Disclaimer: we still have pragmatic reason to follow the evidence suggested by our best scientific theories. I’m just poking fun at scientists in the spirit of Hume. There’s no guarantee that the future will resemble the past, and even our best scientific theories are amenable to future evidence.

  • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well at least someone got a laugh. Reading your comment, it seems as though you think 1) Science can investigate its own foundations and 2) Scientists are aware that our best theories are never 100% confirmed.

    I have no qualms about 2), but let’s understand “the foundations of science” (which I admit is vague) as being consistent with basic axioms like A.) the immutability of mathematical truths (e.g., arithmetic), B) the ability to accurately observe/measure events in the world (quantum mechanics complicates the picture here but I also mean large-scale events), and C.) basic propositions like “every event has a cause”. I do not think these sorts of questions are within the purview of science. Actually, as a philosopher, I think these questions are within the scope of philosophy.

    • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thoroughly enjoy philosophy and it was central to my degree in political science, but you have crazy mouth.

      Please feel free to launch a vehicle outside of our solar system and tell me that Philosophy has a better understanding of the physical universe than NASA.