3 ms·

No, it's not unique to science. For instance, with history, whether or not you believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated doesn't change the fact that he ei

by jawns 13y ago

No, it's not unique to science. For instance, with history, whether or not you believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated doesn't change the fact that he either was (for which the evidence is overwhelming) or wasn't (if, by some amazing chance, the YouTube conspiracy videos are true). But you bring up a point worth expanding upon. You mention testing. With history, and many other subjects, we can't directly evaluate things in the way that we test things with science. That is to say, we can't go back in time and take a snapshot of a historical moment and say, "There! That did actually happen!" Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain.

pohl 13y ago
...for which the _evidence_ is overwhelming... Do you think that Tyson is using the word "science" in contrast to other disciplines that respect the notions of fact, observation, and evidence? I figured he was using it in contrast to competing epistemologies that do not, like faith.
bradleysmith 13y ago
>Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain. I appreciate this sentiment and attitude. I am perturbed by those that tout the scientific method as a catch-all epistemological tool that solves all problems of human thought. As you said, there are many things that sit squarely outside of the realm of scientific observation, and they are just as valid as science as attempts to better understand our universe.

by jawns 13y ago

pohl 13y ago

...for which the _evidence_ is overwhelming... Do you think that Tyson is using the word "science" in contrast to other disciplines that respect the notions of fact, observation, and evidence? I figured he was using it in contrast to competing epistemologies that do not, like faith.

bradleysmith 13y ago

>Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain. I appreciate this sentiment and attitude. I am perturbed by those that tout the scientific method as a catch-all epistemological tool that solves all problems of human thought. As you said, there are many things that sit squarely outside of the realm of scientific observation, and they are just as valid as science as attempts to better understand our universe.