Response To https://twitter.com/InfoIsGood/status/743403129539014656

To me, the comment seems to suggest a distinction between science's proposed convergence upon truth (the apparent narrowing of the scope of assertion) and religion's proposed divergence at truth (the apparent broadening of the scope of assertion). To me, this distinction seems to imply, but not necessarily indicate comparative quality of the two topics, but rather, a difference in their natures.

To me, science seems solely concerned with the subset of reality that (a) seems humanly observed and (b) seems to exhibit predictable patterns. I seem to recall suggestion by scientists that much exists within the remainder of reality that is not yet considered to be humanly and predictably observed.

To me, logically, science's apparent convergent nature potentially eliminating false assertion regarding humanly and predictably observed matters might yield less falsehood, but not necessarily more truth. If, for example, the truth of a hypothetical matter contains ten true concepts, and ten related concepts are perceived, but only four of those perceived ten are true, then six of the perceived concepts seem logically false. Even if all six false concepts are subsequently eliminated at some point, if the remaining undiscovered six true concepts exist outside of the scope of human, predictable observation, convergence seems achieved upon only partial relevant truth, the total truth seeming to remain out of science's reach, resulting in a possibly unrecognized false representation of reality.

Religion, defined as human understanding of the proposed God/human relationship, seems to include two factors that seem to place religion outside of the bounds of the apparent subset of reality apparently focused upon by science: (a) God, who does not seem humanly and predictably observed, and (b) relationship-related interaction, regarding which the number of relevant variables seems inconducive to predictable, human observation.

Relationship interaction assertion seems logically more likely to diverge at truth due to the apparently large number of potential values for the factors of (a) unique, human, relationship-relevant characteristics, and (b) circumstance. Apparently as a result, outcomes of a relationship interaction might vary among relationships and even among points in time within the same relationship, apparently due to changes in circumstance.

To me, the apparently divergent-at-truth nature of religion does not seem to warrant eliminating attempting to vet religious assertion. Perhaps to the contrary, to the extent that religion holds the key to optimal human experience that science can not produce, addressing religion seems a logically more pressing issue than addressing secular science.

To me, therefore, the line of qualitative distinction seems optimally drawn where either science or religion presents understanding that is false, incomplete, or not applicable within a particular context of focus, and does not seem optimally drawn categorically between religion and science. Each person seems personally responsible for drawing that person's line, whether by personally reviewing relevant information or by placing faith in another party and adopting that party's line of distinction.

The SIDP presents apparently overlooked information that seems relevant to the drawing of those lines, and apparently in turn, to the quality of individual and aggregate human experience that seems impacted by behavior undertaken based upon the drawing of those lines.