4 ms·

Yes, that's kinda my point: Aristotle's physics worked well until it failed. Newton's worked well until it failed. General relativity works well, but some peopl

Yes, that's kinda my point: Aristotle's physics worked well until it failed. Newton's worked well until it failed. General relativity works well, but some people look for where it might fail, so as to help reconcile it with QM. Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward. Evolution is a theory, and in its current form, already distant from Darwin's. It's particularly amusing to have this discussion in the context of evolution, given that we have observed theories to systematically (AFAIK) evolve. Why can't we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
When you are a scientist talking to a scientist, yes that is all correct. I think the reactions here are because a lot of creationist(others), will say things like "that is only a theory", thus "it was god, duh, I just owned you libtard".
nickpsecurity 2y ago
“Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward.” “Why can’t we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?” The first quote answers the second. The dogma usually blocks even questioning of evolution in research venues, liberal communities, etc. If one opens with evidence, they’re usually countered with dogma using argument from authority or mockery as if dissent equals stupidity. Also, major opponents are hitting it right at the roots which might make the other points moot until the roots are defended or improved. For these reasons, we usually can’t make it that far even if we’d be willing to do it. Also, I don’t know the modern versions in that much depth compared to an actual biologist. We’d probably need qualified skeptics in here for accuracy on our own side if we got that deep. :)
- mbivert 2y ago
  This observable resistance to change seems to stem from firm irrational beliefs: it's amusing how structurally close to an (institutionalized) religion institutionalized science is. Like, how most people actually believe in science: they're incapable of understanding, nor reproducing most results (e.g. flat earthers, reproducibility issues in research). A half-baked religion, which doesn't even encourage morality, what could go wrong…
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    You hit on the other problem: lack of moral underpinnings to guide or limit science. I was collecting videos on Scientism yesterday when I ran into an overview of C.S. Lewis’ take on it. https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared He correctly predicted the harms that would come from science without morals. Additionally, he observed Scientism is much like magic from older times. He makes comparisons. The end result is a tool of authoritarianism.
    - mbivert 2y ago
      I didn't knew much about Scientism; the wikipedia page already contains quite a few heavy critics. Its very definition feels inconsistent: > Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While it may be true locally in time, science may transcend itself over time. Furthermore, some aspects of the scientific development are poorly studied/understood/taken into account in how we do science, such as all those discoveries stemming from dreams & cie[0]. Einstein in particular was well-known to have had many valuable insights while being in a half-asleep state. That's to say, objectively, the evolution of science is shaped by chaotic events, which AFAIK isn't embraced by contemporary institutionalized science. Perhaps because it's too close to the content of religions of old. [0]: someone on HN copy-pasted this a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

When you are a scientist talking to a scientist, yes that is all correct. I think the reactions here are because a lot of creationist(others), will say things like "that is only a theory", thus "it was god, duh, I just owned you libtard".

nickpsecurity 2y ago

“Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward.” “Why can’t we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?” The first quote answers the second. The dogma usually blocks even questioning of evolution in research venues, liberal communities, etc. If one opens with evidence, they’re usually countered with dogma using argument from authority or mockery as if dissent equals stupidity. Also, major opponents are hitting it right at the roots which might make the other points moot until the roots are defended or improved. For these reasons, we usually can’t make it that far even if we’d be willing to do it. Also, I don’t know the modern versions in that much depth compared to an actual biologist. We’d probably need qualified skeptics in here for accuracy on our own side if we got that deep. :)

mbivert 2y ago
This observable resistance to change seems to stem from firm irrational beliefs: it's amusing how structurally close to an (institutionalized) religion institutionalized science is. Like, how most people actually believe in science: they're incapable of understanding, nor reproducing most results (e.g. flat earthers, reproducibility issues in research). A half-baked religion, which doesn't even encourage morality, what could go wrong…
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  You hit on the other problem: lack of moral underpinnings to guide or limit science. I was collecting videos on Scientism yesterday when I ran into an overview of C.S. Lewis’ take on it. https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared He correctly predicted the harms that would come from science without morals. Additionally, he observed Scientism is much like magic from older times. He makes comparisons. The end result is a tool of authoritarianism.
  - mbivert 2y ago
    I didn't knew much about Scientism; the wikipedia page already contains quite a few heavy critics. Its very definition feels inconsistent: > Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While it may be true locally in time, science may transcend itself over time. Furthermore, some aspects of the scientific development are poorly studied/understood/taken into account in how we do science, such as all those discoveries stemming from dreams & cie[0]. Einstein in particular was well-known to have had many valuable insights while being in a half-asleep state. That's to say, objectively, the evolution of science is shaped by chaotic events, which AFAIK isn't embraced by contemporary institutionalized science. Perhaps because it's too close to the content of religions of old. [0]: someone on HN copy-pasted this a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752