Is science really as realiable as we hear? Or should we say scientific findings and theories here?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Don't you think this means science is not really as reliable as it is thought to be?

And thanks for sharing!

Science is usually extremely reliable.
However the theory behind it may not yet be fully understood.
Newtonian physics is known to give highly accurate results in every practical sense. However virtually all his theories have been superseded by new discoveries. Never the less it is the main science used by the engineer. and gives repeatedly accurate results.

 

[Jumi]

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories?

Yes and no. It depends on how educated you are in the sciences and if you only have heard of popularizations or their criticisms.

How reliable are our most reliable measurements? The same building blocks of theory built on the greatest scientific minds of humanity work to date ancients fossils.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Depends on the dating method(s) used. Often given are +- error values. Say if you estimate a tree is 500(+-2 years old) based on tree rings. If it was 502 or 498 it would still be correct. What the layman can know is that the fossil is ancient, much more so than the earliest humans. If there are multiple similar fossils dated in similar time frames with multiple methods sureness increases.

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

Some listed scientific theories are not actual scientific theories in the modern sense, such as what Ibn Al-haytham discredited.

So what do you think?

They're not perfect, but especially the harder sciences are built on the strongest foundation available to us.

We could also think is it reliable to say we know how far the moon or sun is from us? Or distances between countries?

 

[Quintessence]

As someone with a strong background in the sciences, what I notice is a disparity of understanding between those who have worked as scientists and those who have not. That's to be expected - the folks who have worked in a field inevitably are going to have a better grasp of it. On top of that, because the sciences are so technical, there are some significant obstacles to communicating scientific processes and findings to non-scientists. Inevitably, information gets simplified to be digestible to the general public, and... well... then you get stuff like this that happens:

You mention the idea of accuracy in the opening post - the nuances of that are something that tend to get lost when sciences are communicated to the public (something pointed out in the webcomic above). All scientific data comes with an assessment of its accuracy - that's what things like confidence intervals are for, it's what things like error bars are for. Or, the limitations of whatever analyses were run on the data are just known in the scientific community, but the general public doesn't get it. Altogether, the general public can unfortunately take scientific results as much more dogmatic and fixed than they would be understood as by scientists (again, something made fun of in that web comic above).

On the whole, yes, the sciences are not only reliable, they're probably the most reliable method of gathering data-driven information about the world around us humans have. But, it has to be understood to be applied appropriately... something that the general public tends to struggle with for a variety of reasons. A good first step to better understanding would be to stop referring to the sciences in the singular, but it's sort of a pet peeve of mine for people to say "science" instead of "sciences."

(edited to fix the insert of the picture so you don't have to click on it to read it, hopefully)

 

[David T]

Most dating of fossils and the like can be done with sufficient accuracy, to be a useful indicator of their relative age.

However at least half the science, we are taught as children, is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries in our lifetimes. However it is rarely proved to be totally wrong, it is just that it is rarely the full story.
Science is always open to further questioning.

But it is always better than tradition, supposition, guesswork or faith, as a basis for knowledge.

Its rarely proven to be totally wrong? That's a mythology not facts. That's like saying astrology was partially correct. Observing clouds one can always say the images we see are always partial correct so based on that theory the following image is scientific proof Jesus is nearby

 

[Onyx]

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

I think it just depends. Some ideas have more proof/application, others can be a bit more fuzzy. All science can do is put forth the best approximations of reality we have at the moment. It's up to the individual to decide what is "good enough" to be reliable enough for practical use.

 

[Smart_Guy]

@ all participants:

You guys present interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's you working definition of 'science proper'?

It is pretty much how Quintessence explained. A matter of having method and proper background.

 

[viole]

Hello guys!

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

I would say that, in general, human endeavours that progressively improve and realize when they were wrong, are more reliable than human endeavours that don't.

Ciao

- viole

 

[YmirGF]

As a source of knowledge? No. The fact that science corrects itself makes it a far better source of knowledge than tradition or faith.

For me, that really is the key. It's not that science has all the answers, it's that it corrects itself when proven wrong, whereas religious drivel is not falsifiable, so virtually any claim can stand as there is no way to prove it wrong.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I would say that, in general, human endeavours that progressively improve and realize when they were wrong, are more reliable than human endeavours that don't.

Ciao

- viole

What about this:

1- They say they are not wrong, people quoting them say they are not wrong, then later the scientists realize they are wrong. Why in the first place they said they were not wrong? The people who quoted them later are no where to be found. Later scientists again find other stuff and again they they are not wrong and other people emerge saying they are not wrong. All over again. We talked about this before and you insisted that the scientific theory you're referring to can never be wrong no matter how much I tried to convince you that it could be wrong. Remember the 99% ape genes thread?

2- Why would it be more reliable than human endeavors that don't?

Thank you for sharing.

 

[viole]

What about this:

1- They say they are not wrong, people quoting them say they are not wrong, then later the scientists realize they are wrong. The people who quoted them later are no where to be found. We talked about this before and you insisted that the scientific theory you're referring to can never be wrong no matter how much I tried to convince you that it could be wrong. Remember the 99% ape genes thread?

I am sure that the 99% ape gene thread is wrong. It is ridicolous, actually, to believe that we share 99% of our genes with apes. I think there is conclusive evidence that we do not share 99% of our genes with apes. Obviously.

Again, science tries to corrct its errors. And that thread should do the same.

2- Why would it be more reliable than human endeavors that don't?

Thank you for sharing.

Well, maybe not more reliable, but for sure I would prefer to work with someone who admits its erros and improves on them, then with someone who does not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What about this:

1- They say they are not wrong, people quoting them say they are not wrong, then later the scientists realize they are wrong. Why in the first place they said they were not wrong? The people who quoted them later are no where to be found. Later scientists again find other stuff and again they they are not wrong and other people emerge saying they are not wrong. All over again. We talked about this before and you insisted that the scientific theory you're referring to can never be wrong no matter how much I tried to convince you that it could be wrong. Remember the 99% ape genes thread?

2- Why would it be more reliable than human endeavors that don't?

Thank you for sharing.

I enormously appreciated your frubal on my latest post.

But may I inquire why you liked it? Just curious.

Ciao

- ciole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I am sure that the 99% ape gene thread is wrong. It is ridicolous, actually, to believe that we share 99% of our genes with apes. I think there is conclusive evidence that we do not share 99% of our genes with apes. Obviously.

Again, science tries to corrct its errors. And that thread should do the same.

Well, maybe not more reliable, but for sure I would prefer to work with someone who admits its erros and improves on them, then with someone who does not.

Ciao

- viole

It's not the 99% resemblance, it was the discussion we had in it. I think it was about that all lives come from the same life tree or something. I don't remember exactly, but I remember the feeling. I'm all feelings, you know

I could be wrong tho. See? I said it too

I get your point, however, not admitting an error does not necessarily mean there is an error. It could be actually objectively not an error.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I enormously appreciated your frubal on my latest post.

But may I inquire why you liked it? Just curious.

Ciao

- ciole

It's because I respect and appreciate you view. I started the thread looking for view and you gave me one, a good well put respectful one. Thank you.

Or maybe it is just because I like you, who knows.

 

[viole]

It's not the 99% resemblance, it was the discussion we had in it. I think it was about that all lives come from the same life tree or something. I don't remember exactly, but I remember the feeling. I'm all feelings, you know

I could be wrong tho. See? I said it too

I get your point, however, not admitting an error does not necessarily mean there is an error. It could be actually objectively not an error.

I believe you misunderstood me.

Since we are apes, it is ridicolous to say that we share 99% of our genes with apes. It is a truism that I share 100% of my genes with myself. An ape. Like all humans. Not 99%.

It would be like saying that 1% of my genes are not mine, which is absurd.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

What about this:

1- They say they are not wrong, people quoting them say they are not wrong, then later the scientists realize they are wrong. Why in the first place they said they were not wrong? (...)

That is not really how things happen in science. Science knows how to deal cautiously with uncertainty, how to deal with confidence intervals, how to revise and improve theories and knowledge in general.

It is the very watered-down and often wildly misrepresented popular understanding that is called, with various degrees of accuracy and honesty, as being "science", that is often irresponsibly unreliable.

2- Why would it be more reliable than human endeavors that don't?

Because attempting to learn better when the opportunity and the means for such present themselves tends to be far better than refusing to.

 

[Quintessence]

For me, that really is the key. It's not that science has all the answers, it's that it corrects itself when proven wrong, whereas religious drivel is not falsifiable, so virtually any claim can stand as there is no way to prove it wrong.

I always find comments like this odd, since it weirdly presumes that some sort of objective "rightness" or "wrongness" is the point. I get that certain religious traditions that are known in Western culture have an obsession with things like that, but as someone who doesn't share such a tradition, it's just really strange to me to talk about it that way. The whole "prove your religion right" or "prove that religion wrong" in general is just bizarre to me. It is like saying "prove it wrong that your favorite color is blue" or "prove it right that you celebrate storms." Just... what? LOL.

 

[Quintessence]

2- Why would it be more reliable than human endeavors that don't?

I have an addendum to this question. More reliable for what? Not clarifying that risks unecessarily denigrating things like the arts.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe you misunderstood me.

Since we are apes, it is ridicolous to say that we share 99% of our genes with apes. It is a truism that I share 100% of my genes with myself. An ape. Like all humans. Not 99%.

It would be like saying that 1% of my genes are not mine, which is absurd.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, that's another possibility which is likely too.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That is not really how things happen in science. Science knows how to deal cautiously with uncertainty, how to deal with confidence intervals, how to revise and improve theories and knowledge in general.

It is the very watered-down and often wildly misrepresented popular understanding that is called, with various degrees of accuracy and honesty, as being "science", that is often irresponsibly unreliable.

Because attempting to learn better when the opportunity and the means for such present themselves tends to be far better than refusing to.

Nicely put assessment! Thank you for sharing.