The phrase “Science is still catching up” is garbage. If the techniques they are using actually work or produce results they were arrived at via some form of the scientific method, even if it is a primitive version of it. We didn’t magically get to aspirin. People drank willow bark tea forever before the active ingredients were isolated and the method they got to it’s effectiveness is a form of science. Again, if all knowledge of willow bark tea had been wiped out it would have been discovered again because it is a based in reality. If the techniques work, they work because they were found and could be found again.
What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn’t the case.
Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it’s science. If it’s not science, it’s not science. Science doesn’t need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it’s not science.
I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don’t have to agree.
Removed by mod
The phrase “Science is still catching up” is garbage. If the techniques they are using actually work or produce results they were arrived at via some form of the scientific method, even if it is a primitive version of it. We didn’t magically get to aspirin. People drank willow bark tea forever before the active ingredients were isolated and the method they got to it’s effectiveness is a form of science. Again, if all knowledge of willow bark tea had been wiped out it would have been discovered again because it is a based in reality. If the techniques work, they work because they were found and could be found again.
Removed by mod
What you should say is that the science on it is advancing. Catching up implies that it is behind something else (or where it should be, which might be true actually but that is a difficult argument to make in the present) when that isn’t the case.
Removed by mod
Again, now you are off the track. If it is science, it’s science. If it’s not science, it’s not science. Science doesn’t need to catch up. Either a thing is advancing science or it’s not science.
Removed by mod
I am sorry to have frustrated you. I still think the way you are talking derogatorily about science is problematic. I am sorry you disagree with me, but we don’t have to agree.
Removed by mod
Here’s a book on what you’re talking about - African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design
deleted by creator