• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    On the most fundamental level: For everyone. That’s because every world-view bogs down to a logical system and all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.

    People believe in all kinds of things, e.g. that the judge who’s sentencing you to prison is more than a human in fancy clothes. Or that the social reality that gives them that power doesn’t exist. Both stances are, ultimately, insane, and so are we all.

    EDIT: ITT: Cargo cultists not understanding what science is (a process) and isn’t (proof of anything).

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      all logical systems are grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions not provable in that system.

      That’s a hell of an assertion you have there. We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2. What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions? Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn’t.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have mathematical papers that prove 1+1=2

        They postulate systems in which that is entailed. Generally, as we’re speaking about maths, with assumptions (axioms) not provable in that system, mathematicians don’t like basing things on circular or paradox stuff but ultimately that’s a matter of taste, not what the system can express.

        What logical system are you saying is grounded in circular reasoning, paradox, or assumptions?

        All. Show me a proof of implication without using either, I’m waiting.

        Because modern peer reviewed science sure isn’t.

        It is based on the scientific method which can be understood as an algorithm which via Curry-Howard and Church is a logic which, well, see above. The universe might just as well be a Holtzmann brain and in exactly 15 seconds after you read this it’s going to switch to a different dream, and you’ll never know.


        Now you may not like that we ultimately have nothing to stand on but that’s your problem, not that of the universe. Or science. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is science a process or a world-view? That fact you apparently can’t tell the difference is the problem here.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a process. Belief in it from a practical purpose is a world-view and also very sensible as that process being useful matches experience; it is a healthy adaptation of oneself to the surrounding circumstances. Belief in it from a “science knows truth and is the only source of truth” is, first of all, unscientific, secondly, a cargo cult. Science doesn’t tell you shit about whether you should stick your dick in crazy and if it did it wouldn’t tell you the same as your genes which is what you’re going to listen to anyway, and find some rationalisation to dismiss that particular piece of science. And that’s fine. We’re all human.