Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

petermobeter t1_j3esbg0 wrote

isnt science just….. figuring out how things work? like, if one day, magic become real, scientists would study it and figure out how it worked, and once they had a decent idea of how the processes of magic functioned, magic would simply be yet another thing being continually understood by science (like DNA or electromagnetism or weather systems).

“transcending science” is like “transcending understanding”……

6

[deleted] OP t1_j3eug37 wrote

> “transcending science” is like “transcending understanding”……

Science actually requires that a question be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, it is not scientific.

AI might blow right past that paradigm, for instance.

> isnt science just….. figuring out how things work?

Science is actually a very specific process. For context, my undergrad was physics and I've done scientific research!

What's funny is that science is actually technically philosophically inductive (i.e. by probability), rather than deductive (i.e. the way you mathematically prove something that is true in all contexts). That is, all measurement has error, and part of the scientific process is actually defining that error and the probability that the result is a fluke.

Science is essentially a branch of philosophy - a very well applied and productive branch of philosophy.

Analytic philosophy operates in domains that science cannot. Dismissing analytic philosophy is like dismissing science itself.

6

petermobeter t1_j3f6xxm wrote

i dunno…. a woman can study analytical philosophy all day, but when she gets in an argument with someone, and that someone uses a “logical fallacy” that she just finished reading about, what is she gonna do? tell them “actually u can’t say that cuz it’s a fallacy!” the other person isn’t gonna take it all back…. theyre just gonna double down on it even harder………….

when u say that an A.I. could prove or disprove the unfalsifiable….. do u mean that itll figure out a way to disprove something that we humans just hadnt thought of, and that we were wrong that it was unfalsifiable? or do u mean that itll work to prove something despite it being genuinely unfalsifiable? becuz the latter (putting big effort into confirming a hypothesis and zero effort into disproving it) is technically an example of “cargo cult science”. i mean, maybe it’s okay when a super-intelligent A.I. does it, idk

edit: sorry if im being rude. i hope im not bein condescendin. sorry

2

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j3f6zbp wrote

Cargo cult science

>Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis. The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology. Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

3

Helpful_Sweet_7338 t1_j3gaj2f wrote

Science is a specific METHOD to find out how things work. AI might find a better method.

1