Anonymous #2 13h

"The Bible is scientifically proven" is very misleading, but "science isn't scientifically proven" is entirely true. Saying science is scientifically proven is the same as religion using circular authority. Science can measure things like carbon half-life to estimate ages, but the interpretive and thus inherently subjective substance of ancient texts can never be objectively proven. There's an impasse that most people don't even realize exists.

12

Anonymous #2 13h

There's a reason "theory" is the word that gets used to refer to explanations.

-3

Anonymous #3 13h

"science" would be referring to the general work and studies and results, whether that be geology (tectonics or paleoclimatology) or biology (anatomy and psychology) "scientifically proven" would be using the scientific method to get the same measured result (like half lives) when repeated however many times "science" is not a monolith, but is predicated on measurements and repeatability. what is known is proven fact, what is believed until proven otherwise (aka improved) is best estimate.

26

Anonymous #1 13h

to say science isnt scientifically proven is a heinous oversimplification which reflects the tiktok commenters very limited thought process and defending it is concerning

25

Anonymous #3 11h

tell me you didn't pay attention in middle school science without telling me:

26

Anonymous #4 10h

This is graduate level philosophy, not middle school science 💀

-6

Anonymous #1 10h

Okay sweetie, let's go slow. You said science is "predicated on measurements and repeatability." Great! Now: what experiment proved that measurement and repeatability give you truth? Go ahead, I'll wait. There isn't one. You can't use the method to prove the method without assuming the method. That's circular. That's literally the thing you'd mock a Christian for doing with the Bible.

-5

Anonymous #1 10h

A measurement tells you what happened. It doesn't tell you it'll happen again. Assuming the future will match the past is called induction, and Hume showed in the 1700s that you can't justify it without... using induction. Carbon decayed at that rate every time we checked? Cool. That's data. "Therefore nature is uniform forever" is an assumption science stands on, not a result it produced.

-5

Anonymous #1 10h

Vocab time, since you love that word: science doesn't "prove" things. Proof is for math and logic. Science corroborates and falsifies. You actually said this yourself: "what is believed until proven otherwise (aka improved) is best estimate." Congrats, that's the argument you're mad at. Every theory is provisional. Newton was "proven fact" until Einstein. If your position needs the word "proven" to survive, you got your epistemology from the same app you're dunking on.

-5

Anonymous #1 10h

And I'll use small words just to be extra clear for you. Even if science proved itself (it can't), it still couldn't measure meaning. Half-life tells you how old a scroll is, not whether what's written on it is true or what it means. That's the impasse you skipped right past. You called the TikToker a "heinous oversimplification" with a "limited thought process," then defended a take a 7th grade teacher would mark incomplete. Self-report noted. 💀

-6

Anonymous #3 10h

good god you are a supremely condescending idiot

25

Anonymous #3 9h

idek if youre being serious with all this because holy jesus christ man. you manage to be condescending while talking in such bad faith, arguing semantics when you know damn well what i meant, ripping apart pieces of what i said and ignoring others to form an argument that stands on air, and then babbling about random shit all in one comment, but then do that for four comments!

30

Anonymous #1 9h

i could choose to sit here and argue every little piece of smarmy sniveling shit you wrote, but id be here breaking down each sentence you wrote and all id get in return after all that time is some snarky comment written with the burning condescension of some twerp that must defend a tiktok comment thats probably written by like a 14 year old that doesnt have an internal monologue

23

Anonymous #3 9h

look you’re right but you’re operating in an entirely different philosophical universe than that post is

5

Anonymous #3 8h

right, which is why you should know science is in fact proven by science

0

Anonymous #5 2h

You think I don't know that? The very first thing I said was the comment was very misleading.

0

Anonymous #4 2h

Again, that's not a fact. Putting "in fact" in front of your metaphysics don't make them no longer metaphysics.

0

Anonymous #1 2h

Funny thing about condescension: you opened by calling the TikToker's take a "heinous oversimplification" from a "very limited thought process," then guessed they're a 14 year old with no internal monologue. That's condescending too. The difference is that mine came with arguments. Yours came with "twerp," "sniveling," and "idiot." We're both being smug. Only one of us is also being coherent.

1

Anonymous #1 2h

Now for your arguments, all zero of them. "Idiot" is an ad hominem; insulting the speaker doesn't touch the claim. "I could refute it but won't" isn't a refutation, it's a forfeit. And "arguing semantics"? The whole debate is about what "proven" means. Semantics IS the topic. You can't make a definitional claim and then cry foul when someone checks the definition.

0

Anonymous #1 2h

And the point still stands. A measurement is objective: anyone can repeat it. What a text means, or whether it's sacred, isn't measurable. That's interpretation, and interpretation is subjective by nature. Carbon dating can tell you how old a scroll is. It can't tell you whether God inspired it. No amount of data closes that gap, and no amount of calling me names does either.

1

Anonymous #1 2h

And since you brought up "bad faith": good faith means engaging with what someone actually said. I quoted your own words back to you, including the "best estimate" line that agrees with me. You quoted nothing of mine, answered nothing, and said you could refute it all but won't. If I misread you, one sentence clarifying fixes that. Instead you said I "know damn well" and bailed. Dodging every point while accusing me of dodging? That's what bad faith actually looks like.

1

Anonymous #5 2h

I'm right but what? You don't like it? You need to make excuses for why it doesn't matter that I'm right?? Come on.

1

Anonymous #3 2h

Bro. There is conversation that is relevant in academic circles- the one you are trying to have. And then there is good scientific communication with the public; what this comment needs to be met with. While you’re totally right, you’re failing to read the room. Look up Carolyn Beetozzi (this year’s Nobel prize in chemistry) explaining her discovery to 3 different grade levels. The PhD level explanation would baffle a five year old (and most people), and drive them away from science.

1