Science: Just an illusion?

Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

I mean... I just know it isn't true!

At its core, science really just boils down to one thing: observation. It’s all about paying attention to what's actually happening right in front of us—gathering those raw, unfiltered data points from the world around us. You can have all the fancy theories and complex mathematical models you want, but if they aren't rooted in what we can actually see, measure, and verify through direct experience, then they're basically just guesswork. It’s that fundamental process of looking, testing, and watching how things play out that gives everything its footing.

Science isn't just about what you happen to notice when you glance at something—it’s built on so much more than mere observation. It’s a massive, complex framework that goes way deeper than just seeing things happen.

Look... maybe do a little homework first— Science isn't just some dry collection of facts tucked away in a dusty textbook—it’s more like a living, breathing conversation we're having with the universe itself. It’s this constant, restless process of asking "why" and then having the guts to be wrong when the answer turns out differently than we expected. I’ve always felt that science is less about reaching a final destination and more about refining the map as we go. Think about it like this: imagine you’re trying to navigate through a dense forest in the Pacific Northwest without a GPS. At first, you might think you're heading north because the sun looks like it's in the right spot, but then you realize you've actually been walking in circles around a massive cedar tree. You don't throw up your hands and say, "Well, navigation is a lie!" Instead, you adjust your compass, look at the moss on the bark, and try again. That’s what the scientific method really is—it's that moment of adjusting the compass after realizing your initial assumption was off base. There’s also this deep, almost philosophical layer to it all—something that reminds me of how people talk about Schrödinger's cat. The idea that the very act of looking at something can change its state... it’s wild, right? It suggests that we aren't just passive observers standing on the sidelines watching a movie; we are actually part of the mechanism. We’re in the game. I remember reading some thoughts by David Bohm once—he had such a unique way of looking at the interconnectedness of everything—and it really drives home the point that nothing exists in a vacuum. Everything is tied together in this complex, beautiful web. Whether we're talking about quantum mechanics or just how a virus spreads through a city like Chicago, the principles of observation and interaction are always there, humming in the background. At the end of the day, being a "scientist"—even if you're just someone curious enough to look under the hood of how things work—is about maintaining that sense of wonder while staying grounded in what we can actually prove. It’s a delicate balance between dreaming big and checking the data, but man, isn't that where all the magic happens?

It’s funny when you really stop to think about it—our observations aren't some objective, raw feed of reality hitting our eyes like a camera lens. Instead, they're really just products of human perception. It’s all filtered through our own little biological lenses, shaped by how our brains decide to interpret the world around us.

That’s just not quite right. What we call observations aren't some objective truth—they're really just interpretations filtered through our own human perception. At the end of the day, the actual cause is undoubtedly what we refer to as the phenomenon itself.

Science is really just a massive collection of human perceptions, isn't it? I mean, think about it—we aren't actually touching "reality" itself; we're just interpreting the signals our senses pick up. It’s all filtered through our own biological limitations and biases. We build these complex mathematical models and theories to make sense of the chaos, but at the end of the day, it's still just our way of mapping out the world based on what we can observe. It’s less like discovering an objective truth that exists independently of us and more like building a very sophisticated, highly organized map of our own sensory experiences.
It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and think about it—this whole idea that Schrödinger's cat proves an atom is basically just scattered across an entire area until a conscious observer actually decides to take a look at it. It's one of those concepts that totally flips your understanding of reality on its head.

So, let me see if I've got this straight—you're basically trying to use a scientific principle, like Schrödinger's cat, as a way to "prove" that science itself is just some sort of grand illusion?

🤣

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

The idea is that our perception actually relates to the world around us... that it reflects reality. Science studies that and finds patterns, which we then call the laws of nature. People figured out a long time ago that different people can perceive the same thing and that there are rules to what we see.

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

But science isn't just any random set of illusions. There are actual rules used to categorize them...

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

You can't have perception without interaction, and interaction—just like perception—changes everyone involved. The only way to observe something is by being an active participant in it. You only perceive something because the thing you're watching changes you. That's the only way you even know anything happened...

When you look at a particle, you're interacting with it. In that moment, both you and the particle change. The shift in you is what makes you aware the interaction took place. And in the same way, through the change it undergoes, the particle becomes aware of you... essentially perceiving you.

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

It's more likely that it just proves we don't know where it is until we detect it somewhere...

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

It's just a poetic way of saying today's universe comes from endless interactions between particles, fields, and whatever else... even middle schoolers get the concept, they just don't say it so grandly.

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

That’s just poetic fluff that doesn't really add anything new. It's like saying "I think, therefore I am"... nothing groundbreaking...

Noah Perez13 said:Do you guys think science is just one big illusion? If so, what kind of arguments would you throw at me to back that up?

Look, science is built on observations, right? But observations are just products of how we perceive things. So, science is basically just a massive collection of human perceptions. And let's be real—perception is often just a series of illusions. We can actually see our scientific rules falling apart once we hit the quantum scale. The whole idea that the mere act of observing an event can change the outcome... it's wild. It's called the "observer effect." It basically proves that an atom is just scattered across a whole area until a conscious person decides to actually notice it.

Schrödinger's cat — that’s the vibe. Even David Bohm, the quantum physicist, touched on this. Without consciousness, the universe would have no shape; atoms would just be drifting aimlessly through space. The emergence of consciousness is really the spark that pushed the universe into existence. Once we became aware, the universe finally had the chance to take shape and form itself into the reality we experience today.

Is it possible that we are looking at a fundamentally flawed interpretation of how observation works in quantum physics? Does the "observer effect" really imply that particles somehow make a conscious choice to behave differently just because someone is watching them—as if they possess some sort of decision-making agency or even telekinetic powers? Of course not. If we want to extract any meaningful information about an object that small, we have to bombard it with other particles to track what happens, and in that very process of measurement, we inevitably lose a portion of the data because we’ve significantly disrupted the initial state of the object we were trying to study.

Look, I’m totally walking back my previous argument here, and honestly, I owe an apology for that first post since it kind of missed the mark. I clearly didn't think it through enough. Just please bear with me—I'm definitely not a philosopher or anything, and I don't have any formal training. This is just me geeking out and digging into stuff on my own time.

Science is built on observations; observations are products of human perception. Science is just a collection of human perceptions. Perception is a set of illusions. Therefore, science is just a collection of illusions.

So, if I had to define an illusion, I'd say it's a sensory distortion, like a hallucination. But in what sense is human perception a "collection of illusions"? I mean, this is our only way to actually see the universe—if it isn't real to us, then what the heck is?
In a way, I was right about one thing: empirical science can never spit out absolute, objective facts. We can only offer our observations and try to build theories based on what we've seen; so yeah, all sciences are essentially just a collection of things we've observed.

We can see the breakdown of our scientific rules on the quantum scale. The very act of observing an event can change the outcome. This is called the "observer effect." The observer effect proves that an atom is scattered across an entire area until a conscious being decides to notice it.

Which scientific rules, though? Classical mechanics breaks down at the quantum level, just like quantum mechanics breaks down when you look at the macroscopic scale. That's not even surprising! Our scientific theories are really just useful models; they aren't meant to work under every single possible circumstance. We just build new models when the old ones stop working, and that's how science moves forward.

As for the observer effect: the quirks of quantum mechanics don't just apply to the big, macroscopic world. Because of quantum decoherence, the line between classical and quantum mechanics gets pretty blurry, but you can still predict the movement of atoms using classical mechanics—so no, they don't just smear out all over space when you aren't looking. The measurement problem affects subatomic particles, sure, but even their state at any given moment can be modeled using wave functions, even if it's not perfectly precise. Also, worth noting is that "observation" doesn't necessarily have to come from a conscious being (depending on which interpretation you follow) to trigger that apparent collapse of the wave function.

"Schrödinger's cat" — the idea that the act of observation creates the entire universe. Without consciousness, the universe would be formless, with atoms scattered through space. The emergence of consciousness is the event that brought the universe into a state of existence. Once we became conscious, the universe gained the ability to form itself into what we perceive today.

Sure, for us humans, nothing effectively exists until we can detect it, but I think what I was suggesting here is that our consciousness shaped the universe in a more concrete way. As far as I can tell right now, there isn't any solid reason to believe that's actually true. But, like most philosophical ideas, we can't exactly prove that it *isn't* the case—it's pretty similar to solipsism, really.

Quote:

scum says: In what sense is human perception just a collection of illusions? It’s our only window into the universe—if reality isn't actually there for us, then what is?...

I’d suggest picking up Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception. And maybe some Husserl too.

Noah Perez13 said:Look, I’m totally walking back my previous argument here, and honestly, I owe an apology for that first post since it kind of missed the mark. I clearly didn't think it through enough. Just please bear with me—I'm definitely not a philosopher or anything, and I don't have any formal training. This is just me geeking out and digging into stuff on my own time.

Science is built on observations; observations are products of human perception. Science is just a collection of human perceptions. Perception is a set of illusions. Therefore, science is just a collection of illusions.

So, if I had to define an illusion, I'd say it's a sensory distortion, like a hallucination. But in what sense is human perception a "collection of illusions"? I mean, this is our only way to actually see the universe—if it isn't real to us, then what the heck is?
In a way, I was right about one thing: empirical science can never spit out absolute, objective facts. We can only offer our observations and try to build theories based on what we've seen; so yeah, all sciences are essentially just a collection of things we've observed.

We can see the breakdown of our scientific rules on the quantum scale. The very act of observing an event can change the outcome. This is called the "observer effect." The observer effect proves that an atom is scattered across an entire area until a conscious being decides to notice it.

Which scientific rules, though? Classical mechanics breaks down at the quantum level, just like quantum mechanics breaks down when you look at the macroscopic scale. That's not even surprising! Our scientific theories are really just useful models; they aren't meant to work under every single possible circumstance. We just build new models when the old ones stop working, and that's how science moves forward.

As for the observer effect: the quirks of quantum mechanics don't just apply to the big, macroscopic world. Because of quantum decoherence, the line between classical and quantum mechanics gets pretty blurry, but you can still predict the movement of atoms using classical mechanics—so no, they don't just smear out all over space when you aren't looking. The measurement problem affects subatomic particles, sure, but even their state at any given moment can be modeled using wave functions, even if it's not perfectly precise. Also, worth noting is that "observation" doesn't necessarily have to come from a conscious being (depending on which interpretation you follow) to trigger that apparent collapse of the wave function.

"Schrödinger's cat" — the idea that the act of observation creates the entire universe. Without consciousness, the universe would be formless, with atoms scattered through space. The emergence of consciousness is the event that brought the universe into a state of existence. Once we became conscious, the universe gained the ability to form itself into what we perceive today.

Sure, for us humans, nothing effectively exists until we can detect it, but I think what I was suggesting here is that our consciousness shaped the universe in a more concrete way. As far as I can tell right now, there isn't any solid reason to believe that's actually true. But, like most philosophical ideas, we can't exactly prove that it *isn't* the case—it's pretty similar to solipsism, really.

Most of the folks hanging out in these forums are just hobbyists too... myself included.

Quincy:

I suppose part of me was right, though—empirical science can never truly deliver absolute, undeniable facts. All we're doing is gathering observations and building theories based on what we've seen; at the end of the day, every science is just a collection of things we've noticed.

Hold on a second... if you drop something, it hits the floor every single time. That can't just be a trick of our perception!

Quincy:

From where I'm standing, there isn't a solid reason to believe that's an objective truth. But then again, like most philosophical concepts, we can't effectively prove it *isn't* the case—it feels pretty similar to solipsism.

The trouble is, it's incredibly easy to cook up a claim that's scientifically impossible to debunk. For instance, if I say "no human being can live forever," I can't technically prove that either, since the statement covers people who haven't even been born yet. But obviously... just because something is unprovable doesn't mean it's true.[/u][/b]

@ vamvam

Spot on. Really well put. I might add a few things though.

Science isn't just a bunch of random illusions. There are actually rules in science used to classify those illusions.

Basically, science is a collection of persistent—well, reproducible—illusions.
And its laws? They’re just the best approximations we have. They let us predict stuff so we can actually make cause-and-effect work in the real world.

Why even use the word illusion? (It's just a fun way to say we don't know things, I guess). Is it because reductionism demands absolute truth? I mean, to truly know something, you'd need to grasp its very foundation. And that’s what quantum mechanics deals with, which... honestly, we haven't even fully figured out yet.
There are theories out there that are good, and possible, but just unproven.
So, the fundamental nature of matter (and whatever else, depending on how you define it) only exists for us as a possibility.
It isn't cognitively fixed, so in a way, it is an illusion.

But then again, maybe it isn't, because what we *do* know works. That kind of truth is what we actually act upon. It doesn't make it any less true; it's just a different kind of truth, I guess.
And agnosticism is probably the broadest, most complete mental practice. Knowing what you know, knowing what you don't, and framing everything in between as a possibility... that feels like the most complete way to look at things.

The poetic way of saying it is that today's universe is the result of endless interactions between particles, fields, and who knows what else. Even high schoolers get that, even if they don't say it quite so grandly.

Yeah, plus that old question you see in so many threads—would there even be a universe if there were no one there to experience it? 😍 Just some self-aware human consciousness nonsense.

Would there be a universe at all? Or would it exist under different conditions, or maybe just for aliens? Then, is the universe somehow conscious of itself through these interactions and the way they're preserved in particles? If consciousness is just interaction, and the universe is interaction, then wouldn't the universe indirectly perceive itself by creating consciousness? 🤣 Pretty wild thoughts. 😍

Edward Flores4 said:Most of the folks hanging out in these forums are just hobbyists too... myself included.

Quincy:

I suppose part of me was right, though—empirical science can never truly deliver absolute, undeniable facts. All we're doing is gathering observations and building theories based on what we've seen; at the end of the day, every science is just a collection of things we've noticed.

Hold on a second... if you drop something, it hits the floor every single time. That can't just be a trick of our perception!

Quincy:

From where I'm standing, there isn't a solid reason to believe that's an objective truth. But then again, like most philosophical concepts, we can't effectively prove it *isn't* the case—it feels pretty similar to solipsism.

The trouble is, it's incredibly easy to cook up a claim that's scientifically impossible to debunk. For instance, if I say "no human being can live forever," I can't technically prove that either, since the statement covers people who haven't even been born yet. But obviously... just because something is unprovable doesn't mean it's true.[/u][/b]

If we're playing by those rules, then science itself can't prove anything either, since it's all just making predictions—basically using observations to guess what happens next.
What I'm really calling out here is that positivist approach to science where they take a handful of isolated cases and act like they've discovered "universal laws" as if those things even exist.

redstag said:If we're playing by those rules, then science itself can't prove anything either, since it's all just making predictions—basically using observations to guess what happens next.
What I'm really calling out here is that positivist approach to science where they take a handful of isolated cases and act like they've discovered "universal laws" as if those things even exist.

Look, nobody is claiming "laws of nature" are identical to man-made laws passed by Congress... but if you drop an object, it ALWAYS falls to the ground. That's clearly some kind of "lawfulness" stemming from the fundamental state of how things work.

So, how else would you label that? Or are you just being critical for the sake of being critical?

redstag said:If we're playing by those rules, then science itself can't prove anything either, since it's all just making predictions—basically using observations to guess what happens next.
What I'm really calling out here is that positivist approach to science where they take a handful of isolated cases and act like they've discovered "universal laws" as if those things even exist.

But that’s just how science is defined. I don't see the issue here. Like, how do you even "prove" it? If things happen exactly as predicted, then it's proven, over and over again.
Is there even another way to have concrete proof besides stuff being true through constant reproducibility?

I mean, you could always assume there might be some theoretical exceptions.
That's just a byproduct of how the human mind works, I guess. And more importantly, those aren't actual proofs—they're just assumptions based on what we already know or have proven.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, nobody is claiming "laws of nature" are identical to man-made laws passed by Congress... but if you drop an object, it ALWAYS falls to the ground. That's clearly some kind of "lawfulness" stemming from the fundamental state of how things work.

So, how else would you label that? Or are you just being critical for the sake of being critical?

Hold up—"natural laws" (and I'm not a huge fan of that phrase) actually make more sense than man-made laws because they're empirically verifiable (if you want to get all technical about it).
The real issue is this idea that we shouldn't question reality itself, but rather just how well we can observe it. If you take that logic to its extreme, you end up with some pretty terrifying stuff for humanity. We use concepts—like the whole "stone falling to the ground" thing—that carry meanings tied to entirely different phenomena, yet we keep using them. Back in the day, before everything became secularized, advocating for "science" made sense. But now that "science" has basically turned into a religion, we need to stop pretending it's some objective truth machine that uncovers the secrets of the universe. Look, if we admit humans are inherently biased, why on earth would we believe our perception of the world is purely objective? (And I'm not talking about reality itself, just our view of it). We don't deduce things from reality; we deduce them from our *perception* of reality. Because of that, neither the perceptions nor the conclusions drawn from them can be called "objective." To argue otherwise is basically trying to build "science" on the foundations of metaphysical ontology. Science isn't self-sustaining. So, it doesn't deserve the special, untouchable status it currently holds. Saying "if we throw a rock in the air, it will fall to the ground" is logically identical to saying "if we throw a rock, it will keep moving forward." In the positivist tradition, both statements refer to an entire set of events involving throwing rocks. Neither statement is strictly "true" or "false" because they're describing a massive aggregate of occurrences. This isn't me trying to tear down science just to destroy it; it's about stripping away its unearned privilege. Other traditions of human thought shouldn't be pushed aside. Plus, treating science as this perfectly objective discipline gives scientists a "holier-than-thou" status over everyone else, which—let's be real—they definitely haven't earned.

Thomas Booth5 said:But that’s just how science is defined. I don't see the issue here. Like, how do you even "prove" it? If things happen exactly as predicted, then it's proven, over and over again.
Is there even another way to have concrete proof besides stuff being true through constant reproducibility?

I mean, you could always assume there might be some theoretical exceptions.
That's just a byproduct of how the human mind works, I guess. And more importantly, those aren't actual proofs—they're just assumptions based on what we already know or have proven.

Exactly. Just assumptions. So, by that logic, scientific statements are basically just metaphysical claims dressed up in lab coats.

redstag said:Exactly. Just assumptions. So, by that logic, scientific statements are basically just metaphysical claims dressed up in lab coats.

Nah, I don't think so. Metaphysical assumptions are built on speculation—where the whole theoretical base is just more speculation and it's all a priori. But scientific ones? They're based on certainty, predictions, or speculation that actually has an empirical measurement or definition behind it.

Maybe except for quantum mechanics, which has its own brand of metaphysics (someone's probably gonna come after me for saying 🤣). But honestly, it's true. You've gotta start with what's known and measurable.

There are different kinds of assumptions. And I guess, maybe because of how open-minded people can be, they feel allowed to play around with formal logic and build all these wild constructs. 😁

But look, if a rock always falls to the ground (here in the States, under the same atmospheric conditions, etc.), it isn't really an "assumption" to say that if you drop it right now, it'll hit the ground again. That’s just a certainty, not an assumption.

redstag said:Hold up—"natural laws" (and I'm not a huge fan of that phrase) actually make more sense than man-made laws because they're empirically verifiable (if you want to get all technical about it).
The real issue is this idea that we shouldn't question reality itself, but rather just how well we can observe it. If you take that logic to its extreme, you end up with some pretty terrifying stuff for humanity. We use concepts—like the whole "stone falling to the ground" thing—that carry meanings tied to entirely different phenomena, yet we keep using them. Back in the day, before everything became secularized, advocating for "science" made sense. But now that "science" has basically turned into a religion, we need to stop pretending it's some objective truth machine that uncovers the secrets of the universe. Look, if we admit humans are inherently biased, why on earth would we believe our perception of the world is purely objective? (And I'm not talking about reality itself, just our view of it). We don't deduce things from reality; we deduce them from our *perception* of reality. Because of that, neither the perceptions nor the conclusions drawn from them can be called "objective." To argue otherwise is basically trying to build "science" on the foundations of metaphysical ontology. Science isn't self-sustaining. So, it doesn't deserve the special, untouchable status it currently holds. Saying "if we throw a rock in the air, it will fall to the ground" is logically identical to saying "if we throw a rock, it will keep moving forward." In the positivist tradition, both statements refer to an entire set of events involving throwing rocks. Neither statement is strictly "true" or "false" because they're describing a massive aggregate of occurrences. This isn't me trying to tear down science just to destroy it; it's about stripping away its unearned privilege. Other traditions of human thought shouldn't be pushed aside. Plus, treating science as this perfectly objective discipline gives scientists a "holier-than-thou" status over everyone else, which—let's be real—they definitely haven't earned.

1. See, science isn't built on "perception" of reality; it's built on measurement. For instance, recording the daily temperature doesn't depend on a scientist's subjective "perception" of how hot it is—it depends on the liquid (whether it's alcohol or something else) inside the thermometer reacting. Until you can explain to me what part of that process is actually "subjective" or tied to a "perception of reality," I honestly have no idea what you're getting at!

2. When you say "science doesn't deserve the place it has"... what exactly are you referring to? What "place" is it that you think science occupies?

In the real world, things work like this: whatever works best wins out. The moment priests or metaphysicians (or any other school of thought) successfully split an atom, land a probe on >, invent a smaller and cheaper processor, find a cure for cancer, or otherwise match or surpass the predictive repeatability and practical utility of scientific methods—then they'll enjoy that same "privileged status" that belongs to science today!

So, those "spots" are assigned based on a very specific metric... it's about what works reliably and provides value. We value the things that are consistently precise, predictable, and things we can actually count on.

With that in mind, I'm genuinely curious: what exactly do you find more valuable than science? What would you put in that "spot" that you feel science is undeserving of?

What is it that science is "destroying" that shouldn't be? What specifically has you so worked up?

Or do you not even have a candidate for that spot?

Thomas Booth5 said:Nah, I don't think so. Metaphysical assumptions are built on speculation—where the whole theoretical base is just more speculation and it's all a priori. But scientific ones? They're based on certainty, predictions, or speculation that actually has an empirical measurement or definition behind it.

Maybe except for quantum mechanics, which has its own brand of metaphysics (someone's probably gonna come after me for saying 🤣). But honestly, it's true. You've gotta start with what's known and measurable.

There are different kinds of assumptions. And I guess, maybe because of how open-minded people can be, they feel allowed to play around with formal logic and build all these wild constructs. 😁

But look, if a rock always falls to the ground (here in the States, under the same atmospheric conditions, etc.), it isn't really an "assumption" to say that if you drop it right now, it'll hit the ground again. That’s just a certainty, not an assumption.

That "certainty" relies on the idea that you can understand the whole set just by looking at a partial piece of it. That's a logical assumption right there. When you say "assumption," you mean you're guessing. The real issue is how we label things as "science." If you want to use the term "science" in the broadest sense possible, fine, I won't argue with you. But seriously, Neanderthals knew that if they threw a rock, it would hit the floor or potentially hurt someone. We don't call them scientists or anything higher than that.

redstag said:That "certainty" relies on the idea that you can understand the whole set just by looking at a partial piece of it. That's a logical assumption right there. When you say "assumption," you mean you're guessing. The real issue is how we label things as "science." If you want to use the term "science" in the broadest sense possible, fine, I won't argue with you. But seriously, Neanderthals knew that if they threw a rock, it would hit the floor or potentially hurt someone. We don't call them scientists or anything higher than that.

That’s definitely a thing too. It's its own whole question, really... that spot where science and philosophy just kind of bleed into each other.

Nah, I don't think that's really what science is all about at its core. It’s more like... maybe there's this certainty found within a specific subset, but only after you actually recognize what that subset is first. I guess.

Logical assumption? I mean, you're basically just guessing at that point.

Nah, again. It's just playing games, and honestly, most of the time it isn't even accurate formal logic.
It’s just... I don't know, using those terms like they're synonyms? It feels pretty wrong. Maybe it's just me, but that logic seems totally off.

When you say the outcome of an action that follows a set rule is "expected" or "assumed," I think the wording is a little off. You're basically saying it’s just going to happen that way—every single time. There isn't really any room for anything else to occur.

Acid-base reactions... man, science can be such a trip. I guess it’s just all about that chemical dance, right? One side reacts, the other responds, and suddenly everything changes. It's pretty wild when you think about it. It’ll happen. I guess. You could say...I guess... I mean, I suppose... maybe? "A reaction between an acid and a base will produce a salt." Like, how else would you say it? It’s just gonna happen. The end result is always going to be the same, I guess.

The issue is really just about how we use the word "science." If we're talking about science in a super broad sense, then I guess I don't have any problem with it at all.

I'm with you on that. I've been having some trouble with certain definitions myself, too. 😵Especially when I run into something that feels super rigid or just plain wrong. It’s like, if it's blind and inflexible, it might be totally incomplete, you know? And that can really lead you down the wrong path. I guess it doesn't mean everything is like that, but it definitely messes with your perspective.

So, imagine you think every single thing in science is wrong just because the word "science" itself is a bit fuzzy or poorly defined. Logic might tell you that's how it works, but honestly? It’s just bad logic. Even if the big, overarching concept is a little shaky, it doesn't mean the specific parts aren't totally accurate. Just because the umbrella term is imperfect doesn't invalidate everything underneath it. That’s just flawed reasoning, I guess.
If it really bothers you, I guess you just have to admit when those subclauses work, and then just look at the rest of it for what it is.

I mean, honestly... if you drop a rock on the floor, it hits the ground. If you drop it on your foot, it hurts. Even Neanderthals knew that. So I guess we shouldn't exactly be calling them scientists—or anything much bigger than that, for goodness' sake.

What does that even have to do with anything? I mean, we’re talking about the scientific method here, and I was just using that as an example of a certain kind of insight.
Look, if you really want to stick to those broad definitions, fine. But why wouldn't we just consider them beings that actually follow the scientific method? I guess it makes sense. Maybe. 😍

Science is basically just everything systematic that leads to actual understanding and then puts that knowledge to work. If Neanderthals were studying—and I'm pretty sure they were—the world around them, gathering data and then using it later? That’s definitely the scientific method right there. I mean, their grasp on things was obviously way more limited, but it still existed. They could learn, know, and apply simple facts, like knowing exactly how a rock is going to fall to the ground.

Every single time I see someone start preaching about how "science actually knows nothing," I can't help but wonder—I mean, really wonder—who on earth could possibly claim to know more than what we've gathered through scientific inquiry?

Look, if you or I accept the simple fact that, regardless of its flaws, science doesn't have a viable alternative right now... then sure, we can sit down and talk about the weaknesses in the scientific method. And trust me, it definitely has its fair share of those. But these sweeping, generalized complaints that exist solely to tear science down just to make knowledge seem some sort of mystical, unreachable thing? Honestly, they're completely pointless.

redstag said:Exactly. Just assumptions. So, by that logic, scientific statements are basically just metaphysical claims dressed up in lab coats.

Now, let's be clear: there are different types of assumptions. The real distinction lies in how one goes about proving them; that is precisely where the scientific method diverges from non-scientific approaches. We don't necessarily have to take sides or champion one over the other, but can we really claim that scientific assertions are identical to metaphysical ones? Not quite.

Maybe a few quotes from Lord Kelvin will help shake things up here:

"To measure is to know."

"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it."

"in physical science The First essential step in The direction of Learning Any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring som quality connected with IT. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

Give those implications some thought; they tie directly back into what we're discussing in this thread. 😉