If questioning religion gave birth to science, then why don't we question science and see what is produced?

If questioning religion gave birth to science, then why don't we question science and see what is produced?

>If X then Y thread
>X is always wrong

I don't get it...

>If questioning religion gave birth to science
it didn't.

Then where did science originate?

/thread

People question science constantly, it just produces better science

need to predict stuff and solve problems.
example: muslims needed to know the moon phase in advance so they started predicting it.
others needed to divide land or calculate taxes so they started to use math.

it's called Philosophy

People wanted to know how stuff worked so they could tell what things would do in advance.

People like you would probably be too busy yelling at priests to get any experiments done.

science is collaboration to determine what is true
religion is myths of significance

philosophy.

To understand God's creation. Riemann viewed his mathematics as the highest form of worship of the Lord.

Well questioning religion didn't give birth to science.
Religion has played a part in the suppression of scientific study and progress, and questioning its blind assertions has furthered humanity's scientific understanding of the universe around us and within us.

When we question things in science, it's because we're looking for any kind of contradiction:
A single repeatable and observable counterexample.
That's called the scientific method.
We apply it to hypotheses, and when we do, we change the hypotheses.
Eventually, we keep throwing the scientific method at a hypothesis until there remains no way for us to question it, and at that point the hypothesis becomes theory.
So that's your answer.
Questioning science gives us more science and a healthy outlook on science.

Guess what happens when you point out a flaw in the hypothesis laid out in the bible, for example, heaven is in the clouds.
When we went to the clouds, we didn't find heaven, so the hypothesis was changed.

Guess what happens when you point out every flaw in the bible's hypothesis of the universe, and correct the hypothesis to account?
You pretty much get the standard model.
And right now,
we're working on the standard model, questioning it, so we can have a unified theory.

Also fuck this thread.

Well then what happens when you use religion to question religion or philosophy to question philosophy? Why is science the only one that produces even better science?

Is there perhaps a possibility that something that is applicable is not actually what it was thought to be?

>question science and see what is produced
We do; it produces more science.

You talk about religion and science as if they're two completely separate things, but they're not. Of course, MODERN religion to an extent rejects science, but religion originally arose through the process of questioning, looking for ways to explain the world. Sure, the scientific method wasn't formalized back then, and the idea of "correlation doesn't imply causation" wasn't widespread. People might assume that certain actions displeased the gods or brought bad luck, based on those actions being followed by bad events. Science was born from that when people began to try to understand the WHY on a more concrete level. And questioning science brings newer, stronger science. Science BENEFITS from questioning, as questioning either strengthens old theories or brings us to a more accurate theory.

Then at what point is a problem solved without creating another problem to gain a deeper understanding of the previous problem?

Then I guess the next question is if there is a point to which your questions become complex enough to no longer be considered science but something else?

So then religion and science are basically a version of yin and yang in a sense that one cannot exist without the other?

That's because men identify with what they do.

I post anonymously on the internet so I'm pretty fucked.

"Man seeks to learn and man kills himself because of the loss of cohesion in his religious society; he does not kill himself because of his learning. It is certainly not the learning he acquires that disorganizes religion; but the desire for knowledge wakens because religion becomes disorganized. Knowledge is not sought as a means to destroy accepted opinions but because their destruction has commenced. To be sure, once knowledge exists, it may battle in its own name and in its own cause, and set up as an antagonist to traditional sentiments. But its attacks would be ineffective if these sentiments still possessed vitality; or rather, would not even take place. Faith is not uprooted by dialectic proof; it must already be deeply shaken by other causes to be unable to withstand the shock of argument." — Émile Durkheim