Science is what is, which requires nor benefits from belief. Adding a belief layer is interpreting, exploitable, and leads to believing untrue things as true (Science).

Reduced Logical Form: I believe what is (true) = Oxymoron

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined

Explainer: It is impossible to believe what is true.

—Highly Related—

Question: 1 - Is it true or false?

Hint: Is/must/can the number/digit/integer 1 (one) be boolean in [all] cases? What are the conditions in which 1 is false?

Test from OCaml: if 1 then true else false;;

Theorem Pseudocode: if (1 = true) && (2 = 1 + 1) && (2 = true && true) then [true +& true +& …] = true else nothing else matters

Note my recursive application to all other numbers/physics and inference that if 1 is not true, nothing is true

Postulation: All positive integers are true

  • Elias Griffin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    16·
    7 months ago

    I can appreciate this perspective, but what you’re referring to is the Scientific Method. Science is the field of the sum of all knowledge, Science as it is used, “settled”, meaned, thought, correctly, by most is, “what is”.

    • Sentrovasi@kbin.social
      2·
      7 months ago

      This is really strange in two ways.

      One, you’re not describing science but existence. Science is nothing if not a framework of knowledge based on the scientific method. To somehow come up with a definition of science that separates it from the scientific method actually removes all qualities of knowledge from science (do you think religious people also don’t define their knowledge as “what is”?) On the whole, basing your definition of “Science” as how laymen define science seems to be a strange way to try to make a supposedly mathematical argument - from imprecision and abstraction?

      Two, to conflate Science with existence essentially is concocting a truism - like when someone asks you to solve for x you’ve chosen to define x as whatever you want then solve it. Science as the sum of empirical human knowledge is an approximation of x, and as a mathematician I’m sure you understand the significance of how an approximation of something is a world apart from the thing itself. You cannot say that science is truth, therefore science is true - that is a pointless statement that completely drops all the reasons why science is more truthful than religious knowledge or any other form of knowledge.