MOVED TO @[email protected]
first of all science is not a belief system
there's no bible, you do not take a list of things in a book and have faith that they are the truth. science is not about faith. science isn't even about truth!
science is about doing controlled experiments to develop models of natural processes
the key thing is that everything "science says" is backed by experimental results. science doesn't actually say anything. science doesn't require you to believe in the theory. just that the experiments were carried out as described.
even then, the theory is not objective truth. the theory is a _model_ that helps us predict something that happens based on the previous observations of stuff that happens. nothing in science can ever be proven "true". but that's kind of irrelevant because we don't ask that theories be "true" in the first place. we only ask that theories help us understand and predict the wacky stuff that happens around us. that's the point
Oct 8, 2020 at 7:26amWeb
Show threadMOVED TO @[email protected]Oct 8, 2020

importantly, science is wrong. any theory can be disproven at any time by any contradictory experimental result (which kind of sucks if you think about it right! you might think science is the search for the "truth", but all we can tell you for sure is stuff that's not true. heck)

so the point is, if you observe or experience something, and someone tells you "but, science says that can't happen!" actually science can't say shit. maybe the bible says for certain what can't happen. maybe you believe it. maybe it happens anyway. ultimately the world around us does not care what our current model of it is. the world will do stuff as it pleases, and we simply have to update the models to account for it

Show threadMOVED TO @[email protected]Oct 8, 2020
ultimately observations are the foundation of science. science is strengthened by observations. the whole existence of science depends on observations. observations form science. not the other way around.
so stop using "science" to invalidate other people's observations. that's not how it works. you can't use "science" as a tool to push your shitty ideologies when you don't even know the first thing about science. or that it doesn't actually support anything you said
Show threadMathemagicianOct 8, 2020
@haskal
>if you observe or experience something, and someone tells you "but, science says that can't happen!" actually science can't say shit

this is true but with the caveat, that if an observation appears to directly contradict a well-established scientific fact(for instance, the theory of general relativity) then it warrants significant further investigation and repetition before the theory is considered invalid. Equipment, eyes, and the human mind can all be unreliable and susceptible to unforseen bias, hence why well-designed and controlled and repeated experiments are necessary to establish a fact as 'scientific'.

Also it's worth noting that quite a lot of things that some people dismiss instantly as 'unscientific' (such as ghosts) are perfectly permissible within the commonly accepted scientific theories, and that the standards for truth in some fields such as psychology are much weaker than others.
Show threadfedi.absturztau.be Oct 8, 2020
@haskal also just some stuff to add here:
theory in science means something different than theory in general language usage.
like a theory is a model, a set of facts and statements, that makes a bunch of predictions which have been confirmed time and time again.
i see arguments like "it's just a theory" sometimes which shows me that a bunch of ppl don't really know what a theory in science really is.

theories can't be proven true, thats correct. we can proof if the predictions a theory makes don't contradict observation and experiments
Show threadsubiOct 8, 2020

@haskal I feel like most people when they say "science says" really mean "data says" and then proceed to spout something that either;

a. hasn't been studied to have adequate data.
b. only studied 832 instances (of 6 billion if meaning people)
c. is impossible to study

I think the whole "science isn't "true" or "false"" might not be the best approach. There are some theories that are pretty ironclad and, barring any complete metaphysical shift in the laws that govern the universe, will remain constant.

And even then, if the comparison of a scientific theory to a non-scientific opinion, one will be more right than another.

A theory backed by data is right for now. Your opinion about Climate change or smthis not.

Show threadsubiOct 8, 2020
@haskal additionally, if we're going to advocate for a post-fact society, which is fair, the argument should also be made to the people spouting information on the other side of these arguments as well, not just the people weaponizing science for arguments.