You are declaring it to be a fact that science is flawless. Defining something to be true by definition can certainly cause it to be appear to be true (read some forum discussions among even smart people on the internet if you do not believe this), but it doesn't guarantee that it will be.

I have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not sure how you're getting "science is flawless" from what I said, or what that's supposed to mean.

You said that science does not behave like a religion at all (zero faith based thinking, as just one example).

You also said: "If reality changes science will adapt". If this is not essentially a claim that science ~"understands reality", then what is it claiming?

Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented.

Esoteric arguments portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will that never interacts with reality is not observable by definition; since it doesn't interact with reality, it can be safely ignored. Roko's basilisk be damned!

I think some people think science rejects mystical explanations because science is rigid and stubborn and has it's head buried in the sand.

But no, it's because there's no proof. If we had evidence that something mystical was happening then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would eventually become science.

How do you know fine-grained details about the actual actions and cognition of millions of people that you have never met?

Furthermore, do you think there's something about becoming a scientist that converts Scientist Humans into perfectly rational beings?

And that would not be me, because at no point did I say we needed a 'mystical' explanation. I'm just pointing out the universe is not always predictable, but -- just as it did many years ago -- this often causes a lot of distress, especially on pop science forums.

Please stop replying in my comments. Your responses are offensively stupid.

> portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will

I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring divinity into this. The universe is not purely a automaton not because of some purported unobservable god, but simply because all experiments indicate that we cannot predict the behavior of the basic building blocks of the universe.

I agree with your assessment. I mentioned the friction people to stem the path where when people begin speaking about multiple streams of access to knowledge, they are typically attempting to inject a common apologetic approach to make theology or philosophical arguments for divinity of various types and definitions.

> Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented.

Are the adaptations both flawless and adequate to meet the claim? How would such a thing be tested to confirm truth?

If laws change; laws imply that things always work the same, but they don't. At a micro level the universe is describable in the aggregate, but seemingly unpredictable.

Science can change sure, but it cannot predict the unpredictable. You're not wrong to say science adapts but to say that quantum uncertainty hasn't caused the metaphysics of science (or at least some scientists) to change, is intellectual dishonesty.

I would call it a "law" that if I sample from a normal distribution I am more likely to sample from the mean than from the tail. The law is not on a specific draw but what the histogram will look like. The same way I wouldn't jump off a bridge because someone might jump off right after me with a parachute and attach it to me I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction. Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook? How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point?

Thought experiment. I have a machine that produces a standard normal distribution. I know this because I built it and tested it a lot (alternatively, have God/divinity/an oracle/whatever build this machine).

You sample from it 100 times and get the number 3000 every time.

What can you say about the machine? Did it follow a normal distribution? Really?

How much was your statement about normal distributions able to predict what happened?

What does it mean for something to follow a law? The word law comes from a legal background for rules in human society. If society makes a law, can that law be broken following a normal distribution?

> I wouldn't bet against classical laws due to quantum interaction.

In my daily life I do not. However, given that the inner workings of the human brain are not explicable in our current understanding of physics, I don't need to 'bet against classical laws' there. We already know that something is going on.

> Can you name any specific physicists who should change their outlook?

There are several competing outlooks in physics right now. One is the 'shut up and calculate' approach which admits there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable 'systems' (for lack of a better word) and all we can do is make colloquial statistical claims about them. Another is that the universe is always predictable and quantum choice is due to the branching of the universe into many observable worlds (although they never explain why my conscious experience only follows one path... one is forced to conclude they believe some quantum process is in play). Another is that quantum physics is just completely wrong (unlikely). Another is that consciousness (which is undefined) is a crucial feature to quantum mechanics and is necessary to cause collapse of the wave function. There's pilot wave theory which requires there to be an unseeable aether (and again, admits no way to measure the aether, so I'm not sure that exists).

There's a whole list of spiritual beliefs about quantum mechanics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...

Depending on your belief in what takes place (and it's really truly a belief, and in some systems, it's going to stay that way), take your pick of scientists who should change their outlook.

> How should they be doing experiments differently due to your point?

They shouldn't. Most physicists do good work explaining the way the world works, but they also admit that there are unknowable, unobservable, unmeasurable systems that govern it. The comment I replied to claimed otherwise.