3 ms·

"Science as an institution does not care where the incremental steps towards the truth comes from, as long as those steps are reproducible." I am very skeptica

by etse 12y ago

"Science as an institution does not care where the incremental steps towards the truth comes from, as long as those steps are reproducible." I am very skeptical of that. The scientific community is susceptible to politics and social competition, at least as any other community. Reproducing results (real science) is hard work and the reality of it is that scientists are entitled to unsupported beliefs, but may find it difficult/tempting to misuse their achievements or stature to champion those beliefs. "ultimately religion is very un-scientific" This is a provocative statement that would be interesting to hear more on.

jacquesm 12y ago
As for the science community's shortcomings: scientific theories change one funeral at the time. > This is a provocative statement that would be interesting to hear more on. HN isn't the venue for this discussion, but since you asked: I don't think that's a very provocative statement at all. Miracles, Heaven, Hell, virgin births in humans and so on (and that's just some branches of Christianity). There is no limit to the number of un-scientific things one can find in religion, either in a literal interpretation of scripture (which we are supposed to have grown above these days but which still underpins much of Christianity) as well as a lot of more permissive interpretations which still boil down to special treatment for mankind at best. My usual way of dealing with such things is to look at this picture for a minute or so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue... And to wonder why we think we're so special in gods eye that he/she/it chose to create all of this just for us. And then of course within 'us' there are those who think they are even more special in the eye of their deity. The next thing that troubles me greatly about religion is that religious people can't seem to agree on any one thing in the aggregate. It usually seems to boil down to 'I believe what most people believe where my crib was located.'. Reasoning about religion should - if it was aimed at discovering some kind of truth, and so be more scientific - converge, but divergence seems to be the norm. Science tends to converge when looked at over the longer term.
- yawboakye 12y ago
  > Science tends to converge when looked at over the longer term. Evolution. String theory. Scientists really converges 100%. > There is no limit to the number of un-scientific things one can find in religion M-theory. String theory. 2 theories unprovable with the scientific method. So there's at least 2 un-scientific things eating at the table of (scientific) science as we speak. Some scientific scientist hold them close to their hearts, even though their very unscientific. More unscientific than miracles. > Miracles, Heaven, Hell, virgin births in humans and so on Why can't miracles happen? Basic definition of miracle is an event that cannot be predicted by observed law governing similar events. It doesn't mean miracles can't happen. Arithmetic law of addition says that $1 + $1 = $2 (and it remains so indefinitely), assuming the thief doesn't pass by. If they do, $1 + $1 will be equal to how much money they left you. It doesn't mean the law of addition is unpredictable; it means it only governs normal events.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    I think you may misunderstand how theoretical physics works. Theorists devise competing theories to explain existing evidence, while making some as-yet unproven predictions. Experimentalists then test those predictions using both controlled experiments (e.g. LHC) and observations (e.g. Hubble). Theories whose predictions were invalidated are then revised or discarded (e.g. Luminiferous Aether[0]). That is the very definition of the scientific method, not at all "unprovable" as you claimed. The same process produced the current theory of evolution, and is just not as far along in the case of string theory. Seeing conflict in science and declaring it to be religious is like seeing a half-assembled car in a factory and declaring it to be undriveable. You are taking a snapshot and ignoring the process. A note about the word "theory": it doesn't mean "untested"; it's the same sense as "music theory", that is, a comprehensive body of explanatory knowledge about a subject. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
    - learc83 12y ago
      >I think you may misunderstand how theoretical physics works. Theorists devise competing theories to explain existing evidence, while making some as-yet unproven predictions. Experimentalists then test those predictions using both controlled experiments... I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is saying. He is saying that many physicists consider string theory to be "untestable", not just that it hasn't yet been tested. He's saying that given the limits of reality it is likely unfalsifiable, and therefore it could be argued that string theory is outside of the realm of science.

by etse 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

As for the science community's shortcomings: scientific theories change one funeral at the time. > This is a provocative statement that would be interesting to hear more on. HN isn't the venue for this discussion, but since you asked: I don't think that's a very provocative statement at all. Miracles, Heaven, Hell, virgin births in humans and so on (and that's just some branches of Christianity). There is no limit to the number of un-scientific things one can find in religion, either in a literal interpretation of scripture (which we are supposed to have grown above these days but which still underpins much of Christianity) as well as a lot of more permissive interpretations which still boil down to special treatment for mankind at best. My usual way of dealing with such things is to look at this picture for a minute or so: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue... And to wonder why we think we're so special in gods eye that he/she/it chose to create all of this just for us. And then of course within 'us' there are those who think they are even more special in the eye of their deity. The next thing that troubles me greatly about religion is that religious people can't seem to agree on any one thing in the aggregate. It usually seems to boil down to 'I believe what most people believe where my crib was located.'. Reasoning about religion should - if it was aimed at discovering some kind of truth, and so be more scientific - converge, but divergence seems to be the norm. Science tends to converge when looked at over the longer term.

yawboakye 12y ago
> Science tends to converge when looked at over the longer term. Evolution. String theory. Scientists really converges 100%. > There is no limit to the number of un-scientific things one can find in religion M-theory. String theory. 2 theories unprovable with the scientific method. So there's at least 2 un-scientific things eating at the table of (scientific) science as we speak. Some scientific scientist hold them close to their hearts, even though their very unscientific. More unscientific than miracles. > Miracles, Heaven, Hell, virgin births in humans and so on Why can't miracles happen? Basic definition of miracle is an event that cannot be predicted by observed law governing similar events. It doesn't mean miracles can't happen. Arithmetic law of addition says that $1 + $1 = $2 (and it remains so indefinitely), assuming the thief doesn't pass by. If they do, $1 + $1 will be equal to how much money they left you. It doesn't mean the law of addition is unpredictable; it means it only governs normal events.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I think you may misunderstand how theoretical physics works. Theorists devise competing theories to explain existing evidence, while making some as-yet unproven predictions. Experimentalists then test those predictions using both controlled experiments (e.g. LHC) and observations (e.g. Hubble). Theories whose predictions were invalidated are then revised or discarded (e.g. Luminiferous Aether[0]). That is the very definition of the scientific method, not at all "unprovable" as you claimed. The same process produced the current theory of evolution, and is just not as far along in the case of string theory. Seeing conflict in science and declaring it to be religious is like seeing a half-assembled car in a factory and declaring it to be undriveable. You are taking a snapshot and ignoring the process. A note about the word "theory": it doesn't mean "untested"; it's the same sense as "music theory", that is, a comprehensive body of explanatory knowledge about a subject. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
  - learc83 12y ago
    >I think you may misunderstand how theoretical physics works. Theorists devise competing theories to explain existing evidence, while making some as-yet unproven predictions. Experimentalists then test those predictions using both controlled experiments... I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is saying. He is saying that many physicists consider string theory to be "untestable", not just that it hasn't yet been tested. He's saying that given the limits of reality it is likely unfalsifiable, and therefore it could be argued that string theory is outside of the realm of science.