Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?

[gnomon]

Is there a possibility that research and testing on current theories will lead to a refinement of scientific models especially as new technologies continue to develop? Yes. I think any change would be more apparent if there were more efforts at consolidating the ever specialized avenues of research.

Are people holding too much faith in current scientific models and/or scientists? I would say given the state of science education and the perceived general apathy towards science in the media and popular culture the answer would be no. There is no common "faith" among the populace in the first place. Combine the apathy with the large amount of antipathy towards scientific understanding among a variety of political and social leaders my answer would be a resounding no.

 

[crystalonyx]

Theories are just that theories, any negative evidence that comes in can disprove a theory at any time.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

or (c) She didn't realize, and rightly so, that someone could possibly take it in the way you have. Everyone else seemed perfectly capable of "divining" what she meant. Aside from that, if you weren't sure what she meant, you could always just ask. That's not too much to ask, is it? It is a little amusing and ironic to me to see you accuse others of juvenile outbursts, especially Storm. If you tried a little more civility (as I saw from you yesterday), your exchanges would go a lot better and be much more productive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you tried a little more civility (as I saw from you yesterday), your exchanges would go a lot better and be much more productive.

Reread the thread and whine less ...

 

[Magic Man]

Reread the thread and whine less ...

Ah, that's the Jay I know. I did read the thread. As I said, a little more civility from you would make things go a lot smoother.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, that's the Jay I know. I did read the thread. As I said, a little more civility from you would make things go a lot smoother.

Given the exchange...

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."

... it is interesting that you would scold me for not being "a little more civil." Your insipid moralizing is more than a little biased and vapid.

 

[herushura]

Nope, infact we need faith in Science to develop Vaccines for Aids and a Cure for Cancer

 

[Magic Man]

Given the exchange...... it is interesting that you would scold me for not being "a little more civil." Your insipid moralizing is more than a little biased and vapid.

All right, I'm going to take a step back. I actually don't see anything wrong with your first comment. You're right about that, and I apologize. I think the problem is that your reputation precedes you, and Storm took your comment in a different tone than maybe you meant it because of the normal tone of your comments. You have to admit at least that you don't give people reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

With that said, would you mind expanding on your original comment?

 

[MoonWater]

Many people do. I've come across people who are just as "extremist" when it comes to science and purporting it as fact and truth(when most of it is theory) as those religious extremists many of us like to complain about. While the religious ones say "if you don't believe in X religious idea then you're damned" the scientific ones say "if you don't believe in X scientific idea then your ignorant, stupid, etc." And for these types of people "believe" means to take as absolute literal unquestioning truth. We're a lot more alike then we give ourselves credit for.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have to admit at least that you don't give people reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.?

Fair enough. The corollary to this, by the way, is that if my intent is to deprecate I rarely mask it with subtlety.

With that said, would you mind expanding on your original comment?

Science as method has a well defined scope and an exceptional track record. I believe it warrants confidence.

Science as a body of accepted theories likewise warrant respect but, in my opinion, only provisional acceptance. It is far too easy to not know (or fully appreciate) what we don't know.

Actually, upon further review, I may indeed owe Storm an apology. The title of the OP is "Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science" and I might well have drawn reasonable conclusions by paying more attention to the word "Current."

 

[Magic Man]

Fair enough. The corollary to this, by the way, is that if my intent is to deprecate I rarely mask it with subtlety.

That is true, too.

Science as method has a well defined scope and an exceptional track record. I believe it warrants confidence.

Science as a body of accepted theories likewise warrant respect but, in my opinion, only provisional acceptance. It is far too easy to not know (or fully appreciate) what we don't know.

Actually, upon further review, I may indeed owe Storm an apology. The title of the OP is "Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science" and I might well have drawn reasonable conclusions by paying more attention to the word "Current."

I agree on all accounts. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tomspug]

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

I think that's what it always what it comes down to, no matter the subject matter, whether you are referring to the noun or the verb.

 

[coyotezee]

This thread is too long to read every post, so I'm just responding to the main question of the thread. Forgive me if I rehash what others have already said.

Much as been made lately of deconstructionism, which, as I understand it, argues that even science is not objective but somehow comes up with the answers it was predisposed to find. While science has always had to be on guard against striving to confirm what it already knows, rather than finding a new idea that better explains it, science has generally made progress toward a global understanding of the physical universe. As such, paradigm shifts should be fewer and farther between.

Note the big paradigm shifts to date: The start of modern science, with heleocentrism and the use of the scientific method. For a while, there were dramatic new discoveries that changed much of what we thought we knew, in area of physics (electricity and magnitism), geology (identifying how various rocks formed over time), biology (evolution), medicine (germ theory), and so on. A hundred years ago we had the dramatic shift in physics to relativity and quantum mechanics, but these did not so much change what we already knew as give it a new context. In astronomy, the discovery of galaxies and then the Big Bang. Plate techtonics transformed geology, but again, it did not so much invalidate what we knew but gave it a more complete basis.

Today, there are fewer and few things that are so poorly understood that there will be dramatic new discoveries, except at the fringes: astrophysics, high-energy particle theories, etc. Remember that to replace the existing paradigm, a new one will have to at least explain everything we already know plus some things we can't explain.

There is, of course, much we have to learn, but the gaps are always decreasing; that is the nature of science. Someone mentioned that fifty years ago scientists were predicting a new ice age and now they are predicting warming. But that is not a paradigm shift so much as just getting better at understanding a complex thing like atmosphere and having better data to go on. People who are holding out for someone to conclusively contradict the global warming expectations are naive.

I have a great deal of trust (I would not call it faith) in science to help us understand our place in the cosmos. Better theories will give us a better idea of that place, but that is no reason to question the value of what we already have.

 

[tomspug]

This thread is too long to read every post, so I'm just responding to the main question of the thread. Forgive me if I rehash what others have already said.

Much as been made lately of deconstructionism, which, as I understand it, argues that even science is not objective but somehow comes up with the answers it was predisposed to find. While science has always had to be on guard against striving to confirm what it already knows, rather than finding a new idea that better explains it, science has generally made progress toward a global understanding of the physical universe. As such, paradigm shifts should be fewer and farther between.

Note the big paradigm shifts to date: The start of modern science, with heleocentrism and the use of the scientific method. For a while, there were dramatic new discoveries that changed much of what we thought we knew, in area of physics (electricity and magnitism), geology (identifying how various rocks formed over time), biology (evolution), medicine (germ theory), and so on. A hundred years ago we had the dramatic shift in physics to relativity and quantum mechanics, but these did not so much change what we already knew as give it a new context. In astronomy, the discovery of galaxies and then the Big Bang. Plate techtonics transformed geology, but again, it did not so much invalidate what we knew but gave it a more complete basis.

Today, there are fewer and few things that are so poorly understood that there will be dramatic new discoveries, except at the fringes: astrophysics, high-energy particle theories, etc. Remember that to replace the existing paradigm, a new one will have to at least explain everything we already know plus some things we can't explain.

There is, of course, much we have to learn, but the gaps are always decreasing; that is the nature of science. Someone mentioned that fifty years ago scientists were predicting a new ice age and now they are predicting warming. But that is not a paradigm shift so much as just getting better at understanding a complex thing like atmosphere and having better data to go on. People who are holding out for someone to conclusively contradict the global warming expectations are naive.

I have a great deal of trust (I would not call it faith) in science to help us understand our place in the cosmos. Better theories will give us a better idea of that place, but that is no reason to question the value of what we already have.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at science. We are not having LESS and LESS questions, as science learns more and more, we are having MORE and MORE questions the more science discovers. One mystery uncovers another mystery, then another, then another. I think it is safe to say that we are aware of MORE that we do not know than we did in, say, the "Enlightenment", when science developed the arrogant mentality that they had just about "figured everything out".

No, we are more aware NOW of just how much we don't know than we ever have been. Science has taught us more about what is unknown than it has about what is known.

 

[logician]

"No, we are more aware NOW of just how much we don't know than we ever have been. Science has taught us more about what is unknown than it has about what is known."

But we are still light years ahead in derived knowledge than we were even a century ago. At this rate, homo sapiens will essentially be gods in a few centuries. (wink).

 

[Yerda]

What does ''too much faith'' entail, Storm?

 

[Storm]

Well, I'm not sure, to be honest.

EDIT: The first thing that springs to mind is when people try to use science to justify their theology (or lack thereof). That's what got me pondering the question, anyway.

 

[Magic Man]

I think this is the wrong way of looking at science. We are not having LESS and LESS questions, as science learns more and more, we are having MORE and MORE questions the more science discovers. One mystery uncovers another mystery, then another, then another. I think it is safe to say that we are aware of MORE that we do not know than we did in, say, the "Enlightenment", when science developed the arrogant mentality that they had just about "figured everything out".

No, we are more aware NOW of just how much we don't know than we ever have been. Science has taught us more about what is unknown than it has about what is known.

Well, it's like anything else. When you start asking questions, you find answers, and with those answers come new questions. It's not that there is more that we don't know. It's just that there's more that we are aware of. We know a lot more than we did just a hundred years ago, thanks to science. There are also a lot more questions science endeavors to answer now. That just means that in the future we'll have even more questions answered.

 

[Yerda]

What about the science behind climate change? It suggests that CO2 above x (about 440 I think) parts per million will lead to runaway warming, and that warming will be catastrophic for the biosphere including, importantly for us, us.

In order to stabilize at a safe level of atmospheric CO2 we would have to contract emissions. This will take a massive political and social effort coordinated globally on an unprecedented scale. It will hurt us, and perhaps make many destitute. Some of us may lose our jobs, some may lose our homes. Our economies might be wrecked.

Is that "too much faith in current science"?

 

[Storm]

What about the science behind climate change? It suggests that CO2 above x (about 440 I think) parts per million will lead to runaway warming, and that warming will be catastrophic for the biosphere including, importantly for us, us.

In order to stabilize at a safe level of atmospheric CO2 we would have to contract emissions. This will take a massive political and social effort coordinated globally on an unprecedented scale. It will hurt us, and perhaps make many destitute. Some of us may lose our jobs, some may lose our homes. Our economies might be wrecked.

Is that "too much faith in current science"?

Maybe. It depends on whether we're right or not, doesn't it?