[mistermann]

You are declaring it to be a fact that science is flawless. Defining something to be true by definition can certainly cause it to be appear to be true (read some forum discussions among even smart people on the internet if you do not believe this), but it doesn't guarantee that it will be.

[tomrod]

Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented.

Esoteric arguments portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will that never interacts with reality is not observable by definition; since it doesn't interact with reality, it can be safely ignored. Roko's basilisk be damned!

[anon291]

> portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will

I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring divinity into this. The universe is not purely a automaton not because of some purported unobservable god, but simply because all experiments indicate that we cannot predict the behavior of the basic building blocks of the universe.

[tomrod]

I agree with your assessment. I mentioned the friction people to stem the path where when people begin speaking about multiple streams of access to knowledge, they are typically attempting to inject a common apologetic approach to make theology or philosophical arguments for divinity of various types and definitions.

[mistermann]

> Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented.

Are the adaptations both flawless and adequate to meet the claim? How would such a thing be tested to confirm truth?

[CooCooCaCha]

I think some people think science rejects mystical explanations because science is rigid and stubborn and has it's head buried in the sand.

But no, it's because there's no proof. If we had evidence that something mystical was happening then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would eventually become science.

[anon291]

And that would not be me, because at no point did I say we needed a 'mystical' explanation. I'm just pointing out the universe is not always predictable, but -- just as it did many years ago -- this often causes a lot of distress, especially on pop science forums.

[CooCooCaCha]

Please stop replying in my comments. Your responses are offensively stupid.

[mistermann]

How do you know fine-grained details about the actual actions and cognition of millions of people that you have never met?

Furthermore, do you think there's something about becoming a scientist that converts Scientist Humans into perfectly rational beings?

[CooCooCaCha]

I have no idea what you're talking about. And I'm not sure how you're getting "science is flawless" from what I said, or what that's supposed to mean.

[mistermann]

You said that science does not behave like a religion at all (zero faith based thinking, as just one example).

You also said: "If reality changes science will adapt". If this is not essentially a claim that science ~"understands reality", then what is it claiming?