What do You Think Science is...

[Sheldon]

The results are what are looked for. The scientific method produces those. The scientists then accept those results, as the conclusion... until some other results are accepted as the conclusion.

 

[Sheldon]

Conclusions are not any part of the scientific method.

The scientists then accept those results, as the conclusion...

I don't think you did understand what he was saying you now?

 

[HonestJoe]

This, however, does not mean that it is a "conclusion", now, and no longer a theory.

Again, that is not the context "conclusion" is used scientifically. A conclusion is the narrative outcome of a specific piece of research, taking the raw results and explaining how they reflect the hypothesis being studied. Those conclusions can be positive or negative, certain or uncertain. The conclusions may even be specifically inconclusive, calling for further study or a change in approach. It is essentially those conclusions that can be put together to build up a wider theory.

Because history has shown that when that happens (occasionally even a quorum of scientists have fallen under the spell of a presumed conclusion) it tends to create a huge impediment to the scientific process that takes years and much effort to finally get past.

That is true, but it is a human problem, not a scientific one. It is not only scientific ideas that can become embedded in the social consciousness even after they're shown to be flawed or outright wrong. People reach (non-scientific) conclusions all the time, with all sorts of different reasoning, largely because we have a natural fear of the unknown. The purpose of scientific method is to actually temper that tendency and apply formal structure to the process of understanding things (and accepting when we don't). That tendency can't be eliminated entirely though.

The fact that any one of YOU may have concluded that the theory of evolution is no longer a theory, but is now a fact of reality is NOT SCIENCE.

Something can be a theory and a fact at the same time of course. The question here isn't really about definitive facts (of which we don't truly have any) but the practical realities of how we behave day-to-day. As it happens, evolutionary theory is entirely irrelevant to the day-to-day lives of most people, though there will be some scientists who will need to treat it (or at least so aspect) as fact to carry out work based on it. Of course, if that work fails because any of those assumed facts are not entirely correct, that in turn can be reassessed scientifically.

There are a load of other things that we treat as assumed fact day-to-day, even though technically nothing is 100% guaranteed. We'd go crazy otherwise, unable to even get out of bed since, even though we can see the floor, how can we know it is really there? Scientific processes a key tool for us all to apply those assumed facts with the best chance of their being accurate (or at least accurate enough). The process can be both followed by professionals doing formal research but can (and is ) also done informally by any of us, often instinctively without even realising it.

 

[Audie]

Again, that is not the context "conclusion" is used scientifically. A conclusion is the narrative outcome of a specific piece of research, taking the raw results and explaining how they reflect the hypothesis being studied. Those conclusions can be positive or negative, certain or uncertain. The conclusions may even be specifically inconclusive, calling for further study or a change in approach. It is essentially those conclusions that can be put together to build up a wider theory.

That is true, but it is a human problem, not a scientific one. It is not only scientific ideas that can become embedded in the social consciousness even after they're shown to be flawed or outright wrong. People reach (non-scientific) conclusions all the time, with all sorts of different reasoning, largely because we have a natural fear of the unknown. The purpose of scientific method is to actually temper that tendency and apply formal structure to the process of understanding things (and accepting when we don't). That tendency can't be eliminated entirely though.

Something can be a theory and a fact at the same time of course. The question here isn't really about definitive facts (of which we don't truly have any) but the practical realities of how we behave day-to-day. As it happens, evolutionary theory is entirely irrelevant to the day-to-day lives of most people, though there will be some scientists who will need to treat it (or at least so aspect) as fact to carry out work based on it. Of course, if that work fails because any of those assumed facts are not entirely correct, that in turn can be reassessed scientifically.

There are a load of other things that we treat as assumed fact day-to-day, even though technically nothing is 100% guaranteed. We'd go crazy otherwise, unable to even get out of bed since, even though we can see the floor, how can we know it is really there? Scientific processes a key tool for us all to apply those assumed facts with the best chance of their being accurate (or at least accurate enough). The process can be both followed by professionals doing formal research but can (and is ) also done informally by any of us, often instinctively without even realising it.

I hope we can stop hearing news of the obvious
presented by people with no training, as if they
were somehow teaching something!

A few less opinions-as - fact would be nice too.

On group- think:
In early US history, your great inventor Eli
Whitney received a bunch of govt money to
product armyvguns with interchangeable parts.

When he finally had the guns, a group of
notables incl Thomas Jefferson came to
see him demonstrate.
Instead of assembling a weapon from bins
of parts, he took one part off a gun, and put
it on another. Everyone was impressed.

In fact as much later revealed he had made
sure those selected parts would fit, but nothing
else was interchangeable.

I dont think group think has stopped / seriously
slowed any area of research for long,
but maybe someone has an example.

Eli Whitney didnt stop the progress of precision
machining.

 

[PureX]

Again, that is not the context "conclusion" is used scientifically. A conclusion is the narrative outcome of a specific piece of research, taking the raw results and explaining how they reflect the hypothesis being studied. Those conclusions can be positive or negative, certain or uncertain. The conclusions may even be specifically inconclusive, calling for further study or a change in approach. It is essentially those conclusions that can be put together to build up a wider theory.

Perhaps you can see why I object to the use of this term in this context. I don't care how many "scientists" use this term, it's inaccurate and misleading. Which is why I am pointing out that science does not provide us with any "conclusions". It provides us with results regarding the physical functionality of a theory. Not the truth of a theory. The very word "conclude" implies no further investigation is necessary, which is antithetical to the whole purpose and process of science.

Many scientists also very often refer to homosexuals and "gay" when in fact there is no scientific experiment that has "concluded" that homosexuals are any more "gay" than anyone else. The point being that just because scientists use the term "conclusion" doesn't mean it's the logical, or appropriate term to use in the context in which they are using it. People misuse words all the time, resulting in a great deal of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. Let's try and avoid it, here.

I would also like to point out here that I shouldn't have to struggle with people so intently and for so long to maintain such a simple and obvious observation. And the unending determination of the objections I'm getting should be giving you and others here pause for reflection. When instead, all this clarification seems to be inspiring the opposite. Why?

That is true, but it is a human problem, not a scientific one.

EUREKA! He gets it! Yes. Drawing conclusions, and forming opinions, and then pretending these are the 'truth of it' (reality) is NOT SCIENCE, and not even scientific. It is a "human problem" fueled by a willful ignorance of science, and by the all-to-human desire to imagine that we have the means to understand 'the whole truth', when we do not, and we cannot.

It is not only scientific ideas that can become embedded in the social consciousness even after they're shown to be flawed or outright wrong. People reach (non-scientific) conclusions all the time, with all sorts of different reasoning, largely because we have a natural fear of the unknown. The purpose of scientific method is to actually temper that tendency and apply formal structure to the process of understanding things (and accepting when we don't). That tendency can't be eliminated entirely though.

What is interesting is that people warp religion to make it justify whatever preconception of truth and reality they've chosen to hold onto, just as people warp science for the exact same reason. And in both instances they not only will deny that they are doing it, they will fight tooth and nail to maintain that denial. This is how badly a lot of people want to imagine that they have the means of understanding the 'truth of things', and that they DO understand it. And this tells us how frightened they are of facing the truth of the human condition: that we simply do not possess that means. Not through religion, and not through science, and not by any other means, either. It's simply not within our purview.

Something can be a theory and a fact at the same time of course.

Only in the sense that it is a fact that what we choose to call "truth" is really just our theory of the truth. And one that we cannot ever fully verify. Because like any scientist, or any theologian, or anyone else, all we can really do is apply our theory of truth to the circumstances of our existence and see if the theory functions as true, or not. That doesn't mean it IS true. But it does mean that it at least can function as true within the current circumstantial context. (Relative truth is the best we can get.)

The question here isn't really about definitive facts (of which we don't truly have any) but the practical realities of how we behave day-to-day. As it happens, evolutionary theory is entirely irrelevant to the day-to-day lives of most people, though there will be some scientists who will need to treat it (or at least so aspect) as fact to carry out work based on it. Of course, if that work fails because any of those assumed facts are not entirely correct, that in turn can be reassessed scientifically.

What you seem to be saying is that the truth isn't really what matters. Functionality is really what matters, and that, at least, we can ascertain. But if that is what you mean, I will have to disagree. Because increasing functionality without a corresponding increase in the wisdom of truth is like throwing a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive and curious monkeys. This will NOT end well. Function without truth (in the form of wisdom) is just a doorway to annihilation. Which is why we should never allow ourselves to make a false idol of science. And why I post against this emerging cult of 'scientism', so often.

There are a load of other things that we treat as assumed fact day-to-day, even though technically nothing is 100% guaranteed. We'd go crazy otherwise, ...

Actually, I think just the opposite is true. I think we don't need to presume to know things that we don't really know, at all. I think we can move through the world very well without all this blind presumption just by trusting in the probabilities. And in fact I think we're better at this when we are fully aware that they ARE probabilities, and not 'facts'. But to do this we will have to overcome our fear of not knowing. Of not knowing if God exists or not, or how God feels about us even if God does exist. Or why existence exists as it does, as opposed to some other way. And why we are cognizant of it. And on and on and on. So many questions that we are not going to get to the truth of.

 

[Audie]

When they made this feller, they forgot to
put in the quit

 

[nPeace]

Humans do not possess the capacity to understand 'the whole truth'. The best we can do us try to be as honest with ourselves and each other as we can be, and accept the relative truthfulness of whatever 'facts' we can ascertain. But many of us really don't like the idea that there is so much that we can't know. And so they turn both religion and/or science into their magical totems of overcoming our innate human ignorance, by pretending these are something that they're not: fountainheads of unquestionable truth.

I agree we can't know everything, and we are often wrong about things we think we know, but there is relative truthfulness as you said... in both science and religion, and these do supply a basis for being confident of that truth on which to build. Isn't that so?

 

[PureX]

I agree we can't know everything, and we are often wrong about things we think we know, but there is relative truthfulness as you said... in both science and religion, and these do supply a basis for being confident of that truth on which to build. Isn't that so?

That depends on each situation. We can be confident in the probabilities when they warrant it. And still, of course, we can be wrong. Otherwise, I see no reason to pretend confidence. Life in the world is risky when you can't understand the why or how of it. And we can't. We can understand some things about how it functions, and that helps us to function more effectively, but we're still mostly 'flying blind'.

I think what we really need since we cannot have the certainty of knowledge, is honesty. I think the more honest we can be with ourselves and each other about what we don't know, and what we think we do know, the more accurately we will be able to assess the actual probabilities, and the more successful we will be at existing in the world.

 

[nPeace]

That depends on each situation. We can be confident in the probabilities when they warrant it. And still, of course, we can be wrong. Otherwise, I see no reason to pretend confidence. Life in the world is risky when you can't understand the why or how of it. And we can't. We can understand some things about how it functions, and that helps us to function more effectively, but we're still mostly 'flying blind'.

I think what we really need since we cannot have the certainty of knowledge, is honesty. I think the more honest we can be with ourselves and each other about what we don't know, and what we think we do know, the more accurately we will be able to assess the actual probabilities, and the more successful we will be at existing in the world.

This is not adding up X.
If one cannot be confident that they have the truth, that person is simply like a person in the dark, not knowing where the light is, and that would mean they are either blind, by no fault of their own, or they are blind by choice.

They are some people who fit the former, but it seems evident to me, that most people fit the latter.
They tell themselves we can't know, as an excuse to deny responsibility, but evidently, that's simply a pipe dream, because whether they accept it or not, they are responsible.

They have the opportunity to find out, and they can. that knowledge is made available to them.
They simply choose not to.
It's what many have done though - given up on finding the answers, because it seems like confusion, and too much effort required.
That's the way I see it.

The view you are presenting here, also seems to contradict any claim to faith... Unless of course that faith is the one not described in the Bible, but rather, blind faith... where one just believes without any basis for doing so.

That view also seems to contradict Romans 1:19,20, and Psalms 10:4. Or...
Perhaps I am not getting you clearly, and you can try to make it clearer?

 

[PureX]

The view you are presenting here, also seems to contradict any claim to faith... Unless of course that faith is the one not described in the Bible, but rather, blind faith... where one just believes without any basis for doing so.

You just confused faith with belief. A common mistake too often preached by religion.

Belief is that presumption of one's own 'rightness' in the face of uncertainty. While faith is choosing to trust in what we hope to be so, even though we can't know it to be so. These are very different attitudes toward the world. I think presuming ourselves to be right when we can't know it to be so is a form of dishonesty. And dishonesty leads to insanity and death. Whereas faith is the only honest way forward when we lack the requisite knowledge to know how or which way to go.

 

[nPeace]

You just confused faith with belief. A common mistake too often preached by religion.

Belief is that presumption of one's own 'rightness' in the face of uncertainty. While faith is choosing to trust in what we hope to be so, even though we can't know it to be so. These are very different attitudes toward the world. I think presuming ourselves to be right when we can't know it to be so is a form of dishonesty. And dishonesty leads to insanity and death. Whereas faith is the only honest way forward when we lack the requisite knowledge to know how or which way to go.

Thanks for explaining.
...choosing to trust in what we hope to be so... ?
That's what you believe?

I don't believe you are defining faith.
It sounds more like you are describing a wish... like someone wishing upon a star. That's not faith... at least not the faith described in the Bible.

Faith is the "title deed" of what is hoped for.
In other words, it's the guarentee that the hope is a reality, and it's based on having the evidence of that reality.
That's the faith described in the Bible. It is the faith that Jesus taught about.
Recall that Jesus did not just expect people to believe, but to consider the evidence of the reliability of things not seen.

His works were not done for his benefit.
They were done for people to believe, and have faith in him, and what he would do according to promise.
So. I think you are describing some sort of "faith", that people believe in, which is not reality, but wishing.

The Bible shows the difference between believing and faith. James 2

 

[HonestJoe]

Perhaps you can see why I object to the use of this term in this context.

I think you're getting too caught up on a single word and ignoring the context. We're talking about a conclusion to a specific item of research, not a conclusion about an entire field or study, topic or even an individual question. It could be called "discussion", "analysis" or "interpretation" but the actual content and meaning would be entirely unchanged.

I think this is part of a wider issue of people seeing common words used in a scientific context and assuming the casual meaning rather than the scientific one. The same issue happens with things like "theory" and "assumption" too. The terms are perfectly accurate and valid in the context they're being used in. They don't necessarily mean nor are intended to mean what you perceive them to.

I would also like to point out here that I shouldn't have to struggle with people so intently and for so long to maintain such a simple and obvious observation.

Would you consider the possibility that it is such a struggle because your observation isn't actually as simple and obvious as you're assuming it is?

EUREKA! He gets it! Yes. Drawing conclusions, and forming opinions, and then pretending these are the 'truth of it' (reality) is NOT SCIENCE, and not even scientific.

The drawing conclusions and forming opinions certainly it - that is the entire point of science. Treating those as definitive and unchallengeable truth would be wrong but treating them as the most reliable answers we currently have, pending further evidence and investigation, is valid. There is a balance to strike and I feel you're pushing back far too far.

It is a "human problem" fueled by a willful ignorance of science, and by the all-to-human desire to imagine that we have the means to understand 'the whole truth', when we do not, and we cannot.

Yes, so not only not a science problem but not generally a scientist problem. We're getting in to the areas of reporting, politics and education now.

What is interesting is that people warp religion to make it justify whatever preconception of truth and reality they've chosen to hold onto, just as people warp science for the exact same reason.

It remains a loical flaw to even use religion and science in the same sentence here. Religion is sets of beliefs and practices. It doesn't implicitly include anything that actually helps us understand reality. Science is a set of processes specifically designed for understanding reality. Assuming scientific results are the be-all and end-all of "truth and reality" is indeed wrong but assuming any given religious belief offers any kind of "truth and reality" is wrong too.

This is how badly a lot of people want to imagine that they have the means of understanding the 'truth of things', and that they DO understand it. And this tells us how frightened they are of facing the truth of the human condition: that we simply do not possess that means. Not through religion, and not through science, and not by any other means, either. It's simply not within our purview.

True, but religion doesn't get us anywhere, science does help us understand, including understanding how much we don't know.

What you seem to be saying is that the truth isn't really what matters.

Not that truth doesn't matter, just that, as you say yourself, we can't get at it. My point is that science is still a valid too for getting us as close to it as is humanly possible, especially in the vast range of fields were there are fewer fundamental limits to our ability to understand.

Which is why we should never allow ourselves to make a false idol of science. And why I post against this emerging cult of 'scientism', so often.

Fair enough. I just think you need to make a clear distinction between treating science as the be-all and end-all and treating science as the best of the imperfect tools we have available. The former we can legitimately criticism as "scientism" but I don't think the latter should be. I feel that line gets fuzzy far too often, and we see science and scientists being condemned in general rather than any actual "scientism".

 

[Audie]

I think you're getting too caught up on a single word and ignoring the context. We're talking about a conclusion to a specific item of research, not a conclusion about an entire field or study, topic or even an individual question. It could be called "discussion", "analysis" or "interpretation" but the actual content and meaning would be entirely unchanged.

I think this is part of a wider issue of people seeing common words used in a scientific context and assuming the casual meaning rather than the scientific one. The same issue happens with things like "theory" and "assumption" too. The terms are perfectly accurate and valid in the context they're being used in. They don't necessarily mean nor are intended to mean what you perceive them to.

Would you consider the possibility that it is such a struggle because your observation isn't actually as simple and obvious as you're assuming it is?

The drawing conclusions and forming opinions certainly it - that is the entire point of science. Treating those as definitive and unchallengeable truth would be wrong but treating them as the most reliable answers we currently have, pending further evidence and investigation, is valid. There is a balance to strike and I feel you're pushing back far too far.

Yes, so not only not a science problem but not generally a scientist problem. We're getting in to the areas of reporting, politics and education now.

How would Alexander deal with such Gordian
confusion as you deal with?

 

[PureX]

I think you're getting too caught up on a single word and ignoring the context. We're talking about a conclusion to a specific item of research, not a conclusion about an entire field or study, topic or even an individual question. It could be called "discussion", "analysis" or "interpretation" but the actual content and meaning would be entirely unchanged.

So you're saying that logic does not apply to language when it's scientists that are speaking? Because logically, the term "conclusion" clearly implies that no further investigation is warranted. The endeavor has been "concluded". And I'm quite sure that is not a position that any scientist would openly agree to. Especially in light of past instances where this occurred and set scientific inquiry back by decades, because of it. There are no "conclusions" to be had in the practice of science. There is only a tentative interpretation of apparent results; leading, then, to the next theory or variation on a theory to be tested.

I think this is part of a wider issue of people seeing common words used in a scientific context and assuming the casual meaning rather than the scientific one.

Well, all we really need to do is to use words logically in scientific discussions or otherwise, and that problem would be solved. Instead, you seem to want to defend this linguistic confusion. Why?

The same issue happens with things like "theory" and "assumption" too. The terms are perfectly accurate and valid in the context they're being used in. They don't necessarily mean nor are intended to mean what you perceive them to.

The problem is that when we allow people to deliberately misuse terms to suit their own agendas (context) there is soon no end to it, and nothing they say can be trusted to mean what it's supposed to mean, anymore. This is what happens when people try to defend the indefensible by making up new definition for words, or by parading the common misuse of a word around as justification for the misuse. (Like "gay" for homosexual.)

Would you consider the possibility that it is such a struggle because your observation isn't actually as simple and obvious as you're assuming it is?

I think it's far more likely that some people here really don;t want to separate their personal opinions (conclusions) from their imaginary pseudo-scientific justifications. Which is why they are so dead set on maintaining the idea that science creates "conclusions". Most importantly, it creates THEIR conclusions. So that science then justifies their personal conclusions about what is and isn't 'truly real'.

To get specific about science, and what it does and does not do means that their 'scientism' will be exposed for what it is. And they really don't want to see that happen! It'd be analogous to showing a religious fundamentalist that his Bible is just a book written by fallible men, about God. That it's not a book written by God, about fallible men.

The drawing conclusions and forming opinions certainly it - that is the entire point of science.

No that really isn't the point of science. The point of science is to apply our theories about how the world works to the physical world, to see if the theories work or not. And the really important thing to understand, and the thing that so many people don't want to understand, is that even when our theories do work when they are applied to the physical world, that still doesn't mean the theories are true. It only means that they function in the limited physical context to which we applied them. And it's this caveat that the 'scientism' crown absolutely does not want to acknowledge. There are even a lot of people working in the field of science that tend to ignore this most important provision. The fact is that we humans really want to believe that we can know what we can't know. Because we are profoundly frightened by what we can't know. We can't control what we can't know, and controlling our circumstances to our own advantage is what we humans are all trying to do. We live for it and we die for it and we even kill for it. Even for the illusion of it, if that's all we can get. It's why people are fighting so intently to make sure that science can provide their "conclusions".

Treating those as definitive and unchallengeable truth would be wrong but treating them as the most reliable answers we currently have, pending further evidence and investigation, is valid.

That's a popular idea, but it's not correct. Because it's not honest. And because dishonesty, especially willful dishonesty, tends to drive us into denial of reality. And that never ends well for us. It is far wiser; because it's more honest, to simply accept that a theory has shown itself to function within a given context, and to use it accordingly. There is no logical or practical need for us to presume (conclude, believe, whatever) that the theory is "right" just because it works for us in the moment.

There is a balance to strike and I feel you're pushing back far too far.

It's not a "balance" issue. It's an honesty issue. And since we humans cannot have 'the truth' (like it or not), the best we can do is be honest. Which makes that honesty thing very important. We don't get to be "right", but we can at least be honest about it. And that's what I am proposing that we be about science.

Yes, so not only not a science problem but not generally a scientist problem. We're getting in to the areas of reporting, politics and education now.

Honesty (dishonesty) is a BIG problem for we humans across ALL fields of engagement. It's probably our single greatest failing. And our single greatest threat to our own continues existence.

 

[lukethethird]

So you're saying that logic does not apply to language when it's scientists that are speaking? Because logically, the term "conclusion" clearly implies that no further investigation is warranted. The endeavor has been "concluded". And I'm quite sure that is not a position that any scientist would openly agree to. Especially in light of past instances where this occurred and set scientific inquiry back by decades, because of it. There are no "conclusions" to be had in the practice of science. There is only a tentative interpretation of apparent results; leading, then, to the next theory or variation on a theory to be tested.
Well, all we really need to do is to use words logically in scientific discussions or otherwise, and that problem would be solved. Instead, you seem to want to defend this linguistic confusion. Why?
The problem is that when we allow people to deliberately misuse terms to suit their own agendas (context) there is soon no end to it, and nothing they say can be trusted to mean what it's supposed to mean, anymore. This is what happens when people try to defend the indefensible by making up new definition for words, or by parading the common misuse of a word around as justification for the misuse. (Like "gay" for homosexual.)

Would you consider the possibility that it is such a struggle because your observation isn't actually as simple and obvious as you're assuming it is?

The drawing conclusions and forming opinions certainly it - that is the entire point of science. Treating those as definitive and unchallengeable truth would be wrong but treating them as the most reliable answers we currently have, pending further evidence and investigation, is valid. There is a balance to strike and I feel you're pushing back far too far.

Yes, so not only not a science problem but not generally a scientist problem. We're getting in to the areas of reporting, politics and education now.

Conclusions drawn are not absolutes, we're talking science, not religious dogma.

 

[Sheldon]

Perhaps you can see why I object to the use of this term in this context. I don't care how many "scientists" use this term, it's inaccurate and misleading. Which is why I am pointing out that science does not provide us with any "conclusions". It provides us with results regarding the physical functionality of a theory. Not the truth of a theory. The very word "conclude" implies no further investigation is necessary, which is antithetical to the whole purpose and process of science.

Many scientists also very often refer to homosexuals and "gay" when in fact there is no scientific experiment that has "concluded" that homosexuals are any more "gay" than anyone else. The point being that just because scientists use the term "conclusion" doesn't mean it's the logical, or appropriate term to use in the context in which they are using it. People misuse words all the time, resulting in a great deal of unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding. Let's try and avoid it, here.

I would also like to point out here that I shouldn't have to struggle with people so intently and for so long to maintain such a simple and obvious observation. And the unending determination of the objections I'm getting should be giving you and others here pause for reflection. When instead, all this clarification seems to be inspiring the opposite. Why?
EUREKA! He gets it! Yes. Drawing conclusions, and forming opinions, and then pretending these are the 'truth of it' (reality) is NOT SCIENCE, and not even scientific. It is a "human problem" fueled by a willful ignorance of science, and by the all-to-human desire to imagine that we have the means to understand 'the whole truth', when we do not, and we cannot.
What is interesting is that people warp religion to make it justify whatever preconception of truth and reality they've chosen to hold onto, just as people warp science for the exact same reason. And in both instances they not only will deny that they are doing it, they will fight tooth and nail to maintain that denial. This is how badly a lot of people want to imagine that they have the means of understanding the 'truth of things', and that they DO understand it. And this tells us how frightened they are of facing the truth of the human condition: that we simply do not possess that means. Not through religion, and not through science, and not by any other means, either. It's simply not within our purview.
Only in the sense that it is a fact that what we choose to call "truth" is really just our theory of the truth. And one that we cannot ever fully verify. Because like any scientist, or any theologian, or anyone else, all we can really do is apply our theory of truth to the circumstances of our existence and see if the theory functions as true, or not. That doesn't mean it IS true. But it does mean that it at least can function as true within the current circumstantial context. (Relative truth is the best we can get.)
What you seem to be saying is that the truth isn't really what matters. Functionality is really what matters, and that, at least, we can ascertain. But if that is what you mean, I will have to disagree. Because increasing functionality without a corresponding increase in the wisdom of truth is like throwing a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full of hyperactive and curious monkeys. This will NOT end well. Function without truth (in the form of wisdom) is just a doorway to annihilation. Which is why we should never allow ourselves to make a false idol of science. And why I post against this emerging cult of 'scientism', so often.
Actually, I think just the opposite is true. I think we don't need to presume to know things that we don't really know, at all. I think we can move through the world very well without all this blind presumption just by trusting in the probabilities. And in fact I think we're better at this when we are fully aware that they ARE probabilities, and not 'facts'. But to do this we will have to overcome our fear of not knowing. Of not knowing if God exists or not, or how God feels about us even if God does exist. Or why existence exists as it does, as opposed to some other way. And why we are cognizant of it. And on and on and on. So many questions that we are not going to get to the truth of.

Scientists draw conclusions, as does science. This false equivalence though was simply hilarious:

Many scientists also very often refer to homosexuals and "gay" when in fact there is no scientific experiment that has "concluded" that homosexuals are any more "gay" than anyone else.

Scientists can't assign adjectives now without a supporting experiment, oh brother. When you're in a pit, stop digging.

 

[PureX]

Conclusions drawn are not absolutes, we're talking science, not religious dogma.

Then use the appropriate term for it - "theory". Or, "ongoing theory" which implies the possibility of change through further inquiry. A "conclusion" implies an and of it. It implies finality. No further inquiry needed. Like it's an 'absolute'.

What's so damned difficult about using these words the way they were logically intended to be used???

 

[PureX]

Scientists draw conclusions, as does science. This false equivalence though was simply hilarious:

What's hilarious is how BADLY you need to believe that. And you have no idea why. Or even that you do.

 

[lukethethird]

Then use the appropriate term for it - "theory". Or, "ongoing theory" which implies the possibility of change through further inquiry. A "conclusion" implies an and of it. It implies finality. No further inquiry needed. Like it's an 'absolute'.

What's so damned difficult about using these words the way they were logically intended to be used???

You are using the word as if it is some kind of absolute, which it is not.

 

[lukethethird]

What's hilarious is how BADLY you need to believe that. And you have no idea why. Or even that you do.

Conlusions are not absolutes, which is what you can't seem to get around. A belief can be formulated by drawing from conclusions that are based on evidence, but that does not mean that beliefs can't be changed in light of new information, at least not for a reasonable person.