6 ms·

In the sense that science is ultimately a religious enterprise expressing our belief in a constant, unseen, unchanging reality (which is not a universal belief

In the sense that science is ultimately a religious enterprise expressing our belief in a constant, unseen, unchanging reality (which is not a universal belief by any means, and is utterly religious in nature), then yes, this is true. On the other hand, if we take an irreligious look at things and try to keep focus on just what we observe, one is forced to make the opposite conclusion, as the very basic building blocks of reality are not uncoverable, non-replicable, and seemingly not governed by anything but randomness.

CooCooCaCha 2y ago
That’s not what science is at all. If reality changes science will adapt.
- mistermann 2y ago
  You are declaring it to be a fact that science is flawless. Defining something to be true by definition can certainly cause it to be appear to be true (read some forum discussions among even smart people on the internet if you do not believe this), but it doesn't guarantee that it will be.
  - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
    I have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not sure how you're getting "science is flawless" from what I said, or what that's supposed to mean.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      You said that science does not behave like a religion at all (zero faith based thinking, as just one example). You also said: "If reality changes science will adapt". If this is not essentially a claim that science ~"understands reality", then what is it claiming?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented. Esoteric arguments portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will that never interacts with reality is not observable by definition; since it doesn't interact with reality, it can be safely ignored. Roko's basilisk be damned!
    - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
      I think some people think science rejects mystical explanations because science is rigid and stubborn and has it's head buried in the sand. But no, it's because there's no proof. If we had evidence that something mystical was happening then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would eventually become science.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        How do you know fine-grained details about the actual actions and cognition of millions of people that you have never met? Furthermore, do you think there's something about becoming a scientist that converts Scientist Humans into perfectly rational beings?
      - anon291 2y ago
        And that would not be me, because at no point did I say we needed a 'mystical' explanation. I'm just pointing out the universe is not always predictable, but -- just as it did many years ago -- this often causes a lot of distress, especially on pop science forums.
        CooCooCaCha 2y ago
        Please stop replying in my comments. Your responses are offensively stupid.
    - anon291 2y ago
      > portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring divinity into this. The universe is not purely a automaton not because of some purported unobservable god, but simply because all experiments indicate that we cannot predict the behavior of the basic building blocks of the universe.
- anon291 2y ago
  If laws change; laws imply that things always work the same, but they don't. At a micro level the universe is describable in the aggregate, but seemingly unpredictable. Science can change sure, but it cannot predict the unpredictable. You're not wrong to say science adapts but to say that quantum uncertainty hasn't caused the metaphysics of science (or at least some scientists) to change, is intellectual dishonesty.
  - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
    I would call it a "law" that if I sample from a normal distribution I am more likely to sample from the mean than from the tail. The law is not on a specific draw but what the histogram will look like. The same way I wouldn't jump off a bridge because someone might jump off right after me with a parachute and attach it to me I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction. Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook? How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point?
    - anon291 2y ago
      Thought experiment. I have a machine that produces a standard normal distribution. I know this because I built it and tested it a lot (alternatively, have God/divinity/an oracle/whatever build this machine). You sample from it 100 times and get the number 3000 every time. What can you say about the machine? Did it follow a normal distribution? Really? How much was your statement about normal distributions able to predict what happened? What does it mean for something to follow a law? The word law comes from a legal background for rules in human society. If society makes a law, can that law be broken following a normal distribution? > I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction. In my daily life I do not. However, given that the inner workings of the human brain are not explicable in our current understanding of physics, I don't need to 'bet against classical laws' there. We already know that something is going on. > Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook? There are several competing outlooks in physics right now. One is the 'shut up and calculate' approach which admits there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable 'systems' (for lack of a better word) and all we can do is make colloquial statistical claims about them. Another is that the universe is always predictable and quantum choice is due to the branching of the universe into many observable worlds (although they never explain why my conscious experience only follows one path... one is forced to conclude they believe some quantum process is in play). Another is that quantum physics is just completely wrong (unlikely). Another is that consciousness (which is undefined) is a crucial feature to quantum mechanics and is necessary to cause collapse of the wave function. There's pilot wave theory which requires there to be an unseeable aether (and again, admits no way to measure the aether, so I'm not sure that exists). There's a whole list of spiritual beliefs about quantum mechanics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec... Depending on your belief in what takes place (and it's really truly a belief, and in some systems, it's going to stay that way), take your pick of scientists who should change their outlook. > How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point? They shouldn't. Most physicists do good work explaining the way the world works, but they also admit that there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable systems that govern it. The comment I replied to claimed otherwise.
fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
What do you mean by the basic building blocks of reality? The very machine you are posting your comment from can only be manufactured because the laws of physics don't change, and these machines and their manufacturing process operate on the atomic level. Similarly, do you have an example of a well defined experiment that would not produce the same result consistently? You can win a noble prize easily by publishing such an experiment. Lastly, if someone did produce an experiment that did not produce consistent results, that is, an experiment performed twice with all variables staying the same, but the result of the experiment being different, then the theory that all well defined experiments are reproducible would be wrong. It isn't axiomatic. >try to keep focus on just what we observe That's all science is though – making observations. Writing hypothesis and making experiments are etc. are just a means to creating things to observe. I'm curious, what did you observe that you felt was not bounded by some static law of nature?
- anon291 2y ago
  > What do you mean by the basic building blocks of reality? I was thinking photons which, when passed through a diffraction grating one at a time will cause an interference pattern on average but whose individual course is -- as far as we know -- unpredictable. This flies in the face of the idea that the universe is perfectly predictable. > The very machine you are posting your comment from can only be manufactured because the laws of physics don't change, and these machines and their manufacturing process operate on the atomic level Indeed.. an axiomatic religious belief that has incredible amounts of evidence and that has proven very useful, but for the reason I mentioned above, certainly could not be the case. We shouldn't confuse the laws of statistics either certainty, even if the law of large numbers usually works. > Similarly, do you have an example of a well defined experiment that would not produce the same result consistently? I mean there are hundreds of them at this point. Passing single electrons or photons or buckeyballs through diffraction gratings (humans too!, we think). The stern Gerlach experiment. I can go on. Determining the individual spin states of entangled pairs of particles. > Lastly, if someone did produce an experiment that did not produce consistent results, that is, an experiment performed twice with all variables staying the same, but the result of the experiment being different, then the theory that all well defined experiments are reproducible would be wrong Well like I said we have lots of experiments whose results are different and who we cannot predict (some of which the math says we can never know), and yet, at the macro level we do science anyway because of our religious belief that it usually is okay. For someone who purports to defend science, I'm shocked at the level of ignorance yet arrogance in this comment.
Thiez 2y ago
Science is based on the hypothesis that stuff that worked yesterday will work the same way tomorrow, and it tries to discover the rules that govern the stuff. There is nothing religious about it. It's a safe assumption to make; if there are no rules or the rules can change in arbitrary ways, science should be able to detect that, too. We've seen enormous scientific progress throughout human history, and based on this history I think it's safe to say that it's the best way to learn about our world that we've discovered.
- anon291 2y ago
  > Science is based on the hypothesis that stuff that worked yesterday will work the same way tomorrow If you believe this assumption, you're believing a statement on faith and faith alone. I agree with you. I absolutely believe stuff will work the same tomorrow as yesterday at some level of abstraction. > science should be able to detect that, too Hmm... it might. It might not. For example, if 'god' (for lack of a better term) decided to make all spin states that he was going to make spin up instead be spin down from here on out, we would actually have no idea, despite those two 'states' of the universe certainly being different.

CooCooCaCha 2y ago

That’s not what science is at all. If reality changes science will adapt.

mistermann 2y ago
You are declaring it to be a fact that science is flawless. Defining something to be true by definition can certainly cause it to be appear to be true (read some forum discussions among even smart people on the internet if you do not believe this), but it doesn't guarantee that it will be.
- CooCooCaCha 2y ago
  I have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not sure how you're getting "science is flawless" from what I said, or what that's supposed to mean.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    You said that science does not behave like a religion at all (zero faith based thinking, as just one example). You also said: "If reality changes science will adapt". If this is not essentially a claim that science ~"understands reality", then what is it claiming?
- tomrod 2y ago
  Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented. Esoteric arguments portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will that never interacts with reality is not observable by definition; since it doesn't interact with reality, it can be safely ignored. Roko's basilisk be damned!
  - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
    I think some people think science rejects mystical explanations because science is rigid and stubborn and has it's head buried in the sand. But no, it's because there's no proof. If we had evidence that something mystical was happening then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would eventually become science.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      How do you know fine-grained details about the actual actions and cognition of millions of people that you have never met? Furthermore, do you think there's something about becoming a scientist that converts Scientist Humans into perfectly rational beings?
    - anon291 2y ago
      And that would not be me, because at no point did I say we needed a 'mystical' explanation. I'm just pointing out the universe is not always predictable, but -- just as it did many years ago -- this often causes a lot of distress, especially on pop science forums.
      - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
        Please stop replying in my comments. Your responses are offensively stupid.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring divinity into this. The universe is not purely a automaton not because of some purported unobservable god, but simply because all experiments indicate that we cannot predict the behavior of the basic building blocks of the universe.
anon291 2y ago
If laws change; laws imply that things always work the same, but they don't. At a micro level the universe is describable in the aggregate, but seemingly unpredictable. Science can change sure, but it cannot predict the unpredictable. You're not wrong to say science adapts but to say that quantum uncertainty hasn't caused the metaphysics of science (or at least some scientists) to change, is intellectual dishonesty.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  I would call it a "law" that if I sample from a normal distribution I am more likely to sample from the mean than from the tail. The law is not on a specific draw but what the histogram will look like. The same way I wouldn't jump off a bridge because someone might jump off right after me with a parachute and attach it to me I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction. Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook? How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point?
  - anon291 2y ago
    Thought experiment. I have a machine that produces a standard normal distribution. I know this because I built it and tested it a lot (alternatively, have God/divinity/an oracle/whatever build this machine). You sample from it 100 times and get the number 3000 every time. What can you say about the machine? Did it follow a normal distribution? Really? How much was your statement about normal distributions able to predict what happened? What does it mean for something to follow a law? The word law comes from a legal background for rules in human society. If society makes a law, can that law be broken following a normal distribution? > I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction. In my daily life I do not. However, given that the inner workings of the human brain are not explicable in our current understanding of physics, I don't need to 'bet against classical laws' there. We already know that something is going on. > Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook? There are several competing outlooks in physics right now. One is the 'shut up and calculate' approach which admits there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable 'systems' (for lack of a better word) and all we can do is make colloquial statistical claims about them. Another is that the universe is always predictable and quantum choice is due to the branching of the universe into many observable worlds (although they never explain why my conscious experience only follows one path... one is forced to conclude they believe some quantum process is in play). Another is that quantum physics is just completely wrong (unlikely). Another is that consciousness (which is undefined) is a crucial feature to quantum mechanics and is necessary to cause collapse of the wave function. There's pilot wave theory which requires there to be an unseeable aether (and again, admits no way to measure the aether, so I'm not sure that exists). There's a whole list of spiritual beliefs about quantum mechanics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec... Depending on your belief in what takes place (and it's really truly a belief, and in some systems, it's going to stay that way), take your pick of scientists who should change their outlook. > How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point? They shouldn't. Most physicists do good work explaining the way the world works, but they also admit that there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable systems that govern it. The comment I replied to claimed otherwise.

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago

What do you mean by the basic building blocks of reality? The very machine you are posting your comment from can only be manufactured because the laws of physics don't change, and these machines and their manufacturing process operate on the atomic level. Similarly, do you have an example of a well defined experiment that would not produce the same result consistently? You can win a noble prize easily by publishing such an experiment. Lastly, if someone did produce an experiment that did not produce consistent results, that is, an experiment performed twice with all variables staying the same, but the result of the experiment being different, then the theory that all well defined experiments are reproducible would be wrong. It isn't axiomatic. >try to keep focus on just what we observe That's all science is though – making observations. Writing hypothesis and making experiments are etc. are just a means to creating things to observe. I'm curious, what did you observe that you felt was not bounded by some static law of nature?

anon291 2y ago
> What do you mean by the basic building blocks of reality? I was thinking photons which, when passed through a diffraction grating one at a time will cause an interference pattern on average but whose individual course is -- as far as we know -- unpredictable. This flies in the face of the idea that the universe is perfectly predictable. > The very machine you are posting your comment from can only be manufactured because the laws of physics don't change, and these machines and their manufacturing process operate on the atomic level Indeed.. an axiomatic religious belief that has incredible amounts of evidence and that has proven very useful, but for the reason I mentioned above, certainly could not be the case. We shouldn't confuse the laws of statistics either certainty, even if the law of large numbers usually works. > Similarly, do you have an example of a well defined experiment that would not produce the same result consistently? I mean there are hundreds of them at this point. Passing single electrons or photons or buckeyballs through diffraction gratings (humans too!, we think). The stern Gerlach experiment. I can go on. Determining the individual spin states of entangled pairs of particles. > Lastly, if someone did produce an experiment that did not produce consistent results, that is, an experiment performed twice with all variables staying the same, but the result of the experiment being different, then the theory that all well defined experiments are reproducible would be wrong Well like I said we have lots of experiments whose results are different and who we cannot predict (some of which the math says we can never know), and yet, at the macro level we do science anyway because of our religious belief that it usually is okay. For someone who purports to defend science, I'm shocked at the level of ignorance yet arrogance in this comment.

Thiez 2y ago

Science is based on the hypothesis that stuff that worked yesterday will work the same way tomorrow, and it tries to discover the rules that govern the stuff. There is nothing religious about it. It's a safe assumption to make; if there are no rules or the rules can change in arbitrary ways, science should be able to detect that, too. We've seen enormous scientific progress throughout human history, and based on this history I think it's safe to say that it's the best way to learn about our world that we've discovered.

anon291 2y ago
> Science is based on the hypothesis that stuff that worked yesterday will work the same way tomorrow If you believe this assumption, you're believing a statement on faith and faith alone. I agree with you. I absolutely believe stuff will work the same tomorrow as yesterday at some level of abstraction. > science should be able to detect that, too Hmm... it might. It might not. For example, if 'god' (for lack of a better term) decided to make all spin states that he was going to make spin up instead be spin down from here on out, we would actually have no idea, despite those two 'states' of the universe certainly being different.