BioBeing

I want to add a slightly different angle to this debate... science in the media is often presented as final and true - someone has a new drug that cures all cancer, someone has a perpetual motion machine - that the public start to wonder about every claim. So people - the public - see science as untrustworthy.

Duvenoy

Indeed, I agree. But that ain't science, that's flim-flam.

The problem is a lack of critical thinking that can be taken advantage of by anyone with a good line. This includes not only the makers of Q bracelets and fat-burning pills, but spiritual and political blather as well, and that's a damned shame. Why do not people study the evidence before accepting / rejecting the claim?

I don't know the solution. How do you convince someone that they should think?

doov

Clutch

In other words, by applying inductive reasoning to data regarding past cases gleaned from careful observation, we conclude that science is unreliable.

It's so helpful when an argument just refutes itself for you!

Lizard

Creationists seem to object to science because they think science claims to be "THE Truth," and (a) "THE Truth" must be unchanging; and (b) "THE Truth" is only to be found in the Bible.

The fallacy of the objection is that scientists don't claim to have "THE Truth," or even truth with a small "t." What scientists do is conduct research geared toward developing the best natural explanations for how physical stuff happens, based on current evidence. That means as we learn more, our explanations may change.

Doubt is what science is all about, not certainty. Once certainty sets in, science stops.

There are cases where we can be pretty sure we know what's going on. Evolution, for example, has been observed directly in the laboratory, and indirectly in the wild, via ring species. Therefore, we know that new species evolve from existing ones. This is a fact, not an opinion or an interpretation. I still wouldn't cal it "truth," though. I would call it a very well-supported conclusion based on direct observation.

Clutch

All points of view are not equally acceptable in philosophy. It pains me to see stories like TLR's, because I know there are people like that out there in my discipline. But the entire question of evidential standards for assertion and inference is one that is pursued within philosophy -- it encompasses both epistemology and the entire field of logic. If anything, we tend to be a bit obsessive about it.

Peter Soderqvist

There is a huge difference between scientific facts, and the scientific theory about these facts! Thus when a theory is flawed, its facts are still valid, and thus must be incorporated in the new theory, together with the new experimental facts, which has invalidated the old theory, so it stands to reason that, the new theory cannot be so different, that the old facts don't fit in anymore! The Newtonian mechanics are invalid when it comes to high speeds, or when the objects are so small that it has no well-defined trajectories, the quantum is discontinuous transfer of energy! Point out to the creationist that; the relativity theory, and quantum mechanics, are too ungainly to be used in normal circumstances, so we still use Newtonian mechanics, how can it be so if you are on to something here "Because science has been wrong so many times in the past, we cannot trust what it proclaims now." In this context, it is precisely as the word modification doesn't exist in the creationists' vocabulary!

DMB

I think I would prefer to say that a theory has to deal with "observations" rather than "facts". Most observations will be accepted as valid, but sometimes they are open to criticism as the result of poor accuracy, sloppiness, bad experimental design, exclusion of unwanted results, plain fraud, or whatever. So occasionally the "facts" may change.

Kruzkal

Life-threatening allergic reaction to the world being round, burning "witches", KKK, etc?

"Because religion has been wrong so many times in the past, we cannot trust what it proclaims now." Discuss:

__________________

Philosophy - Questions that cannot be answered
Religion - Answers that cannot be questioned

Walross

This whole thread reminds me of a quote from the late Isaac Asimov:

I think he sums it up nicely.

Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: What I mean with facts is for instance Newton's three laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics! In example, Newton's second law of motion must be modified when it comes to high speed! His second law is nonsense when it comes to velocity close to light speed, but is very accurate description regarding everyday objects like cars' accelerations, and the theory of relativity with Newtonian physics included, is too ungainly to be used, hence the old Newtonian theory is still going strong under ordinary circumstances!