Message from @Dr.Wol
Discord ID: 504729067980062721
theories can change
genders can not
I think people conflate the scientific method with the current body of scientific knowledge.
\o> dab
Religion is an aspect of a culture
Science books will look very different. There is a lot that we define in arbitrary manners.
currently yes
So of course religion changes
exactly, but science doesn't
```Heres the thing,
We can burn all holy books, and science books today
And in 200 years, all the science books will say the exact same facts
The religious books will say something different```
I can see why you'd think that, but there is much commonality when it comes to major religions, the basic teachings are very similar cross culturally and given that religion developed in every society on Earth, it'd probably be back in different flavors but a similar message.
so they'll say something different 😮
Different views of the same truth
Yes, there are psychological aspects to religion that are surprisingly common cross culturally.
religion offers no truth, thats why its a religion
That is why I find Carl Jung so interesting.
Gnosticism and Dharmism share essentially the same fundamental principles
dvir is just using the common tactic to keep trowing spagets at the wall till one sticks, spagets being platitudes heard and talked about dozens of times before
its gay
and wasteful of food
The stories are different, but the base truth, the message is very similar
You do the same exact thing hypocrite
Science will only reproduce the same theorems if permitted to do so.
lmao
I would call him more Gnostic than occult
Science can easily be suborned to political ends.
^
People keep conflating institutions, the scientific method, and the current body of scientific knowledge.
but the undeniable facts can't be undone
What remains static is the scientific method.
If i rub my hands to create friction -> heat
Its not gonna change as a scientific principle for anotehr 200 years atleast
The body of scientific knowledge changes all the time - as it should.
Don't be so confident in the invincibility of science as a pursuit of truth.
And historical circumstances impacted many discoveries. I think it is likely that our scientific knowledge might look very different if we started over.
But the scientific method would not change.
this entire discussion
Atkins, how about that thing recently where someone quoted things from "Mein Kampf" but cuz it was pro-feminism it got accepted by peer-review? 😛
`He picked up the children’s history book and looked at the portrait of Big Brother which formed its frontispiece. The hypnotic eyes gazed into his own. It was as though some huge force were pressing down upon you – something that penetrated inside your skull, battering against your brain, frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?`