5 ms·

> science is built around making verifiable > predictions but doesn't in fact give any > answers, only theories This is just redefining "theory" and "a

by avar 1y ago

> science is built around making verifiable > predictions but doesn't in fact give any > answers, only theories This is just redefining "theory" and "answer" to the point of meaninglessness. Darwin didn't know a lot of things about evolution or biology, and I'm sure he had questions about some of those things. If you could talk to him today you could give him answers to those questions, and the reason for that is that those answers are found in theories and scientific progress in general. But yes, it doesn't provide "answers" in the mushy religious sense, i.e. "what is it all for?". > The difference between science and > religion doesn't lie in disagreement > over particular facts or any facts at all Yes, it does. You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments. Do you think Galileo clashed with the Catholic church over heliocentrism because the church didn't understand what religion should and shouldn't be making claims about?

alexey-salmin 1y ago
The point being, a theory only holds "true" until it's superseded by a better theory. Furthermore, multiple conflicting theories can be in use at the same time in the absence of a good unifying theory. In the end science neither says nor cares what is "true", it just looks for theories that are good at predicting stuff. "Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent" or at least that's how I understand the word. EDIT apparently the comment above got extended, so I'll address some of newer points too. > You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying all these claims can be as well true in a different (fully consistent and scientific) world. Furthermore, if you assume we live in a simulation then basically anything becomes possible in OUR world too, including Jesus walking on water turned into wine. It's just our simulation overlords had a good sense of humor. The reason why we don't usually consider simulation theories is not because they're false (this can't be proven), but because they aren't practical and don't predict much. Even if we do live in a simulation, this simulation so far seems to follow some consistent internal "laws" so we can as well study those. Not that it means anything, but helps us to exterminate those who neglect these laws so it's a survivorship bias in action.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > "Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent" I would argue that answers are supposed to be useful for the purpose motivating the question. Q: What is the price of gas? A1: The number of units of some other good or service demanded by a seller in echange for a given quantity of it. A2: about $4.00/gal A1 is, I would say, both "true" and "permanent". Assuming it is at least approximately accurate, though, A2 is much more of an answer in most cases the question is asked, even though it is at perhaps only approximately and in any case at best transitorily true.
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    In that sense yes, I agree that science gives good answers.
- kmonsen 1y ago
  The goal of science is to disprove our theories so we can find out if they are true, and hopefully replace them with improved versions. The goal of religious study is to try to prove that it is not impossible, not that it is a probably reading of what happened. To find some absurd way of reconciling different stories. I have no idea how you can call that an answer.
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    Well these "answers", whether absurd or not, were good enough for societies to live by them and survive for millennia. Furthermore, even though you can argue that science can give some answers, it definitely under-delivers on questions like "what is good and evil" or "why you should have kids". Some of those are covered by the "humanism" neoreligion, some of them aren't. This whole experiment is very modern, it's not clear what are long-term survival rates of societies that completely give up on religions in a classical sense. It could turn out that societies that believe in nonsense have an edge over the ones that don't, after all this matches our experience all the way up until the 20th century.
    - 1y ago

by avar 1y ago

alexey-salmin 1y ago

The point being, a theory only holds "true" until it's superseded by a better theory. Furthermore, multiple conflicting theories can be in use at the same time in the absence of a good unifying theory. In the end science neither says nor cares what is "true", it just looks for theories that are good at predicting stuff. "Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent" or at least that's how I understand the word. EDIT apparently the comment above got extended, so I'll address some of newer points too. > You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying all these claims can be as well true in a different (fully consistent and scientific) world. Furthermore, if you assume we live in a simulation then basically anything becomes possible in OUR world too, including Jesus walking on water turned into wine. It's just our simulation overlords had a good sense of humor. The reason why we don't usually consider simulation theories is not because they're false (this can't be proven), but because they aren't practical and don't predict much. Even if we do live in a simulation, this simulation so far seems to follow some consistent internal "laws" so we can as well study those. Not that it means anything, but helps us to exterminate those who neglect these laws so it's a survivorship bias in action.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> "Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent" I would argue that answers are supposed to be useful for the purpose motivating the question. Q: What is the price of gas? A1: The number of units of some other good or service demanded by a seller in echange for a given quantity of it. A2: about $4.00/gal A1 is, I would say, both "true" and "permanent". Assuming it is at least approximately accurate, though, A2 is much more of an answer in most cases the question is asked, even though it is at perhaps only approximately and in any case at best transitorily true.
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  In that sense yes, I agree that science gives good answers.
kmonsen 1y ago
The goal of science is to disprove our theories so we can find out if they are true, and hopefully replace them with improved versions. The goal of religious study is to try to prove that it is not impossible, not that it is a probably reading of what happened. To find some absurd way of reconciling different stories. I have no idea how you can call that an answer.
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  Well these "answers", whether absurd or not, were good enough for societies to live by them and survive for millennia. Furthermore, even though you can argue that science can give some answers, it definitely under-delivers on questions like "what is good and evil" or "why you should have kids". Some of those are covered by the "humanism" neoreligion, some of them aren't. This whole experiment is very modern, it's not clear what are long-term survival rates of societies that completely give up on religions in a classical sense. It could turn out that societies that believe in nonsense have an edge over the ones that don't, after all this matches our experience all the way up until the 20th century.
  - 1y ago