this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
923 points (98.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
6164 readers
1833 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think people are more talking about believing in scientific institutions to ensure credibility and good faith research. Not necessarily that an individual institution is credible, but more the scientific community as a whole can be relied on.
Science is absolute, however the way we interpret and understand it isn't flawless and at the end of the day some level of belief has to be put into the fallible people behind it.
If science, as it is practised is flawed, by your own admission, what do you mean when you say that it is absolute?
The scientific laws that govern how everything functions from subatomic particles, to beehive structure, to gravity are absolute and unchanging. Our understanding of them is flawed and changes over time, but the laws themselves can't be changed.
As far as I understand, science is a human endeavour, so I would certainly not say it is absolute, but I see what you mean.
Although I would say, my position is somewhat different, I do not see any reason to believe that even if these "laws" exist, science has at any level access to them, the "nature of reality", if you will, "laws of the universe" are metaphysical concepts that can only ever be speculative, scientific laws are not interpretations of them, they are separate constructions.