
Why the multiverse is religion, not science - posix_me_less
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM
======
coldtea
Because some random person on YouTube with half a knowledge of epistemology
decided it is?

First, the video says "Scientists say that something exists if it is useful to
describe observations".

Sorry, that's epistemology, and one particular epistemology, not science.
Scientists work at another level than that (which is a meta level).

Second, falsifiability and "usefulness to describe observations" is not the
be-all end-all of what is science. That's again a particular epistemology, and
while a useful general guide, it has been found wanting and not historically
matching what real scientists do and how actual scientific theories are formed
and established.

Third, there's nothing that says whether the multiverse can or cannot be
tested at some point (in fact there have been some theoritical and
experimental attempts).

Fourth, religion also has other aspects (moral code, ritual, spiritual
element, holy scripture, etc) not just "believing in something that's not
useful to describe observations". So even if the multiverse merely matched
religion in one aspect, doesn't make it a religion, as it doesn't match those
other aspects.

Finally, from the view point of religious people themselves, religion is
considered very useful to describe observations -- e.g. this or that happened
because of God, or this phenomenon is a manifestation of this or that's God's
wrath, etc. So even if that criterion (whether something is useful to describe
observations) was enough to distinguish science from religion, it wouldn't
help us do so except if we were already with the side of science (and so it's
a circular argument).

