2 ms·

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from you

by sho 18y ago

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you, I didn't realise you were talking about the scientific process. Of course you are right. The confusion arose from your use of the word "true", which to me means "indisputable objective fact", not the current ascendency of a particular theory. For example, water is composed of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms. Gravity exerts a downward acceleration of ~9.8ms2. Etc. These kind of things are "true" for me. Theories are things which cannot be "true", really, merely the best current explanation of something. But perhaps I confused the terms and misread your arguments, so actually it seems we're in happy agreement. And yes, I also suspect General Relativity is not the final word.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.
- sho 18y ago
  Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.

by sho 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

The point being, when you say something like "religion is false" then you have to have this other discussion about what true and false are. People who say religion is false usually pose science as being true, which really doesn't hold up that well either.

sho 18y ago
Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.