/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>41578108
>>41580051
>Science is a religion at this point

That really depends on which part of science it is and how you engage with it. Like, I know that a lot of people take it on faith that "this is what the science says," but when you're in it and actually making the observations that add up to the things that people call science, the boundary of subjectivity within science becomes understood.

People will cite the CONCLUSIONS of a piece of research (or even a third-party interpretation of that conclusion) and state that that's "the science," and while the conclusion is a part of the institution of science, the conclusion is the researchers' SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the data. The only really truly empirical part of science, the thing that cannot be distinguished from the true nature of the universe, is that which is OBSERVABLE, or MEASURABLE. You can dispute the conclusions made from the measurements, you can dispute the circumstances (most often, the methodologies) under which the measurements were carried out, but you cannot dispute the measurements themselves. You can add other measurements to refine those ones or to put them into perspective, you can make further measurements to show that the measurements aren't replicable, you can change other variables to show that the measurements changed in response to factors that weren't being considered in the methodology and hypotheses of the researchers, but these are all creating additional measurements instead of actually disputing the original measurement. If one cites "the science" without familiarity with that which is observable, only then does it become religion.

Thankfully, the methodologies, data sets, and conclusions from research institutions are often published in places accessible for public consumption (arxiv/sciencehub/pubmed). Skepticism toward the research is welcome in the sense that it opens the door for further research, but denying the actual measurement is where you're denying something that's indistinguishable from reality, denying that which is observable to the senses. That is another form of religion.

In today's landscape, there are two main opposing religious factions around science: those, correctly identified in your posts, who take the CONCLUSIONS of research and declare utmost faith in that part of the science (although the conclusion is one of the most subjective parts of science); along with those, probably you, who take the PREMISE of research and declare that policy decisions shouldn't be made based on science that was carried out with an incomplete premise (although the data seems to never actually be reviewed & re-measured by this faction before that conclusion is drawn).

Those who engage with science in such a way that it's not a religion are just people we call... curious. They want to know things, will accept what is reasonable based on actual observable data, are able to change their own minds without digging their heels into one conclusion (or will accept that information changes as we get a larger sample of it), read the damn study, and especially carry out experiments or carry out civil contact the researchers instead of assuming one thing or another. A mature perspective is one that can handle several questions from an intelligent opposing perspective without breaking down assuming malice or stupidity from the other perspective. If you can't explain to a person why their perspective is stupid or malicious, then that view is religious in nature. If you CAN do such a thing or if you can reach a point where it can reasonably be assumed that neither of you has enough information to reach a fully-informed conclusion, then that view is non-religious in nature. The latter is going to be the exceedingly likely case for such an interaction, and if you never reach that "I don't know" point with people, you're probably religious in your engagement with the information, as your conclusion is based on something you consider even more foundational than that which is observable or measurable.