3 ms·

> Which puts in question the assumption that science as you put in your comment is the correct way to manage complexity in all areas. One important aspect of t

> Which puts in question the assumption that science as you put in your comment is the correct way to manage complexity in all areas. One important aspect of the scientific method is that the outcome "we don't know" is perfectly acceptable. Not sure there are other approaches that have this humility built-in but happy to be enlightened (pun :-)

gchamonlive 2y ago
Why are you so sure everybody else's don't accept "we don't know" as an acceptable answer? What makes you think only scientists are humble enough to accept such outcomes. I believe you are romanticising science. It's done by humans it's prone human error just as much (reputation and money comes to mind). And even if it wasn't, if was done 100% correctly all the time, there are fundamental assumptions and simplifications needed to make the current scientific method work that's known to be incompatible with some domains of study, as I mentioned before. And to answer your question, philosophers are the other kind of category of thinkers that would fit that description. So by all means try to apply science to everything. It's been great so far. Just don't put too much expectation on it. It's disrespectful and unfair to science.
- openrisk 2y ago
  > What makes you think only scientists are humble enough to accept such outcomes? In your previous comment you equated the scientific method with naive positivism that purports to explain "everything". While this is a recurrent pathology, especially during times of major scientific advances that embolden people to make ridiculous assertions (from Laplace to Wolfram), its not really a defining part of science. I don't see science in any way as adversarial to philosophy. But it does have a track record of having diffused as a working thought framework whereas philosophy is still a rather elitist affair.
  - gchamonlive 2y ago
    > In your previous comment you equated the scientific method with naive positivism that purports to explain "everything". I never did that. You should try to read what others write with as much care are you employ in writing stuff yourself, including these elitist philosophers you are writing off so easily.
    - openrisk 2y ago
      > read what others write You started with this: "Which I'm reading like it's the ONLY way we know of how to "respect complexity" before embarking on tearing down strawmen.

gchamonlive 2y ago

Why are you so sure everybody else's don't accept "we don't know" as an acceptable answer? What makes you think only scientists are humble enough to accept such outcomes. I believe you are romanticising science. It's done by humans it's prone human error just as much (reputation and money comes to mind). And even if it wasn't, if was done 100% correctly all the time, there are fundamental assumptions and simplifications needed to make the current scientific method work that's known to be incompatible with some domains of study, as I mentioned before. And to answer your question, philosophers are the other kind of category of thinkers that would fit that description. So by all means try to apply science to everything. It's been great so far. Just don't put too much expectation on it. It's disrespectful and unfair to science.

openrisk 2y ago
> What makes you think only scientists are humble enough to accept such outcomes? In your previous comment you equated the scientific method with naive positivism that purports to explain "everything". While this is a recurrent pathology, especially during times of major scientific advances that embolden people to make ridiculous assertions (from Laplace to Wolfram), its not really a defining part of science. I don't see science in any way as adversarial to philosophy. But it does have a track record of having diffused as a working thought framework whereas philosophy is still a rather elitist affair.
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  > In your previous comment you equated the scientific method with naive positivism that purports to explain "everything". I never did that. You should try to read what others write with as much care are you employ in writing stuff yourself, including these elitist philosophers you are writing off so easily.
  - openrisk 2y ago
    > read what others write You started with this: "Which I'm reading like it's the ONLY way we know of how to "respect complexity" before embarking on tearing down strawmen.