4 ms·

"Erm yes, there is proof in science." Well, then you know more than me. And I have a STEM PhD. " But I am open to be convinced with good arguments." I told y

"Erm yes, there is proof in science." Well, then you know more than me. And I have a STEM PhD. " But I am open to be convinced with good arguments." I told you. Stacking argument. There is a paper about it, I can't find it right now. And that something is not testable right now (Think Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory) or String Theory does not mean that it can't be tested in the future. The paper made a prediction when it can be tested.

lukan 3y ago
Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof? I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing. "Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory" And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be true by experiment. But people were convinced before that, because it explained things in a satisfying way. And string theory is indeed just a theory. But one that aims to explain something. (I do not find it convincing btw. but it is a somewhat working model) But the stacking argument ... what exactly is it explaining? And when can it be tested?
- quench 3y ago
  The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science. The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof. A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it. So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened. So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.

lukan 3y ago

Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof? I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing. "Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory" And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be true by experiment. But people were convinced before that, because it explained things in a satisfying way. And string theory is indeed just a theory. But one that aims to explain something. (I do not find it convincing btw. but it is a somewhat working model) But the stacking argument ... what exactly is it explaining? And when can it be tested?

quench 3y ago
The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science. The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof. A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it. So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened. So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.