[strogonoff]

I will read it some time.

I still do not know what makes a theory “better” if it will never be provably correct, is most likely drastically wrong, and comparatively brings us little value. A theory that would instead focus on ourselves, whatever that might look like, seems like potentially a much “better” option, but because the path is poorly trodden the scientific community would defend its own dignity by laughing at those who venture there. Anyway, I’m not awake enough to argue well at this point.

[lisper]

> brings us little value

You don't see value in the ability to make accurate predictions about the future?

[strogonoff]

Not necessarily. It depends on what predictions those are, I suppose.

[lisper]

> Not necessarily.

OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. If you don't see the value in being able to predict the future, I'm not going to try to persuade you of it.

[strogonoff]

It was more about what aspects of the future we are capable of predicting thanks to natural sciences, and what aspects of the future are valuable to predict.

It might just be that predicting the outcome of an interaction of two molecules is itself less valuable than, say (can’t think of anything better, feel free to be more creatively specific here), predicting whether we flourish or suffer. The former is easier, sure, but is that enough to make it valuable? That the latter is more important is an assumption, but I think not an unfounded one.

[lisper]

So first of all, "natural sciences" is redundant. All science is natural. There is no unnatural science.

And second, what makes you think that predicting how molecules interact is detached from predicting whether we flourish or suffer? We are made of molecules. Whether we flourish or suffer is ultimately determined by what our molecules do. There are people alive today who would not be if we had not been able to make reliable predictions about how mRNA molecules were going to interact with the molecules in our bodies to produce antibodies (which are molecules) to fight the covid virus (also made of molecules).

[strogonoff]

> All science is natural. There is no unnatural science.

It is a well defined category. Sciences that do not fall into the tiny subset of natural sciences include, among others, mathematics, logic, sociology, economics, psychology, and the mother of all sciences—philosophy.

> Whether we flourish or suffer is ultimately determined by what our molecules do

Not really—unless you can prove that consciousness arises from said molecules (which not only is yet-unproven but is also arguably unfalsifiable within the framework of scientific method), it is only your opinion and not a scientific fact.