3 ms·

> This is evidence of science working, and self correcting. This is a statement that can be said, and is said every time when something changes. Is it true? No

by bmacho 2y ago

> This is evidence of science working, and self correcting. This is a statement that can be said, and is said every time when something changes. Is it true? No, obviously it isn't. Is literally any change in literally anywhere an evidence for - that thing working - that thing becoming better - that thing being governed by scientific ideals? How does that make any sense? Actually 'science' stating A and not A is an evidence for science lying and/or being dumb.

kergonath 2y ago
> This is a statement that can be said, and is said every time when something changes. Is it true? No, obviously it isn't. Is literally any change in literally anywhere an evidence for This is a statement that can be said about any self-correcting system. If there is no change, then either we are at an optimum (I don’t see anybody seriously suggesting that about science), or the system is not working. Obviously, change itself is not sufficient as it could be in the wrong direction. Our scientific understanding improving is a sign of progress. If our ideas are not allowed to change, we’d hit a brick wall pretty quickly. > How does that make any sense? Actually 'science' stating A and not A is an evidence for science lying and/or being dumb. Science is not an person, it can do neither.
- bmacho 2y ago
  > This is a statement that can be said about any self-correcting system. Definitely can be said about any organization ever, without second thinking. It changed? Then is an evidence that it self corrects, improves. Also it must have happened among scientific principles (because.), so it is a supporting evidence for those too. >> How does that make any sense? Actually 'science' stating A and not A is an evidence for science lying and/or being dumb. > Science is not an person, it can do neither. Meh. Science seen from outside, how it affects us, how it communicates with us, what it does, what is its inner state, etc, etc, it definitely is something that can lie and/or can be dumb. If you open a dictionary, you'll probably find that science is defined as an activity, so science is not even an entity, but that shouldn't matter much.

by bmacho 2y ago

kergonath 2y ago

> This is a statement that can be said, and is said every time when something changes. Is it true? No, obviously it isn't. Is literally any change in literally anywhere an evidence for This is a statement that can be said about any self-correcting system. If there is no change, then either we are at an optimum (I don’t see anybody seriously suggesting that about science), or the system is not working. Obviously, change itself is not sufficient as it could be in the wrong direction. Our scientific understanding improving is a sign of progress. If our ideas are not allowed to change, we’d hit a brick wall pretty quickly. > How does that make any sense? Actually 'science' stating A and not A is an evidence for science lying and/or being dumb. Science is not an person, it can do neither.

bmacho 2y ago
> This is a statement that can be said about any self-correcting system. Definitely can be said about any organization ever, without second thinking. It changed? Then is an evidence that it self corrects, improves. Also it must have happened among scientific principles (because.), so it is a supporting evidence for those too. >> How does that make any sense? Actually 'science' stating A and not A is an evidence for science lying and/or being dumb. > Science is not an person, it can do neither. Meh. Science seen from outside, how it affects us, how it communicates with us, what it does, what is its inner state, etc, etc, it definitely is something that can lie and/or can be dumb. If you open a dictionary, you'll probably find that science is defined as an activity, so science is not even an entity, but that shouldn't matter much.