Science is not true: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
=== Social media === | |||
* [https://www.facebook.com/explorewithsven/posts/300406404772184?comment_id=300617101417781 Comment] @ Facebook (12 April 2021) | * [https://www.facebook.com/explorewithsven/posts/300406404772184?comment_id=300617101417781 Comment] @ Facebook (12 April 2021) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 55: | ||
[[Category:Fiction (nonfiction)]] | [[Category:Fiction (nonfiction)]] | ||
{{Essays}} | |||
[[Category:Science (nonfiction)]] | [[Category:Science (nonfiction)]] | ||
[[Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson (nonfiction)]] | [[Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson (nonfiction)]] | ||
Revision as of 09:43, 13 January 2026
"Science is not true" is a short essay by Karl Jones is a short essay by Karl Jones.
Science is not true
Context: “The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it.”
Science is not *right*. Science is not *true*. Science is not *found in nature*.
Neil means well, but he is pitching from the heart, not from the head. His argument disappoints me.
Science is a philosophy, a sociology, an *agreement to agree*.
Do not say science is true. Religion and logic are true. But not science.
Say rather that science is prepared to be wrong.
Science is the science of knowing when and how and why you are wrong.
Commentary
Context: "what definition of true are you using?"
The definition of true where Science always doubts itself.
Compare "religion" and "logic", both of which I characterize as "true".
Religion, the religion of belief, cannot be disproved; therefore it is always true.
Logic is always true because truth is the nature of logic.
But science? Science must *not* think itself true, or it contradicts its nature.
In the News
Fiction cross-reference
Nonfiction cross-reference
External links
Social media
- Comment @ Facebook (12 April 2021)
