4 ms·
Within the framework of falsifiable natural science, of the following three viewpoints two are hopelessly incoherent and one makes rational sense; can you spot
by strogonoff 3y ago
Within the framework of falsifiable natural science, of the following three viewpoints two are hopelessly incoherent and one makes rational sense; can you spot which one that is?
A. “Per our understanding of the universe, which is now finally provably correct and complete, no intelligent life whatsoever could have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or humanity itself.”
B. “Since our understanding of the universe is most likely incorrect and/or incomplete, some kind of intelligent life we are not yet aware of may or may not have been causally involved in the emergence of various stellar objects or even humanity itself.”
C. “We were made by fantasy abstract creature(s) not subject to any physical laws of this universe. We should probably worship them.”
- kjs3 3y agoWell, sure, if you throw in something like "which is now finally provably correct and complete", you get to be right. Of course, that's not how science works, but I guess you have some audience you need to polish your anti-science creds to.
- strogonoff 3y agoI merely defend the comment that claimed a perfectly scientifically valid (if far-fetched) possibility. With a sarcastic comment likening that idea (B) to creationism, you implicitly adopt A, and let me tell you—it is closer to actual creationism (C) than you might like.