So...guess I'm the new guy

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

No I think somebody was under the assumption that science is the holy grail and will lead to a utopia if we just follow science and reason.

But this is too charitable an understanding of the truth-providing values of science. The real accomplishments of science is in giving us the foundational theories on which to master our environment. We can work with chemistry, we can work with physics, electronics. We can predict the weather, send things into space, calculate the trajectory of objects, build nifty little gadgets.

But this is altogether a different issue from the question of ultimate truth.

The jump from classical physics to quantum physics was a mindboggling mental leap. Yet, did you know that theoretical physics suggests that we may have as many as ten different dimensions in our universe itself? Forget about 3-D, or the space-time block (4 dimensions). Imagine ten freakin dimensions!

And we know heads nor tails about any of these other dimensions. Heck we don't even fully grasp the nature of time and how it fits into physics. And quantum mechanics physics? Let me just quote theoretical physicist Richard Feynman: ""Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"

We don't know nothing! All we have are these nifty little doodads and some very tentative theories about the world we live in. We're like sitting ducks, waiting to learn something that will turn everything we believe upside down.

So people who put all their trust in the current status of science and think it gives them all the truth they need are like flat-earthers who are just waiting to face the uppercut of the curvature of the earth's surface.

It's a different kind of religion. A different kind of worship. The only irony is that these are the people who think they are too cool for religion and think they know better.

Nobody was under that assumption. Not one person here has made the claim of infallibility or omnipotence. Science is always a work in progress that uses the information and evidence we have to work with at the time. No-one here has made the claims you are accusing us of. Scientists would be the first people to say we need to learn more. Theories are formulated through what little information they have and then tested for validity. None of them are approached with absolute certainty. The highest degree of certainty a scientist can ever have is sigma 7 which is a degree of 99.9999981% certainty. That would be applied to the most basic and proven things like gravity. Theories are not dogmatic statements. They are ideas formulated with what evidence and information we have to be tested and tested and tested.
What someone did was make a claim that science uses metaphysical assumptions and then provided mathematics as a rather stupid answer.

Mathematics lest we forget being a system of logic that is used in economics, computers, maps, sending people into space or just adding up how much this weeks groceries are going to cost.
The evidence supporting it as a valid system is in abundance and the evidence against it is nil. It has real world results that can be replicated time and time again. It is very clearly not an assumption let alone a metaphysical one. The day it has no evidence supporting it or even evidence against it will be the day that argument has any weight whatsoever.
If you're going to carry on this "discussion" please don't lie your bollocks off about its origins.


"Too cool for religion"? Yeah, thats the reason we don't buy into the whole man in the sky thing. Well done. Yeah, science is *totally* like a religion. I remember just the other day in that laboratory where Professor Hawking was preaching to us from his stand and we all sat on pews nodding like a novelty car toy. He was telling us we didn't need things like evidence or reasoning because God was going to take care of u- oh WAIT. I almost forgot that science creates theories subject to change based on what information and evidence they have as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.
Silly me. :-)

Oh, by the way;
the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

You obviously needed help of some kind but I couldn't find a suitable carer so this will have to do.

The simple question is this:

Is it necessarily true, that science will one day be omniscient, given enough time?

This is the question. Because this is what your scientism boils down to. That science will one day be omniscient, give you omnipotence and lead to some utopia.

I don't see how scientism is any different from a religion, that believes a messiah will one day become omniscient and omnipotent and lead you to heaven. How is religion different from scientism?

All I'm telling you is you need to be skeptical of the omniscience of science.