-54
Science, what are it's strengths and weaknesses? (piefed.world)
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One strength : we can do it in groups.

One weakness : uses models.

What's up with the downvotes. Did I accidentally contradict a dogma?

Ok, allow me to explicitly state the popular belief that I seem to be contradicting here.

Science is perfect. It has no weaknesses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

An observation is an anecdote. Unless you control for outside factors while reproducing outcomes, it's the observer who doesn't see clearly, not the model maker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

    Well unless the observer and the model maker are one and the same, the model maker did not see at all.

    Observation is our source of evidence for our models, right? Without it we've got, what, dogma?

    Do you like dogma?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

    Science carries on where observation leaves off. You can't observe a black hole, but you can observe the effects of one and use that to build a model that tells us more about the universe than observation alone ever could. Observation tells some people the earth is flat when anyone can circumnavigate the globe because science says observation is an illusion.

    Science looks into why one observer says cilantro tastes like soap and another says it would be great in salsa. And by going beyond simple observation it can even tell you who will think it tastes like soap without them ever tasting it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

    Well it carries on within a system of models, a story. A very useful story that lends itself to communication and rational analysis but still, a story. This fact does not discount the utility of the story but it does indicate, as I said, a vast loss.

    You keep offering evidence in support of science but I am not attacking it. I am merely examining its limits.

    Must science really be a perfect thing for you. Can't it be just a tool, with strengths and weaknesses like any other?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Being able to predict the outcome of an event before it happens, and being able to manipulate the result by manipulating the factors contributing to the outcome is basically my definition of perfection. And science has a better track record than any other methodology.

    The results are not perfect, but it is by far and away the best tool we have. Is that "perfect"? Yeah it's close enough for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •