What's Wrong With Science?

[destructo]

Once a theory is embraced, its ideas become solidified as facts within the scientific community.

Absolutely false, ideas are never solidified as facts within the scientific community aside from laws, but even those can be deemed obsolete. Science is self correcting, this means that if a theory is shown to be false via scientific experimentation and can be reliably reproduced by others, it will either be tweaked to fit the new evidence or dismissed completely. Science discards ideas that just don't work. The simple process of keeping ideas that work and discarding ideas that don't work has built an amazing edifice of knowledge.

Scientific findings don't always conclude things with a 100% proof.

If it did, we wouldn't be where we are today. If we blindly accepted ideas as fact, science would have been finished a long time ago.

“Theory” usually refers to the non-practical aspect of work, unproven things, and speculation of a single idea.

Wrong again. Theories have to be practical so they can stand up against rigorous experimentation. Instead of thinking they describe "unproven things" think of them as something that are yet to be disproven. It if were disproven, it would no longer be a theory. Theories are not the "speculation of a single idea". Theories are a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. You have to start somewhere when trying to figure out the inner workings of the universe, which means we must make assumptions. It's all part of the scientific method. Tell me, can you think of a better way to acquire new knowledge than this?

PART 1 – Observation through Hypothesis
1. Curious Observation
2. Is There a Problem?
3. Goals and Planning
4. Search, Explore, & Gather the Evidence
5. Generate Creative & Logical Alternatives
6. Evaluate the Evidence
7. Make the Educated Guess

Part II – Challenge through Suspend Judgment
8. Challenge the Hypothesis
9. Reach a Conclusion
10. Suspend Judgment

Part III – Implementation or Peer Review
11. Take Action

Supporting Ingredients

Part IV – Action or Applied Ingredients
12. Creative, Non-logical, Logical & Technical Methods
13. Procedural Principles & Theories
14. Attributes & Thinking Skills

People like Heisenburg place belief in studies that do not render true definate facts.

Science does not yield "true definite facts" that's the beauty of it. Science is, however, the closest we can get to understanding the world around us.

Theory of relativity = never proven to be true

Are you saying that every experiment designed to test the theory of relativity failed? If this were true it would no longer be a theory, it would be viewed as hogwash.

Theory of gravity = never proven to be true

Newton's law of universal gravitation is without a doubt true. What ever made you think it was a theory? You might want to go back to grade school.

Scientific law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Newton's law of universal gravitation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Theory of evolution = contrary to popular belief NOT PROVEN TO BE TRUE

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form” that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happen—especially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

 

[Heisenberg]

Sounds alot like how the originators of any holy text decided to edit, revise, pick and choose what would be in their holy final draft. Regaurdless of concrete evidence.

The scientific method and peer review sounds to you like cherry picking and twisting data? You have the exact opposite understanding of what it is, since one of the goals is to prevent bias, cherry picking, or mis-interpreting data.

I wouldn't know since I don't belong to a religion.

So not only do you misunderstand science, but you don't have a grasp of religion either. Perhaps you are the one who picks and chooses what feels right to believe.

Is there no aspect of faith within science? I'll answer for you, yes there is, and once again what you tell me is subjective. The answers you speak of are relevant to who exactly? The important questions about life, nature, earth and its inhabitants that I feel most people need to know haven't been satisfied by science because they can't be.

The answers science provides are relevant to anyone who wants to clearly understand reality. Scientific faith is the exact opposite of religious faith. Science puts faith in results. If I drop a pencil to the ground 9 times and gravity pulls it to the floor each time, then I have reasonable faith that it will do so the tenth time as well. Religion turns to faith as a trump card anytime it is unable to answer questions. Why does God chose to kill bunnies with forest fires? Well he works in mysterious ways. In other words, have faith, be satisfied with ignorance.

A person who places whole hearted belief in science/logic is pursuing answers to questions that science/logic can not be reached (as of now). Therefore science also answers questions without providing answers.

Your logic is a bit on the schizophrenic side here. Again you are simply saying science doesn't have all the answers. The difference is that science does not cater to ignorance, or depend on ignorance for it's existence. When science doesn't have an answer it just keep trying, instead of deciding that we are not worthy of knowing.

What you and others in this thread seem to be indicating is that most often when someone has a problem with science, it is a result of that person misunderstanding what science is, says, and represents.

 

[mindphuk]

Is there no aspect of faith within science? I'll answer for you, yes there is, and once again what you tell me is subjective. The answers you speak of are relevant to who exactly? The important questions about life, nature, earth and its inhabitants that I feel most people need to know haven't been satisfied by science because they can't be. A person who places whole hearted belief in science/logic is pursuing answers to questions that science/logic can not be reached (as of now). Therefore science also answers questions without providing answers.

The answers science provides are relevant to anyone who wants to clearly understand reality. Scientific faith is the exact opposite of religious faith. Science puts faith in results. If I drop a pencil to the ground 9 times and gravity pulls it to the floor each time, then I have reasonable faith that it will do so the tenth time as well. Religion turns to faith as a trump card anytime it is unable to answer questions. Why does God chose to kill bunnies with forest fires? Well he works in mysterious ways. In other words, have faith, be satisfied with ignorance.

Heis, do not let him get away with that! I get so sick and tired of this idea that science and/or reason requires faith. This is a pure equivocation fallacy. Look it up KK, you are using two different definitions of faith, making your claim fallacious. It is just as ridiculous as example given:
1. If something is hot, it will burn you if you touch it.
2. Halle Berry is hot
3. You will get burned if you touch Halle Berry.

This is what you just did only with the word 'faith.'

The faith that people in general are referring to when it comes to religious ideas is acceptance of a belief without or contrary to evidence. Faith is believing in something when there is no damn good reason to. Science has zero faith. Science is about confidence, in fact we deal with levels of confidence all of the time. Some things we have such high levels of confidence that the model is correct, it becomes appropriate to call it truth.

 

[Mike Young]

1. If something is hot, it will burn you if you touch it.
2. Halle Berry is hot
3. You will get burned if you touch Halle Berry.

This is what you just did only with the word 'faith.'

I love logic! I'll go ahead and continue to be amazed by science and wit. And cartel criminal can have the sky wizard. I'm ok with that.

But somebody's gotta give the sky wizard a science book. Seriously.

 

[Heisenberg]

Heis, do not let him get away with that! I get so sick and tired of this idea that science and/or reason requires faith. This is a pure equivocation fallacy. Look it up KK, you are using two different definitions of faith, making your claim fallacious.

Heh, I thought I was pointing out the difference between religious faith and the type of faith he was using, but I see your point. I may be putting too much faith in his ability to extract a point from my paragraph.

 

[secretweapon]

Evolution is the way all organisms pass on ancestral dna to the next generation. Honesty I think we are all bacteria consuming our host (earth) and that's our purpose

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

Look, the main idea I'm trying to push here is that the shortcomings of both science and religon usually fall into the same bracket. Compiling evidence through scientifc procedures isn't going to explain everything that needs to be explained. A world that was never introduced to religion would be just as chaotic as it is today. People used religion to exploit people so why wouldn't science be a viable choice? Theres nothing wrong with science. It is what it is.

This is a pure equivocation fallacy. Look it up KK, you are using two different definitions of faith, making your claim fallacious.

Actually I was applying the idea of faith to both science and religion. There's nothing fallace about what I say because I don't speak falsely. You interpreted what I said to be false because you haven't been paying close enough attention.

Faith is believing in something when there is no damn good reason to.

Subjective statement once again. What your ideas lack I have already attained through faith. Hows about I invert what you just said to criticize you? Science is searching for something when there is no damn good reason to. I don't necessarilly believe that but both science and religion are stagnant. Stagnant in explaining issues of our demension and the origion of human life.

Science has zero faith.

You have zero critical thinking capabilities. It requires faith to believe in anything you can't prove.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Look, the main idea I'm trying to push here is that the shortcomings of both science and religon usually fall into the same bracket.

You're wrong. You can sit here and say the faith required to believe in a god is the same kind of faith scientists use when coming to conclusions all day long, but the bottom line is you're wrong. You don't understand the words you're using, if you did you would realize the arguments against your points are completely valid yet you sidestep them when brought up.

Faith in science is not the same as faith within religion.

The point you seem to be trying to make is essentially "I have faith in _____, you have faith in science, so we're even, you believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe, neither one of us can be right or wrong" which is logistically wrong in so many ways. Reality is not subjective, you seem to think it is. This is the very reason the scientific method exists as it does - to eliminate the subjectivity of reality and observe what is OBJECTIVELY true to all of us. I couldn't care any less about your own little subjective reality, why? Because it means nothing to me, it's useless to me, to anyone else who is not you. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it doesn't yield any useful information, ours does. Tell me one thing, just ONE thing that religion - that is, ANY religion - has given us that science couldn't. Guess how many things science has given us that religion couldn't...?

Compiling evidence through scientifc procedures isn't going to explain everything that needs to be explained.

An impossible task (that's the beauty of science, it never stops, there are always new questions to answer no matter how much knowledge you gain)

A world that was never introduced to religion would be just as chaotic as it is today.

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree with that statement. I personally think we'd be much more advanced than we are today if religion hadn't been humanities proverbial ball and chain for thousands of years.

People used religion to exploit people so why wouldn't science be a viable choice?

It might very well be, what would make anyone think anything different? Technology in the wrong hands can obviously lead to terrible things. But because the potential exists for bad things to happen does not mean the whole of science is flawed.

Also, an important thing to point out is that there is no dogma within science, which is usually what permits the heinous acts we see committed in the name of religion.

 

[destructo]

Faith is giving ones self permission to be ignorant, or to persist in delusion. Faith is a way of satisfying questions without providing answers.

Is there no aspect of faith within science? I'll answer for you, yes there is, and once again what you tell me is subjective. The answers you speak of are relevant to who exactly? The important questions about life, nature, earth and its inhabitants that I feel most people need to know haven't been satisfied by science because they can't be. A person who places whole hearted belief in science/logic is pursuing answers to questions that science/logic can not be reached (as of now). Therefore science also answers questions without providing answers.

Actually I was applying the idea of faith to both science and religion. There's nothing fallace about what I say because I don't speak falsely. You interpreted what I said to be false because you haven't been paying close enough attention.

There is obviously more than one definition of faith and you are using two of them. This is called the equivocation fallacy. What he said, in my opinion, was within the confines of the word faith.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust

What do you think would be a more effective way of trying to figure out the unknown? Dub it as the unknown and say god did it without any further effort on your part, or scientifically drive toward understanding things that are unknown to us?

Equivocation: Using a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Consider this example: “Plato says the end of a thing is its perfection; I say that death is the end of life; hence, death is the perfection of life.” Here the word end means "goal" in Plato's usage, but it means "last event" or "termination" in the author's second usage. Clearly, the speaker is twisting Plato's meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. Compare with amphiboly.

​

Definition of FAITH

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b : fidelity to one's promises : sincerity of intentions
​

2

a : belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust
​

3

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
​

&#8212; on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>
​

Examples of FAITH

• His supporters have accepted his claims with blind faith.
• Our faith in the government has been badly shaken by the recent scandals.
• Lending him the money to start his own business was an act of faith.
• It requires a giant leap of faith for us to believe that she is telling the truth.
• Nothing is more important to her than her faith in God.
• She says that her faith has given her the courage to deal with this tragedy.
• Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. &#8212;Joe Klein, Time, 17 May 2004

 

[Heisenberg]

There's nothing fallace about what I say because I don't speak falsely. You interpreted what I said to be false because you haven't been paying close enough attention.

But you do show inconsistency in your logic. In this case you incorporate the premise into the conclusion. I don't speak falsely therefore I don't speak falsely. If what I said is false, then it's not what I said. Also known as "no true Scotsman" fallacy, a form of circular reasoning. It is mistakes like this that the scientific method corrects for. Much of what you say (Evolution is not proven, theories are just ideas) is a result of ignorance and lack of critical thought. I don't mean that to be offensive, I just mean that you show a lack of understanding and a tendency to be inconsistent, at least on these topics. How can you place any trust in your conclusions without being carefully educated and consistent? You seem to be saying that ultimately the answers that satisfy me may not be the same ones that satisfy you, and we must depend on our own intuition to decide whats right. There is a mountain of data that says the human brain can not be trusted to make conclusions based on experience alone.

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

You're wrong. You can sit here and say the faith required to believe in a god is the same kind of faith scientists use when coming to conclusions all day long, but the bottom line is you're wrong. You don't understand the words you're using, if you did you would realize the arguments against your points are completely valid yet you sidestep them when brought up.

So basically the mode now is to criticized and save face. Your full of crap to be frank. I haven't sidestepped one issue yet. That was a false statement you made as well as a weak move to desparately criticize me. Every post thats been directed towards me I've confronted head on. I understand every word I use but I don't understand your lack of respect.

Reality is not subjective, you seem to think it is. This is the very reason the scientific method exists as it does - to eliminate the subjectivity of reality and observe what is OBJECTIVELY true to all of us. I couldn't care any less about your own little subjective reality, why? Because it means nothing to me, it's useless to me, to anyone else who is not you..

Its good to see your emotional. That makes it easier for me to defeat you. Your taking what I've said out of context because that is your only scape goat now. My reality is just as real as your reality. There is no requirement for you to care about something that is only unique to me.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that it doesn't yield any useful information, ours does.

You make it sound like science is more productive and useful than anyones faith or religion has ever been.Thats a phat NO. "Useful information"? Do I have to use the "S word" again?

Tell me one thing, just ONE thing that religion - that is, ANY religion - has given us that science couldn't. Guess how many things science has given us that religion couldn't...

Comfort, spiritulism, hope, determination, integrity, foundation, ethics, and morals. You can take them or leave them.

 

[Heisenberg]

Its good to see your emotional. That makes it easier for me to defeat you. Your taking what I've said out of context because that is your only scape goat now. My reality is just as real as your reality. There is no requirement for you to care about something that is only unique to me.

The goal of any debate should not be to win, but to find common ground. If both sides start at the same place, use consistent valid logic, then both sides should reach the same conclusion. The goal of debate is to find where and why the sides diverge as to gain a better understanding of both positions. You seem more interested in snappy comebacks than actually reaching any sort of understanding. If you were paying attention as you suggest to others, you would see that his words were not a personal attack, but a conclusion. You were using the word faith in two different context, which means you either don't understand the words, or are purposely trying to deceive. He gave you the benefit of the doubt. And again, reality is not subjective. There is only one reality. There is my way of experiencing reality and there is your way of experiencing reality, neither of those effect actual reality.

You make it sound like science has been more productive than anyones faith.Thats a phat no. Useful? Do I have to use the "S word" again?

Science has been far more productive at correctly explaining the world we see around us, which is what it tries to do. Since this is the only goal of science, it can not be subjective. If you find the answers provided by science less valuable than those provided by religion, then you are saying you value a clear view of reality less than fantastic speculation of reality.

Comfort, spiritulism, hope, determination, integrity, foundation, ethics, and morals. You can take them or leave them.

Really? You think comfort and hope can not be found in science? You think religion is good source of morals? You think determination and integrity comes from holy teachings? Really? Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, utter mis-education on the subjects you argue.

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

You seem to be saying that ultimately the answers that satisfy me may not be the same ones that satisfy you, and we must depend on our own intuition to decide whats right. There is a mountain of data that says the human brain can not be trusted to make conclusions based on experience alone.

Then what good is free will?

 

[Heisenberg]

Then what good is free will?

The human brain is prone to mistakes of perception, memory, and logic. This is a well understood and well documented fact. What does that have to do with free will?

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

Really? You think comfort and hope can not be found in science? You think religion is good source of morals? You think determination and integrity comes from holy teachings? Really? Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, utter mis-education on the subjects you argue.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I'm not religious. I'm a theist. Stop trying to paint a picture of me because you fail at it.

 

[Heisenberg]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I'm not religious. I'm a theist. Stop trying to paint a picture of me because you fail at it.

Where in that quote do I site absence of evidence? The picture was painted by your words, which I reasonably responded to. You were asked specifically about religion, and responded specifically about religion. If someone is failing, it is you at once again side stepping straight forward questions. This is turning into a Monty Python skit. The more we try to point out your mistakes, the more you make them.

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

The human brain is prone to mistakes of perception, memory, and logic. This is a well understood and well documented fact. What does that have to do with free will?

I experience life and do as I freely will. Mistakes of perception, memory, and logic begat from social, emotional and other habitual patterns. Not something I'm supposedly prone to.

 

[Heisenberg]

I experience life and do as I freely will. Mistakes of perception, memory, and logic begat from social, emotional and other habitual patterns. Not something I'm supposedly prone to.

Mistakes of memory, perception and logic would still be present in an isolated and emotionless individual. Those mistakes come from internal mechanisms, not external influences. Once again, you are ignorant of what those mistakes are, and respond based on your half baked understanding. What seems more likely, that you are above making those sorts of mistakes, or that you don't understand the nature and specifics of those mistakes? And again you side step the question of what any of that has to do with free will.

 

[Kartel Kriminal]

The picture was painted by your words, which I reasonably responded to. You were asked specifically about religion, and responded specifically about religion.

So even though the first post I made clearly stated that I don't have a religion but an ideaology your still going to label me? That was a good strategy. I chose to defend religion and you and some others chose to generalize my beliefs. I haven't been putting religion over science this whole time. I've been comparing them and thats just so frustrating to you folks.

 

[Heisenberg]

So even though the first post I made clearly stated that I don't have a religion but an ideaology your still going to label me? That was a good strategy. I chose to defend religion and you and some others chose to generalize my beliefs. I haven't been putting religion over science this whole time. I've been comparing them and thats just so frustrating to you folks.

You were asked about religion, responded about religion, and then when I also respond about religion, suddenly I am labeling you. Are you suggesting our arguments are invalid because we are frustrated? Do you think it's your comparatives that upset us, or your errors when making those comparatives and your nonsensical defense of those errors?