Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Science is not a faith based system

False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philosophically equivalent to someone putting their faith in, say a monk, or a pastor.

If you go one level deeper, the monk might say, 'do X penance for Y years to verify Z claim', then it's up to you whether you want to follow that route or not. Until then, his claim is not unfalsifiable, like many skeptics claim.

Even for mundane day-to-day claims, 'science', as commonly understood, falls short.

e.g. Science cannot prove to me that a mango tastes sweet, without putting the condition that I must taste it. The only 'proof' it can provide is 'Taste it and see for yourself'. If I say, 'I will only taste it AFTER you prove it is sweet', then nothing will happen. Because Taste is subjective. Yet, everyone, 'miraculously' is able to come to a consensus.

There are truths that are individually/subjectively verifiable, but collectively/objectively unverifiable.

The denigration of the former type of truths is something armchair scientists must avoid. Real scientists never denigrate them.



No, you don't understand science.

Science can define what a sweet taste is, by assigning it to a set of measurements that define the boundaries of sweetness, as a technical term.

Is that sweetness to you? Nobody cares. It's a technical term that you need to accept to participate in the conversation productively.


> It's a technical term that you need to accept

"need to accept" is a "subjective" consensus - meaning it is useless if the terminology is not accepted.

Acceptance is a subjective decision, at which point you're simply going by majority vote. And majority is not a barometer for truth.

Science absolutely cares about subjective acceptance, and faith in experts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: