• dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    How about a kind of Pascal’s wager for science?

    Either the axioms of science are correct, or reality isn’t empirically testable. In the latter case, believing in the the truth won’t get you any farther than a false belief in science.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not the person you’re replying to, nor an expert but wouldn’t they be things like:

        1. There is a reality which behaves according to certain principles within time.

        2. Humans experience reality through flawed faculties, but experiences can be aggregated in ways which reduce or eliminate the impact of those flaws.

        3. The more thoroughly those flaws are eliminated from the aggregate, the more reliably predictions can be made about the principles that govern reality.

          • m0darn@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I just said that evidence can be collected and interpreted to make reliable predictions. Isn’t that what science is?