• humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Its strength is generating models of reality that have predictive power, and fine-tuning those models as new information is obtained.

    Its weaknesses are a lack of absolute certainty and the inability to model that which has no detectable impact on reality.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I don’t think this is true. “Why” questions merely need to be translated from the abstract to the tangible in order to be tested.

        Perhaps you meant the philosophical and/or metaphysical? Even then, sometimes it’s just a matter of translating an abstract concept into something tangible to test. But, yes, some questions simply cannot be answered by science. But that doesn’t mean that a system of logic and testing cannot still be applied to find a reasonable answer. Even then, the scientific method can serve as a guide.

        Truth in any context will always rely on facts, what can be proven by attainable evidence. Let logic be your guide. Fear no knowledge. Always remember to be good and empathetic and kind with that knowledge.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”

            • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?

              Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.

              • auzas_1337@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                axioms have entered the chat

                The deeper you go in the why territory, the more abstract and tangental your axioms get.

                So yeah. All facts and truths ultimately rest on foundations that are either kinda unobservable or unproven. Doesn’t make them less practical or true (by practical definitions) though.

          • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dreamstuff.

      • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        “Why”, when distinguished from “how”, is asking about the intent of a thinking agent. Neuroscience, psychology, and sociology exist for when thinking agents are involved. When they’re not, that type of “why” makes no sense.

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think that’s because there is no answer to “why” - At least not one that would satisfy the human mind.

        The best we are ever going to be getting is “it just is”.