Is this type of misunderstanding of what Science is that common? It's painfully lacking and I can't tell if it is written as sarcasm...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/big-questions/what-universe-made
> Yep, it's literally false. Astrophysicists estimate 5% of the universe is visible to us. Modern calculations say dark matter comprises about 27% of the Universe. Whatever else is out there, we truly do not know.
No. At worst it's only technically false, but broadly on the right track. If you're a materialist/physicalist; and Science requires you to take that position, at least methodologically; so "it's all just [particles, fields,] and the void."
There are. You're going to have to look at it from the perspective of colloquial shades of meaning. I thought the meaning was pretty obvious, so I'm not going to spend much effort to explain it, but "technically" carries connotations of "insignificant."
It's not really funny to repeat the same point as GGP, and totally miss the point of the intervening comment you were replying to.
The discussions that were more fruitful were the ones where the professor asked if there was someone who majored in that specific subject in the class, and that person would be used as an expert to speak to whatever thing we were questioning, and since it was philosophy, we would question everything.
This isn't even just about laypeople versus physicists. Lee Smolin has written about string theory becoming a crisis in physics because 1) it takes so long to understand any of it mathematically, that by the time anyone has done so, sunk cost fallacy precludes them from ever giving it up, and 2) other physicists responsible for peer review also don't understand the math, but don't want to admit it, so they'll let near anything through to publication even when it's probably nonsense.
Who is to say that purpose cannot exist within this? It is unknown and possibly unknowable.
I believe the author has drawn the wrong lessons from science.
Extremely common. Unless there is a substantial silent majority that believes otherwise, I suspect it has become the overwhelming norm amongst the general public, as well as a non-trivial percentage of actual scientists.