literally what makes all these arguments of "spirituality" more attractive because science is indeed fundamentally crippled with reliability issues. That is a fundamental statement about reality in itself. We don't definitively know if anything is true. We only know certain statements are false. Anything we think is true is literally in your words: "a bias" Proof is the domain of math and other logical games we make up to play. Proof doesn't actually exist in reality.