Comic Strips

17514 readers

2234 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence@lemmy.world

868

[Sephko] ZORORO (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by Stamets@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don't have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of "scriptures" and "scholars" whose judgement you trust and follow.

That's nonsense. The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own, and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality. Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around. What's trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong. A well educated and critical mind is absolutely capable to read most studies and get a general understanding of its quality (of course those about particle physics require more knowledge than those about homeopathy). Meanwhile with religious texts it's inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn't derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives "truth" from everyone's worldview and emotional state of individuals. There's no inherent reason to believe the latter (some random thing about some god).

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -1 points 20 hours ago

The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own,

No you as an individual cannot. Starting from the mere exhaustiveness of all things to analyze, to the necessary equipment or police breaking down your door when it comes to nuclear physics.

and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality.

And Jesus peace be upon him confirmed the prophets and scriptures before him and Mohamed blessings and peace be upon him confirmed Jesus and his mother Mary. So did earlier prophets confirm the prophets before them.

Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around.

Can you point me to a specific part of Quran that is "proven wrong" as an example?

What’s trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote.

The scientific method that requires you to falsify the counter hypothesis.

What’s trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong.

Oh boy, you have a very naive idea of the reality of how academia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.

Meanwhile with religious texts it’s inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn’t derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

By this logic neither theology nor philosophy, music, arts, political science most other social studies and economics are sciences. Also theology precisely does not rely on scripture alone but contextualizes it with history and other sciences.

tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives “truth” from everyone’s worldview and emotional state of individuals.

Again this evaluation denies anything but math, chemistry and physics to be sciences. Such a stance is deeply anti-intellectual as it reduces "scientific pursuit" to a fraction of human science.