- cross-posted to:
- pics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- pics@lemmy.world
science is religion with extra steps but more open and less bloat.
It’s very much not.
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!!!
Science is religion in the same way as sex is an airplane hangar.
The placebo effect would like a word.
That’s medicine. Science just sees it as a problem to be sorted by good study design and statistics
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.
The placebo effect works even if you know its a placebo tho.
Unless it’s like… Sociology, or Psychology. They care what you believe.
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).
Well I believe the colour purple is real.
Until you turn your head and stop observing, and then it reverts back to mysticism. :-P

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
Mostly, but it could be more broadly applicable like the placebo effect.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Science isn’t a belief system. It’s a way of making sense of natural phenomena.
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.
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.
Within a certain range of scale, speed and energy, it’s an excellent approximation of the truth.
You could have just said “Yeah.”
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
yeah, about that…yer funding…it comes in part from some of those anti-science folk… :/
Actually, “science” is a human activity and must care about what you think. It’s the universe that doesn’t care about either.
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.
Hypothesis?
Needlessly antagonistic, anthropomorphises science… hmm.
science doesn’t care about your feelings.
Science cares if your beliefs make you vote for someone who defunds research.
I want this mug
But is light particle or wave?
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)








