Life After Death Is Impossible, Says Scientist

[HappySkeptic]

Science is conjecture and refutation. Scientists are not skeptics nor absolutists―they are creative, curious, and open-minded. This is why Sean Carroll's comments sound un-scientific even if his position turns out to be correct.

Um no, science is not "conjecture". It is a method. 

If one wants to argue that "scientists" disagree, that is a different subject. But the method is the concept of testing, observation, and peer review.

I think Breezy was trying to summarize the scientific method as being "conjecture and refutation".  According to Popper, all science has is hypothesis and refutation of hypothesis through experiment, so I'm going to fact check this as "mostly correct".  However, most scientists care little about Popper.

[Irreligious Atheist]

1. Actually it is due to have zero evidence to support it 

2. You have no understanding of science at all. Science doesn't just make shit up on the vague premise it might be true then engages in confirmation bias trying to confirm their pet speculation. Your confusing science with theology. God no wonder you believe in so much stupid shit.

You don't need a bunch of evidence necessarily to show than an idea should be taken seriously. The multiverse idea is taken very seriously by scientists. They don't sit there and say prove it or I'm not even taking it into consideration. It's just logical that since our universe seems to be tuned for our type of life to exist, there are probably many other universes tuned differently so life like us can't exist. I can't prove it, but it's entirely reasonable and logical and thus, the scientific community takes it seriously.

The same goes for the simulation idea. It should be taken seriously, because we already have simulations. We just don't yet know how complex they can get, but right now they are getting more and more complex all the time. It just logically follows that if it's possible for them to get complex enough, we're probably already living in a simulation and just don't know it, and may not ever be able to know it because we're stuck in it like a fish in a fish bowl.

[The Grand Nudger]

That doesn't follow, at all.  Your fish bowl ought to handily demonstrate why-

The possibility of a fish bowl or any other thing getting more complex doesn't suggest, imply, or demonstrate that you probably already live in one of those things, and that you don;t know it, and that you probably never will or are incapable of knowing it.  Rinse and repeat with shoes.  With used butter boxes.  With literally anything.

Fish, for the record (and as an aside), are very aware of the borders of their enclosures. That's why they don't spend all day ramming into them like idiots. Honestly, they're better than alot of humans I know at that one.

[John 6IX Breezy]

However, most scientists care little about Popper.

Popperian falsification is essentially the cornerstone of science. I don't know very many scientists that don't know and don't care about Popper.

[Irreligious Atheist]

If it's possible, there's no reason to think in the history of time that it hasn't already happened, and thus there would be billions or trillions of simulations in existence. We would be far more likely to be in a simulation because of that than be living in base reality. It would be a lot rarer to live in base reality.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sigh 

You don't need a bunch of evidence necessarily to show than an idea should be taken seriously.

Yes it does if it has no evidence it can simply be dismissed 

 The multiverse idea is taken very seriously by scientists.

Yes because it has actual evidence to make it a possibility 

They don't sit there and say prove it or I'm not even taking it into consideration.

Scientist demand evidence for things sorry you dislike that

 It's just logical that since our universe seems to be tuned for our type of life to exist, there are probably many other universes tuned differently so life like us can't exist. I can't prove it, but it's entirely reasonable and logical and thus, the scientific community takes it seriously.

Thank goodness this isn't the reason scientists take multiverse theory seriously or I would be very worried.

The same goes for the simulation idea. 

Not even close.

It should be taken seriously, because we already have simulations. We just don't yet know how complex they can get, but right now they are getting more and more complex all the time. It just logically follows that if it's possible for them to get complex enough, we're probably already living in a simulation and just don't know it, and may not ever be able to know it because we're stuck in it like a fish in a fish bowl.

Fallacy pot marked rubbish

[Foxaèr]

I see that someone got lost in the erroneous analogy.

One can only delve so far before the comparison weakens.

Art, after all, is art. While life and death is life and death.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Karl Popper's conjectures and refutations is Science 101.

Nope

[The Grand Nudger]

Billions and trillions of snails shells are in existence, are we far more likely to live in a snail shell on account of that, and when do we get to see the math?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Billions and trillions of snails shells are in existence, are we far more likely to live in a snail shell on account of that, and when do we get to see the math?

There are billions of snowflakes so, therefore, we live on a snowflake and until we can prove we aren't we have to take the idea seriously merely because it's possible