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

[psychoslice]

Who would you call if your life was in danger, god, or science, ha, i know very well who I would call..........SCIENCE ha yea baby.

 

[siti]

...I mean no 'science-believing' person would cling to faith in Piltdown Man or whatever despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary would they?

 

[psychoslice]

...I mean no 'science-believing' person would cling to faith in Piltdown Man or whatever despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary would they?

Yes a science believing person would never believe in such silliness, it just makes no sense to do so.

 

[siti]

...In any case, I think we should compare "apples with apples" - Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, whereas eternal hellfire for example was...er...ahem...OK...you got me they're the same - deliberate frauds...one was perpetuated for a few decades and made no real difference to anyone, the other has led to millions living in subjection and fear because of ignorance...see if you guess which is which

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...by science I presume...but wait...are you suggesting that a 6000 year old earth has not been "debunked"?

'debunked' is a subjective term obviously..

But I would argue my three examples, as being more thoroughly debunked than yours !

 

[psychoslice]

For me personally, its an embarrassing question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...In any case, I think we should compare "apples with apples" - Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, whereas eternal hellfire for example was...er...ahem...OK...you got me they're the same - deliberate frauds...one was perpetuated for a few decades and made no real difference to anyone, the other has led to millions living in subjection and fear because of ignorance...see if you guess which is which

which was proven false?

 

[siti]

...all of which brings me to my conclusion for today at least...science (the method) purposefully sets out to seek its mistakes (by making further observations) and when it finds them, science (the collective opinion) corrects them (by formulating new and revised hypotheses and theories...that's how it works and that is why it is reliable - even if it is sometimes wrong.

 

[siti]

which was proven false?

Oh dear - Guy - I have to admit you got me there...I guess we'll just have to wait and see... and in the meantime be eternally thankful that we have been released from bondage to belief in Piltdown Man, global cooling and steady state universes - thank Science for that!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you look around at the world we have now, a world brought into being from scientific advancements, I think the observable evidence alone speaks volumes to the reliability of science. From medicine, psychology, the internet, and smart phones, science has proven to be pretty damn reliable overall, especially given it is something that we humans came up with.

 

[JakofHearts]

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 have learnt that the sciences are more than a body of knowledge; it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe. I not only learnt the true application of science, but I also learnt to hone my own investigative abilities. So, while we should each consider and evaluate our own biases, it is good to remember that scientists are no more immune from bias than anyone else, and therefore examine vigorously into the claims of scientists because I had learnt that people cannot be trusted for anything in matters of science; and scientific authorities count for exactly zero. In the end, it is the evidence that must be consulted when conducting any investigation. Astronomy, biology, geology, chemistry, psychology, and critical thinking, all of this in the process of examining the facts as scientists present them.

When someone says that "The science is settled" you know that person has stepped out of the science, and this registers with lack of self criticism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

...all of which brings me to my conclusion for today at least...science (the method) purposefully sets out to seek its mistakes (by making further observations) and when it finds them, science (the collective opinion) corrects them (by formulating new and revised hypotheses and theories...that's how it works and that is why it is reliable - even if it is sometimes wrong.

We agree then, we are both big fans of the method right?

But we don't agree (that's what we're here for!) on the second part;

The academic, political, institutionalized opinion does not always willingly comply with our method.

• A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)

 

[siti]

Guy - I think we are getting mixed up here with the distinction between science (the collective opinion) which (officially, theoretically) always conforms to the method (I mean that if it does not it ceases to be "science" by definition) and the (sometimes popular) opinions of individual (or groups of) scientists (which is what Planck was getting at in your quote). It is certainly true that there is an awful lot of pseudo-scientific BS around and quite a lot of it (sadly) emerges from the pens of eminent scientists - but even if a Nobel Prize winning physicist makes a statement that is not supported by scientific observations, his statement does not become "science" by virtue of his profession - if it really is a scientific idea, it must immediately tell us how it could be shown to be false if that turns out to be the case. However, we must bear in mind that "science" (the correct, up to date and corresponding to the available data version) is still a matter of collective opinion and always subject to future revision and correction. That's just how it works - and, as I said, what makes it reliable. It owns, and owns up to, its mistakes. In all the fields of human endeavour, that makes it pretty unique.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If at least half the science we are taught as children is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries, don't you think that dating of fossils and the like cannot really be done with sufficient accuracy? Not sure, but this sounds like a contradiction to me. Please advise. Also, doesn't saying "most" dating of fossils mean that there is really no accuracy in it as well? I'm under the impression that unless there is an "always" chance of finding something, there is no accuracy.

With the above said, don't you think this puts science on par than tradition or faith? I do agree with you that it is always better than supposition and guess work tho. This actually brings another point... with what's said in the first paragraph, don't you think that even science had suppositions and guesswork accordingly?

Thank you for sharing.

Where do you come up with this "half" figure? Scientific knowledge and theories are constantly adding new information and modifying their theories and constructs, but I can't think of any major areas that have been completely overwritten or invalidated in my lifetime, and I'm 42, so I'm curious where you derived your half figure from.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Who would you call if your life was in danger, god, or science, ha, i know very well who I would call..........SCIENCE ha yea baby.

Ghostbusters.

The men tho, not the women.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Where do you come up with this "half" figure? Scientific knowledge and theories are constantly adding new information and modifying their theories and constructs, but I can't think of any major areas that have been completely overwritten or invalidated in my lifetime, and I'm 42, so I'm curious where you derived your half figure from.

I didn't come up with it, I borrowed it from a post before mine. It is seen in the quoted post in my post. I edited the post to better clarify that now. The quoted post is post #2.

 

[viole]

Good point! Thank you for pointing it out.

I'll tag whom to the question was directed so they can see this.

Earth to @viole , do you copy?

If you do not receive this message, whose correct representation, transmission and reception depends on things like the physical properties of matter, and the shape and form of my orbit around earth, as understood by science, then you might be right.

Ciao

- Major Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

If you do not receive this message, whose correct representation, transmission and reception depends on things like the physical properties of matter, as understood by science, then you might be right.

Ciao

- Major Tom

Copy that, Major Tom!

Now I'll pass the transmission to the concerned personnel @Quintessence who in their part could decode it.

I personally did not understand a thing!

SG... over and out.