Applies to many things. Not just religion
-
"Science" doesn't do or advocate anything, it's just a method. It's like pitting Religion against Object Oriented Programming (They're the same picture)
Anyway, great shitpost
I've always wondered about this, because not only are they not mutually exclusive, they don't really fight unless someone really wants to create an issue.
"It turns out the Earth revolves around the Sun, which in turn rotates around a galactic center."
"But we've been teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe. What will we tell people?"
"Well, we all thought it was the center, but it turns out it wasn't. Does anything in your religion specifically say we're the center?"
"No..."
"Then I guess we all found out together. Also, why are you even teaching stuff like that? The movement of celestial bodies seems a weird topic to be discussing in church."
-
God isnt real
What is the relevance to my comment? I agree by the way.
-
I've always wondered about this, because not only are they not mutually exclusive, they don't really fight unless someone really wants to create an issue.
"It turns out the Earth revolves around the Sun, which in turn rotates around a galactic center."
"But we've been teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe. What will we tell people?"
"Well, we all thought it was the center, but it turns out it wasn't. Does anything in your religion specifically say we're the center?"
"No..."
"Then I guess we all found out together. Also, why are you even teaching stuff like that? The movement of celestial bodies seems a weird topic to be discussing in church."
Yeah, the catholic church encouraged the study of the heliocentric idea, right about until Galileo used his scientific papers to directly criticize and mock the pope.
-
I've always wondered about this, because not only are they not mutually exclusive, they don't really fight unless someone really wants to create an issue.
"It turns out the Earth revolves around the Sun, which in turn rotates around a galactic center."
"But we've been teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe. What will we tell people?"
"Well, we all thought it was the center, but it turns out it wasn't. Does anything in your religion specifically say we're the center?"
"No..."
"Then I guess we all found out together. Also, why are you even teaching stuff like that? The movement of celestial bodies seems a weird topic to be discussing in church."
In a way I find pop sciency types that go after religion even worse. Like science doesn't argue anything about religion, it's set up to be unprovable - so don't argue, if it's not falsifiable it's not science you're just grinding a personal axe.
-
What is the relevance to my comment? I agree by the way.
Whats more to the point, it's not science.
-
Except it doesn’t. Science is all about asking questions, religion is about accepting answers.
That's the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn't reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.
-
Whats more to the point, it's not science.
Never said it was
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not only religion - narcissistic (and other kinds of) assholes exhibit the same behaviour. Does this mean that all assholes are religious?
-
Never said it was
Never said you did
-
That's the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn't reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.
And how do you know this? Is it because someone said "this is true" and then someone else was then able to say "no it isn't - and here's the evidence".
-
That's the ideal the commentor is talking about, this isn't reality. A significant number of peer reviewed papers are being published without replicable results or any hint of a falsifiable hypothesis.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No one is arguing that every scientist is ethical.
The issue is at its core one is about questioning and one isn’t. That fundamental doesn’t change.
-
And how do you know this? Is it because someone said "this is true" and then someone else was then able to say "no it isn't - and here's the evidence".
Well, that's kinda my point, a lot of modern theoretical physics doesn't present a falsifiable hypothesis - it can't be tested, there's no proposal for how it could ever be tested.
In terms of evidence the unrepeatable results - some of it is being repeated and checked, a lot of it isnt. Predictions of how bad the problem is is derived statistically. So much so it's considered a crisis in modern science.
-
I’d say the latter is just dogmatism, which exists in both science and religion. As a radical skeptic, I simply suspend judgment about any claim — sometimes questioning it, other times engaging it for the sake of practicality.
bingo.
plenty of science, scientsits, and science worshippers are dogmatic about science. scientism is a thing often leads to the same absurdities as extreme religious belief does
-
This post did not contain any content.
Also Science: "everything revolves around the earth and if you say different we‘ll burn you"
-
This post did not contain any content.
Fuck this kind of memes, it makes both end of the conversation hostile
Enjoy your win against your strawman
-
Also Science: "everything revolves around the earth and if you say different we‘ll burn you"
Also Science: "Earth is round, birds are real"
