Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?

[Storm]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

 

[Sunstone]

As a practical matter when making decisions, you should take into consideration the best information available at the time of the decision. That's usually whatever science there is on the subject.

 

[Storm]

Oh, ita.

As I said, I don't mean to disparage science. It's one of our most valuable and powerful tools.

I'm just wondering if we're really as good as we think we are at using it.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Sort of, it was only about 20 years ago everyone believed Science when they said we were heading into an Ice Age. Now it's global warming, ironic...

Who can we trust.

 

[Magic Man]

I know exactly what you mean, love. What I've come to realize is that there are way too many factors to take into account in life. For every situation, you can look at it one way and come to a conclusion, thinking you have taken everything relevant into account. Then, someone brings something else up that completely changes the view of the situation. It's like people. You might make some judgement about someone, thinking that it must be true due to what you know of them. Then, you find out a detail about their life that totally changes that judgement.

The same thing goes with science. I think it is good because, as has been suggested, the idea is to use the best knowledge we have at the time. What I like about science is its openness to change. If an established theory is proven to be wrong, it simply goes away. I think until the paradigm shifts, we have to go with the best available information. The key is to remember that it is just that, the best available info, and not the absolute unwavering correct info.

 

[fantome profane]

I would like to quote Daniel Dennett saying about science paraphrasing what Winston Churchill said about democracy (does that make you dizzy?). “Science is the worst way of knowing the world, except for all the others”.

I agree that it is important to be skeptical, open minded and willing to assess alternative ideas. But before we give up on current theories we need to find something better.

 

[Storm]

Absolutely.

Judging by the responses so far, I seem to have been a bit unclear. I'm just saying that it seems to me that some - maybe most - people think we've got it all figured out. That our current theories will only be expanded upon, rather than disproven.

 

[LuisDantas]

Absolutely.

Judging by the responses so far, I seem to have been a bit unclear. I'm just saying that it seems to me that some - maybe most - people think we've got it all figured out. That our current theories will only be expanded upon, rather than disproven.

These days there is not as much of a difference between the two things as it used to be.

 

[Magic Man]

I understand and agree, S. I have the same problem with those people as I do with people who take religious myth literally.

 

[3.14]

wel personaly i never trust statistics to much variables to be all right

 

[Storm]

These days there is not as much of a difference between the two things as it used to be.

Assuming by "the two things" you mean expansion vs. disproof, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Looking at our history, I get the feeling another major paradigm shift is coming. I think that it's inevitable that we're grossly wrong about something, and that in 2000 years, people will look at our current understanding with the same attitudes with which we regard geocentrism.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's my point, in fact.

These days we are borderline anxious for turning our own tables upside down. It is so expected that it can hardly be much of a shock when it happens.

Personally I expect the next major shock to come from social sciences instead of from the natural sciences. Things like family and politics show much more obsolete thinking and greater need of change and questioning than any other field of knowledge.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Much depends upon whether you're referring to science the noun or science the verb.

 

[Storm]

That's my point, in fact.

These days we are borderline anxious for turning our own tables upside down. It is so expected that it can hardly be much of a shock when it happens.

Personally I expect the next major shock to come from social sciences instead of from the natural sciences. Things like family and politics show much more obsolete thinking and greater need of change and questioning than any other field of knowledge.

Interesting. Let me mull that over for a bit.

 

[Storm]

Much depends upon whether you're referring to science the noun or science the verb.

If I meant "the scientific method" I would have said "the scientific method."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I meant "the scientific method" I would have said "the scientific method."

Probably not ...

 

[Storm]

Of course, Jay. Who am I to speak for myself, when you're such an expert on my opinions?

 

[fantome profane]

Absolutely.

Judging by the responses so far, I seem to have been a bit unclear. I'm just saying that it seems to me that some - maybe most - people think we've got it all figured out. That our current theories will only be expanded upon, rather than disproven.

Ok, I understand what you are saying, and you might be right. But I also observe the opposite happening, especially in the media. Every time someone comes up with something new, a new theory or a new approach, people jump all over themselves to proclaim the new paradigm.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, Luis raised that point, too. Still mulling it over.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course, Jay. Who am I to speak for myself, when you're such an expert on my opinions?

Who you are is not at issue. What you are is, and what you are in this thread is vapid and petulant. You complain ...

If I meant "the scientific method" I would have said "the scientific method."​

... as if that should have been obvious. Of course, on identical grounds one should assume that ...

If you had meant "scientific theories" you would have said "scientific theories."​

But, since you said neither, we are left to assume that (a) you haven't a clue what you're talking about, or (b) you expect others to divine it by some method yet to be disclosed. I chose neither, much as I now choose to leave you to your juvenile outbursts.