Doesn’t this prove the point? We’re aware there’s a problem when it comes to replicating some experiments, therefore calling into question their validity (i.e. our views on the science behind those experiments need to be adjusted).
I suppose one can’t have a replication crisis in religion since they don’t rely on empirical evidence in the first place. If they did have compelling non-falsifiable evidence of their claims, they’d be incorporated into the sciences.
I know you’re just trying to prop up your own beliefs. Been there many times before it all clicked. I get it.
But let’s be fair. Let’s look at this with at least a hint of honesty.
Did religion enable us to create transistors? No. It can’t. Scientific research into theories of physics brought us, over the last few centuries to quantum mechanics. If not for the many researchers and the scientific process there would be no Internet for you to post this on.
Many other scientific topics have, over time, also been incrementally improved, on average, resulting in most of the things we take for granted, whether that’s roads, cars, medicine, clothing, etc.
Gps satellites wouldn’t exist without the general theory of relativity.
Antibiotics wouldn’t exist without discovery of microbes, penicillin, etc.
Evidence and sound methods are required to find out how things work, to develop, test and refine theories. That’s how you avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias (goofy, irrational thinking everyone is prone to) and gain a better grasp of the truth.
The Wright brothers successfully flew because they applied the scientific method and lots of testing of different designs and scientific hnderstanding of aerodynamics. They didn’t get the airplane from religion.
Now, let’s also pose your question with regards to religion.
Does Christianity, say, have a reproducibility problem? Or more to the point, is there one denomination or many?
Several at least, with fairly crucial differences in beliefs.
Can you provide any evidence to suggest the number of denominations is decreasing? That belief is heading toward a single interpretation?
I suspect no. Because as far as I know it hasn’t shown any signs of this in the past 100 years.
Because there is no mechanism to definitively find the truth. No experiments, no evidence, no tests.
Generally, science (the processes and mechanisms) are designed to revise and refine our models of how things are so that, given time, humanity achieves a clearer understanding. It may do so in fits and starts with occasional steps backwards and stumbled (like the ether theory). But scientists have a proven set of tools to arrive ever closer to the truth. That’s easy to see just by looking back at the state of technology and scientific knowledge 100, 200, 300 or more years ago.
Reading the Wikipedia it seems this (so far) really applies more to humanitarian science and not ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry, etc. Hardly a reason to question scientific research and evidence. I look at it this way: science is objective and impersonal, religion subjective and personal.
Muh science
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Doesn’t this prove the point? We’re aware there’s a problem when it comes to replicating some experiments, therefore calling into question their validity (i.e. our views on the science behind those experiments need to be adjusted).
I suppose one can’t have a replication crisis in religion since they don’t rely on empirical evidence in the first place. If they did have compelling non-falsifiable evidence of their claims, they’d be incorporated into the sciences.
I want to see someone replicate the results of a prayer.
How exactly does this contradict the comic?
Look at you out here kicking own goals like the little trooper you are.
I know you’re just trying to prop up your own beliefs. Been there many times before it all clicked. I get it.
But let’s be fair. Let’s look at this with at least a hint of honesty.
Did religion enable us to create transistors? No. It can’t. Scientific research into theories of physics brought us, over the last few centuries to quantum mechanics. If not for the many researchers and the scientific process there would be no Internet for you to post this on.
Many other scientific topics have, over time, also been incrementally improved, on average, resulting in most of the things we take for granted, whether that’s roads, cars, medicine, clothing, etc.
Gps satellites wouldn’t exist without the general theory of relativity.
Antibiotics wouldn’t exist without discovery of microbes, penicillin, etc.
Evidence and sound methods are required to find out how things work, to develop, test and refine theories. That’s how you avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias (goofy, irrational thinking everyone is prone to) and gain a better grasp of the truth.
The Wright brothers successfully flew because they applied the scientific method and lots of testing of different designs and scientific hnderstanding of aerodynamics. They didn’t get the airplane from religion.
Now, let’s also pose your question with regards to religion.
Does Christianity, say, have a reproducibility problem? Or more to the point, is there one denomination or many?
Several at least, with fairly crucial differences in beliefs.
Can you provide any evidence to suggest the number of denominations is decreasing? That belief is heading toward a single interpretation?
I suspect no. Because as far as I know it hasn’t shown any signs of this in the past 100 years.
Because there is no mechanism to definitively find the truth. No experiments, no evidence, no tests.
Generally, science (the processes and mechanisms) are designed to revise and refine our models of how things are so that, given time, humanity achieves a clearer understanding. It may do so in fits and starts with occasional steps backwards and stumbled (like the ether theory). But scientists have a proven set of tools to arrive ever closer to the truth. That’s easy to see just by looking back at the state of technology and scientific knowledge 100, 200, 300 or more years ago.
I’d be willing to bet all of my life savings you don’t even understand anything in that wiki article you posted.
Reading the Wikipedia it seems this (so far) really applies more to humanitarian science and not ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry, etc. Hardly a reason to question scientific research and evidence. I look at it this way: science is objective and impersonal, religion subjective and personal.