Similarly to how science isn't a concrete set of 'scientific' beliefs, but rather a method of arriving at beliefs, I enjoy thinking about nature not as a concrete set of things (e.g., animals in a forest) but rather a method of arriving at sets of things
Conversation
Replying to
It's too easy for us humans to assume permanence due to our short life spans. All of the beauty we see could easily be destroyed by our hands, or nature's.
In reality, everything is in a state of flux. We could lose it all in a second, and its a miracle we're even here to behold
Replying to
Viewing nature in that way isn't very practical or pragmatic for the exact same reason(s) it isn't practical or pragmatic to do so in science.
This thing we refer to as 'effects due to gravity'.
We think in terms of 'Cause/Effect' for VERY good reason(s).
1
Replying to
If you complete this thought you will see why the former hinges on the latter and why we in the latter know in not knowing. “Falsification.” Having beliefs justified by nature we know we are wrong no matter how right we want to be. Not wanting to be right we may stay true ✨
Replying to
I think "science" is very overloaded, and it's not really invalid to use it to refer to the concrete set of beliefs discovered by the method, or the community of people/institutions dedicated to the method, or maybe even the philosophy that says the method is a good path to truth
1
3
Replying to
I don’t see it as arriving at beliefs, but a revealing of how nature operates. If you arrive at beliefs, won’t your method be skewed?