Also, many scientists and science institutions aren't particularly willing to admit that they're wrong and character assassination is absolutely a common tool in the internal politics of science.
"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)
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
24 replies
How is this a shitpost?
Also, many scientists and science institutions aren't particularly willing to admit that they're wrong and character assassination is absolutely a common tool in the internal politics of science.
You should add media outlets who are often proven wrong yet never acknowledge it
oh the science wars...
"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."
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.
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.
As a anti religious person this meme ignores the reality of science to present its "ideal" while not extending the same to religion.
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".
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.
God isnt real
What is the relevance to my comment? I agree by the way.
Whats more to the point, it's not science.
Never said it was
Never said you did
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
Literally today's politics
Quality shitpost 👌
Not only religion - narcissistic (and other kinds of) assholes exhibit the same behaviour. Does this mean that all assholes are religious?
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"