No, I’m not suggesting this, it would be strange. These are things of different domains. Science is the only domain where the knowledge can be verified by some means. E.g. by predictions.
I’m not the expert in general theory of relativity neither I am the one in theoretical physics, so I cannot speak of these fields with any confidence—how close to reality they are in their current state of development.
I’m suggesting consider all the information coming to you (except info in the scientific domain which you can and should verify by some means, including personal experiments and network/tree of trusted sources) as generally fictional, and update your beliefs correspondingly.
Science is the only domain where the knowledge can be verified by some means. E.g. by predictions.
No, that’s not true. Science is the only domain which can make causal models about the world. That’s a far higher standard than “verifiable knowledge”. People can certainly verify historical and biographical events. I can read about, for example, the history of the Roman Empire and know that Hannibal defeated a Roman army at Cannae in the Second Punic War. I can read about Gustavus Adolphus and know that he perished leading a cavalry charge at Lützen on November 6, 1632. What I don’t know is the why. Why did the Romans put themselves into a position where they could be enveloped like that? What was Gustavus thinking, leading a charge and putting himself at great personal danger? Furthermore, I don’t know what would have happened if things had turned out differently.
That is the difference between science and history. Both tell you what happened. But only science develops detailed theories that explain why and which allow you to make predictions about the world where things would have turned out differently.
No, I’m not suggesting this, it would be strange. These are things of different domains. Science is the only domain where the knowledge can be verified by some means. E.g. by predictions.
I’m not the expert in general theory of relativity neither I am the one in theoretical physics, so I cannot speak of these fields with any confidence—how close to reality they are in their current state of development.
I’m suggesting consider all the information coming to you (except info in the scientific domain which you can and should verify by some means, including personal experiments and network/tree of trusted sources) as generally fictional, and update your beliefs correspondingly.
No, that’s not true. Science is the only domain which can make causal models about the world. That’s a far higher standard than “verifiable knowledge”. People can certainly verify historical and biographical events. I can read about, for example, the history of the Roman Empire and know that Hannibal defeated a Roman army at Cannae in the Second Punic War. I can read about Gustavus Adolphus and know that he perished leading a cavalry charge at Lützen on November 6, 1632. What I don’t know is the why. Why did the Romans put themselves into a position where they could be enveloped like that? What was Gustavus thinking, leading a charge and putting himself at great personal danger? Furthermore, I don’t know what would have happened if things had turned out differently.
That is the difference between science and history. Both tell you what happened. But only science develops detailed theories that explain why and which allow you to make predictions about the world where things would have turned out differently.
// People can certainly verify historical and biographical events.//
Certainly not. Often you cannot verify even current events, how can we talk about things what have been (or not) long ago?
History is the most fiction of all.
And science is not.