Disclaimer: we still have pragmatic reason to follow the evidence suggested by our best scientific theories. I’m just poking fun at scientists in the spirit of Hume. There’s no guarantee that the future will resemble the past, and even our best scientific theories are amenable to future evidence.

  • girl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I found your meme very funny as a scientist who enjoys philosophy. I will correct you though, science absolutely investigates the foundations of science itself. The average layperson sees the term “laws” and believes that science has decided this is 100% the way things work and it will never be investigated again, but science itself is very aware of how often new information invalidates old information. The way the atom has been modeled over the years is a prime example, each time scientists are presented with new data the model is changed. I was taught in my freshman year to never say a law was “proven” but to say it had “overwhelming supporting evidence” instead, because that leaves room for the possibility of evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure what you mean by causation being presupposed.

    I’m not a mathematician, so I’m not sure how concrete mathematical proofs are considered, or if there is some room for interpretation/new data.

    • balderdashOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well at least someone got a laugh. Reading your comment, it seems as though you think 1) Science can investigate its own foundations and 2) Scientists are aware that our best theories are never 100% confirmed.

      I have no qualms about 2), but let’s understand “the foundations of science” (which I admit is vague) as being consistent with basic axioms like A.) the immutability of mathematical truths (e.g., arithmetic), B) the ability to accurately observe/measure events in the world (quantum mechanics complicates the picture here but I also mean large-scale events), and C.) basic propositions like “every event has a cause”. I do not think these sorts of questions are within the purview of science. Actually, as a philosopher, I think these questions are within the scope of philosophy.

      • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thoroughly enjoy philosophy and it was central to my degree in political science, but you have crazy mouth.

        Please feel free to launch a vehicle outside of our solar system and tell me that Philosophy has a better understanding of the physical universe than NASA.