Re:What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
by Santosh83 on Saturday January 07, 2017 @04:11AM
(#13343130)
Both are not inherently true. Just commonly the case. In my experience (with Eastern polytheistic religions) a lot of "religious" people are perfectly fine with science, while conversely many people who swear by science and logic seem viscerally contemptuous of anything not falling within the bounds of their worldview. No doubt religion by and large is detrimental (at least at this point in human evolution) and it has a huge amount of blood on its hands, but the spiritual/mystical core of most religions (admittedly almost completely ignored by the vast majority of its adherents since it is obtuse, ethereal and hard to pursue; not as easy as following orders and conforming) seems to be just as much a way of seeking after the ultimately nature of reality as is science. Just because it is not testable and repeateable like the scientific method doesn't mean it is false, since we still don't know the ultimate nature of reality. So it is good if both sides keep an open mind.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
But, limiting debates to the observable, testable (falsifiable) and repeatable subset has helped us improve our understanding of the nature of physical reality.
Wouldn't you agree?
Re:What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
by jschwartzi on Saturday January 07, 2017 @10:00AM
(#13344400)
But it's not very helpful in understanding the nature of ourselves, which is where science remains a weak tool.
It's a mistake to conclude science is a weak tool just because it produces less certain results in the social sciences. "Weak" is a relative measure, so science is only a weak tool if you can actually demonstrate the existence of a much better tool.