• humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Its strength is generating models of reality that have predictive power, and fine-tuning those models as new information is obtained.

    Its weaknesses are a lack of absolute certainty and the inability to model that which has no detectable impact on reality.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I don’t think this is true. “Why” questions merely need to be translated from the abstract to the tangible in order to be tested.

        Perhaps you meant the philosophical and/or metaphysical? Even then, sometimes it’s just a matter of translating an abstract concept into something tangible to test. But, yes, some questions simply cannot be answered by science. But that doesn’t mean that a system of logic and testing cannot still be applied to find a reasonable answer. Even then, the scientific method can serve as a guide.

        Truth in any context will always rely on facts, what can be proven by attainable evidence. Let logic be your guide. Fear no knowledge. Always remember to be good and empathetic and kind with that knowledge.

      • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        “Why”, when distinguished from “how”, is asking about the intent of a thinking agent. Neuroscience, psychology, and sociology exist for when thinking agents are involved. When they’re not, that type of “why” makes no sense.

      • Krudler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think that’s because there is no answer to “why” - At least not one that would satisfy the human mind.

        The best we are ever going to be getting is “it just is”.