Science does not give us a version of reality. This is not a personal call out or a cat fight. So I have included what might pass for a parable. There is a fanastic cartoon on a diary titled Science and Spirituality: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/21/1913099/-Science-and-spirituality. Please check it out for the cartoon if title does not entice you already. I went for the content, ( and becasue it was republished by Kos Group Street Prophets Corner) the cartoon was a big bonus. I started this as a response within the diary anbd then it just got too big.
In the diary, author compares Science and Spirituality. It makes some fine points but the two that for whatever reason got my goat were.
4. It gives you a version of reality that may differ from the intuitive;
and , 6. The observed data depend on the observer and their assumptions;
Where to begin:
Science does not give you a version of reality. Intuitive aspects are individual. While most intuitions seem to be somewhat in a consensus but what some people find intuitive, others would not. The differing intuitive nature of different people might result in different versions of reality individually, the singular reality measured through science is separate and the same one irrespective of who is doing the measuring.
Science gives you various measurements you make of the reality. It gives you data. There are no separate versions of reality. Reality is what is there, and some bits of it we are very good at measuring and acquiring data. There is just one reality. We use and interpret the data to come up with some idea and knowldge aand hypothesis of the behaviour exhibited by reality. This knowledge, we use to predict the future or expected behaviour of reality. Then we compare the measurements/data. If it matches our expectation then we most likely have a good hypothesis, if it does not match, we discard the hypothesis and come up with new hypothesis (sometimes a modified version of previous, sometime something new).
The observed data does not depend on observer or their assumptions. If there is such a dependency then the tools that are beign used to collect the data are inefficient or flawed. Data is independent of assumption. Our assumptions might lead us to interpret the data in different ways, it might lead us to design inefficient measurement schemes, it might lead us to completely ignore to measure other aspects of data as it might not even occur to us that some other measurement is possible. However the data is data, and if the data collection method is biased, then the data method is invalid.
Some might at this point start mentioning that there is that thing about how something cannot be measured without altering it ( aka uncertainity principle → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) although I personally prefer the BBC version of uncertainty https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z8fq6yc/revision/4 for school and the other thing about how we can know where something is or how fast it is going but not both.
That just goes to heighlight the point that at the current moment our methods of measurements are not so good yet or we have not net found other methods. And in some cases, we have demonstrated by calculation and logic that we have reached the end and currently do not see how we can devise any better method of measurement.
Now a parable of a mettalic cube
For example, lets say we see a metallic enclosed cube of unknown material. It is hollow however at this point we do know it is hollow and we do not even entertain the idea that a cube could be hollow.
So In the process of learning and exploring the cube, we take measuremeants. Usual stuff length, breadth, height. and we marvel at how amazingly all three are equal. If we implicitly assume that the cube is fully solid, that does not change the fact that it is hollow. If we make measurements of its three dimensions and make a note that that there are no gaps, then that does not change the reality. Our observed data is independent of us. If we interpret this data to mean that the cube is fully solid, it only signifies that we have not yet realized cube could be hollow. It does not change the nature of cube.
So we go along and forget about it. Then comes someone else who wants to measure its weight. So they measure its weight. Based on the weight and the size, they present the data to us and use this to calculate the density of of the cube. This would hold true as the average density would be whatever was calculated. They further predict that based on the density, the object should float pon water beacuse objects of seimilar density float on water and our measurement of density is much much lower than the density of water. Next they want to test if it floats on water or not. After applying for permission and politicians debating of this is safe to test, what if it sinks, what if the world ends, and priests who have by now developed religion around the holy cube, are concerned and debate if this should even be allowed.
Finally amid heated society debating on merits and demerits, social schisms, and religions breaking into different sects, the custodian of the cube allow for the “floatation test” to go ahead amidst all the fanfare and demonstrations and counter demonstrations. Woohoo the cube floats. And depending on who you are and your desire for interpretation that could be any of the many.
That proves divinity, and our worship of the cube is necessary for salvation. Then you have people wearing tiny replicas of the cube for their salvation and spiritual solace. Then you have another group denpouncing all these people wearing mini-cubes. It is sacrilege, it is unforgivable. Wars and massacres happen, rage and rape and pillage and destruictions follow.
All those events are result of individual interpretation of the cube and in many cases people plotting to see if they can exploit their neighbours attitude towards the cube to steal their wealth/possessions, holdings, land.
This is not a different reality. It is still the same reality in which the cube is hollow but our current assumption is that it is solid. So far we know the dimensions, and weight (mass), and now we know it floats in water. The fact that noone has yet entertained the idea that it might be hollow does not influenc it. All we have is thaty on the borders and boundaries of knowledge, no one has yet come forward with other things of the cube that we might measure. Our understanding is incomplete but for all purposes it seems complete since so far predict behaviour of the cube has matched what our scientist predicted (ie it floats).
Some bright spark gets the notion that if they discover what material it is made out of and make a replica of it (well we know the dimensions and weight) then perhaps it might lead to modest riches and a few bragging points in social circles. So they start researching and investigating other materials that could be used to make a cube that satisfies the known data. As news filters and propagates, suddenly a craze for search for the mythical land of “El Cubado” where the material is allegedly abundant ensues.
The resulting mayhem is multi pronged.
People with some knowledge about materials start searching for the mythical material, trying to reconstruct the cube with various material and their allows and mixures, and combinations to be the first to make such a thing. The ensuing research and thirst for knowledge sparks discoveries and manufacture of other alloys that have other remarkable properties regarding how string or brittle they are, and their many other uses. The trials of methods of mixing materials results in improvement in techniques of making alloys which have completely other features that havce different uses. The improivement in mixing techniques results in specialized ceramics. People with tendencies to decorate stuff come up with new ways of making colours that last longer and suddenly we have clothes that can be coloured and the clothes retain their colour longer even after subsequent washes.
Search for the mythical “El Cubado” leads people to discover and invest new methods of more efifcient travel. As people travel further they discover other people. Resulting wars and interactions bring about social changes. Resulting exchange of fascinations and fads bring about heightened commerce whether be they in fakes, duplicates, or in new things. New seeds and saplings are exchanges and travel. Ambitious journeys are planned and whole new methods in financing emerge. Mass muders and genocide result, methods of propgation of news and propaganda all get refined.
So far we still only know the dimensions and the weight of the cube and its density. The reality has not changed. The reality is still the one where the cube is hollow. However our misconception or our inability to entertain the possibility that it is hollow still persists.
These are not alternate realities. These are our interpretations of the data based on what we know so far and on our social and political ambitions and desires have driven us to many events.
The research into the cube has spawned many other intricacies that are not limited to religious or direct political events but encompass developement in materials, technology, methods, finance, travel, taxation and toll.
There are implications of our inability to entertain the fact that the cube might be hollow. New Social and political realities take shape. The nature of the cube remains the same.
And I have not yet even touched upon the developemt of a whole section of society where they frown on any teaching because it teaches people how to make measurements. For them the purpose of all school should be to sing beautiful praises of the Cube, how it shines, and how it is sting and how it is the only salvation. No one should be teaching how to measure the cube.
Back to where I started: Reality does not change, only our ability to measure it does. In this aspect this is very different from spirituality.
My post script is that reasearch has many unforeseen advanatages, just becasue we do not know what discrete, concrete immediate benefit science provides does not mean we should prevent it. Science is a method which so far has shown its methods to be better than others at predicting the nature of reality.
Meanwhile, the street prophets corner publishing group, is somewhere fun to see what and it has many wide range of fun diaries https://www.dailykos.com/blogs/Street Prophets I encourage you to pop in once in a while.