• presoak@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Agreed. But I blame the rabble for that. They’ll turn anything into a religion.

      Science : a method for crafting high-quality models.

      Rabble : it’s the one and only truth and it dgaf wooooooo!!!

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      That’s medicine. Science just sees it as a problem to be sorted by good study design and statistics

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Science just sees it as a problem to be sorted by good study design and statistics

        And those studies are going to care about what you believe.

    • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      What do you mean? Sociology I kind of get, but psychology nowadays is a purely quantitative discipline (despite its subject being squishier than other quantitative sciences).

  • OpenStars@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    Until you turn your head and stop observing, and then it reverts back to mysticism. :-P

    img

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      You’re referring to quantum effects? Don’t worry about whether you’re not watching, the universe is watching. If one photon is emitted from the thing in a quantum state and hits anything, that’s the observation

    • xep@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      18 days ago

      Science isn’t a belief system. It’s a way of making sense of natural phenomena.

    • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      If we look at the way the universe behaves, quantum mechanics gives us fundamental, unavoidable indeterminacy, so that alternative histories of the universe can be assigned probability.

      • Murray Gell-Mann

      “it posits that the universe functions according to predictable rules”

      • you

      Not quite. Cosmologists accept a certain distribution of predictable phenomena within known parameters while leaving the door open to chaos, outliers, the as of yet unknown and unknowable.

      Complexity theory is a model that posits components interact in multiple ways and behave according to local rules. From quantum physics to cosmology and the aspirational yet elusive grand theory of everything, science is prepared for a world weirder than we understand, and possibly weirder than we can understand.

      Just because empirical evidence and the development of predictable rules are a very fruitful line of inquiry doesn’t mean we believe that is truth.

      Philosophers of Science have rather lengthy volumes of work on the subject. I’m just a novice on the topic, but my take on the state of the subject is that we don’t accept science and even it’s laws as absolute truth, just a very practical, reliable, utilitarian form of inquiry and understanding which includes uncertainty (Heisenberg), probability, complexity and chaos. Scientists are prepared to abandon everything in exchange for something better.

      Look at newtonian physics. No one thinks it’s the truth, it’s just simpler and useful for everyday engineering.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        There are rules that govern stochasticity, and especially the behavior of large aggregates of things that indivdually behave stochastically. It’s not a tradeoff of 100% locked-down order or headless-chicken chaos. There’s a continuum.

        No one thinks it’s the truth

        Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it’s an excellent approximation of the truth.

        • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it’s an excellent approximation of the truth.

          You could have just said “Yeah.”

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      we define “science” as the aggregate consciousness of scientific researchers

      This is something I wish I could preach convincingly to everyone. The activity of scientists, a social group, are arguing and trying to convince one another that their interpretation of the data acquired by using their tools and methods is what become a scientific consensus.

      Forefronting the method (often a vaguely defined one rooted in a hypo-deductive model from about 150 years ago that most people learned in grade school) removes the relationships between people and other people and people and institutions.

      I wish I could find the paper but there’s a wonderful enthographic study on how scientists interact with each other to transform the discourse.

      Edit: Found it! Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen E. Longino

  • Gsus4@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 days ago

    yeah, about that…yer funding…it comes in part from some of those anti-science folk… :/

  • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 days ago

    Actually, “science” is a human activity and must care about what you think. It’s the universe that doesn’t care about either.

  • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 days ago

    Technically correct since science is a concept and doesn’t have feelings, unlike animals, and possibly plants, fungi, all forms of life, who knows, rocks? Idk.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      Everything is a wave if you dig deep enough.

      At least, as far as we know right now. But the standard model and quantum field theory have been really solid with really precise predictions for many decades at this point. (not any kind of expert here, just find it interesting)