There's nothing vague about this. We have achieved a rigorous mathematical description of reality in which the application of a handful of simple rules can fully describe any phenomenon, and correctly predict how it will develop and interact with the rest of reality.
We have? Who is "we"? I don't think this statement is true in the slightest, and I know a
lot of scientists.
I’m surprised by this reply. Politesse, my impression of you, lo, these many years, is someone who makes thoughtful, detailed well supported posts. I thought Bilby’s point, that modern society has developed repeatable, replicable and predictive understanding of physical phenomena around us, was well said and demonstrably true. So I was surprised by your reply.
Are you implying that the ”science” of social science belies this? Is that what you mean by
? I don't think this statement is true in the slightest, and I know a lot of scientists.
I mean, semantically, that is true; but the underlying premise that all the sciences, including the social sciences, have reached a level of sophistication that expects fundamental understanding that leads to reliable predictive capabilities is indeed true of our era, IMHO.
His point is (clearly, in my biased engineering perspective) describing the physical sciences directly and the social sciences indirectly, so I am trying to decide if your reply is a little bit of wry humor, or if you actually disagree with his statement in the context of: Science verifies and reliably predicts, religion does not and never has.
Can you explain more why you think it is
? I don't think this statement is true in the slightest,
that we, as a set of humanity living today and with an established scientific community
have achieved a rigorous mathematical description of reality in which the application of a handful of simple rules can fully describe any phenomenon, and correctly predict how it will develop and interact with the rest of reality.