5 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

> 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
        I'm a scientist who has worked in these fields and I don't think there is any fundamental mystery here except the hard problem of consciousness, which has nothing to do with understanding.

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
      I'm a scientist who has worked in these fields and I don't think there is any fundamental mystery here except the hard problem of consciousness, which has nothing to do with understanding.