Oolon Colluphid

Richard Aberdeen has raised this matter in an email to me, and though we’ve covered it before, it’s been a while...

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

Some points to start us off: Wegener; Lord Kelvin and the age of the Earth; Einstein overturning Newton; caloric; pholgiston.

* Not Aberdeen’s words, btw. It’s an essay title

Cheers, Oolon

Worldtraveller

So what exactly is he looking for? Acquiesence because we keep learning and making new discoveries? Argument from....ummm...we may have to invent a new term!

Let's discuss Einstein 'overturning' Newton, since classic physics is a field I am more comfortable with.

First of all Einstein's work does in no way overturn Newton's classic laws of physics. All of the theories of motion derived from relativity simplify (approximate to within a very small percent when you're talking about 'everyday' non relativistic speeds) BIG surprise; Newton's Laws!!

Newton's approach to physics never even approached the realm of wondering about relativistic effects. There was no reason to at the time.

It's similar to state of the art research in aerodymanics in the late 50's. All of the 'conventional' knowledge pointed to the speed of sound being an unbreachable barrier in the presence of a medium (air). Aerodynamicists were delving into the realm of compressible flow, but it was a new field, and the approximations which had, up to that point, proven quite adequate for low speed flows, turned out to drastically change character around approximately M=0.85 or so. This doesn't mean that the physics was wrong, it's just that we have now expanded upon that knowledge and pushed the boundary a bit further. If the scientists of the time weren't open minded enough to test the limits and develop the new formulations and theories of modern compressible flow, many of the current advances enjoyed in society would not be possible (like say, jet turbine engines).

The very fact that the scientists, engineers, and visionaries at the time realized there was something 'wrong' with the science is exactly what challenged them to modify and expand, not toss out, the existing knowledge.

For what it's worth, Newton's laws are still extremely accurate even for doing fairly advanced calculations involving orbital trajectories and interplanetary travel. They are far from outdated, obsolete, or wrong.

Now, as soon as I develop that ion plasma drive I'm working on, we'll have to take into acount the relativistic effects as we load up all the telephone sanitizers and fundies and send 'em off to paradise.

Cheers,
Lane

edited because I got carried away.

Jack the Bodiless

When has science ever been overthrown by non-science?

Scientific theories are never overturned except by better scientific theories.

Science is the quest for truth: creationism is the assertion of falsehood.

That's pretty obvious from the diametrically opposed terminology they use. Scientists are so determined to keep looking for the truth that they're very reluctant to ever admit they've found some. Hence the scientific use of the word "theory".

Whereas creationism involves arbitrarily labelling a fantasy as "Truth" (with a capital "T"), and declaring that reality cannot possibly contradict this Truth.

emotional

(CAUTION: Advocacy of Devil proceeding here)

Or so you have been brought to believe. But actually, evolution started with the God-denying philosophies of the ancient Greeks (remember Protagoras? "Man is the measure of all things" - instead of God). Science is the quest for truth, but the truth of nature cannot contradict the truth of God's word, the Bible; so evolution is false science, anti-God philosophy masquerading as science. The facts can be interpreted either way: creation or evolution. Fossils can just as well be the result of a global Flood as of uniformitarian geology. Uniformitarian geology and evolution are sinful man's way of explaining the universe without the God of the Bible. As Sarfati says, "I'm not against science, I'm only against materialistic interpretations of nature".

(end devil's advocacy)

I'm of the opinion creationism is essential to the Christian religion. Christians are not going to give up on creationism any time soon. It's just that it's dishonest to say creationism is backed up by evidence, as they say. I prefer the attitude of Kurt Wise to that of Sarfati.

DMB

Regardless of how "wrong" it may have been in the past, and that is clearly up for discussion, surely science does not demand trust in its results. What seems to be worthy of trust is science as a method for arriving at truth. Part of this method lies in the understanding that any results (by which I would mean both observations and theories) are provisional and open to revision by the accepted methods.

I doubt if any modern scientist would claim to have arrived at a final, immutable truth. Some theories, such as the theory of evolution and quantum theory, seem to be spectacularly successful in both predictions and applications, but no-one would claim that they could never be overturned.

The whole process and progress of science seems to involve regularly discarding models that work less well than new ones, often over a period of decades and involving much furious argument among scientists. In this way it seems to me that on average science is assymptotic to the truth about the physical universe and it is difficult to conceive of a science that never threw out less satisfactory models in favour of more satisfactory ones.

But that, of course, is not what Aberdeen has in mind. The chances of science throwing out evolution and finding truth instead in the bible are so small as to be non-existent.

With regard to Newtonian mechanics, most of us trust it enough to cross bridges built according to its principles or to travel in planes, trains or cars, none of which ever, as far as I know, is designed by following Einstein's theories.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Hi Oolon,

I thought for a minute you'd be referring to a postmodernist/social constructivist attack on science and evolution. Since they reject empiricism, they reluctantly must side with the creationists since they think scientific investigations and evidence of human origins are simply another story just like various creation myths.

I can't remember where I heard this, but there was a debate where a critic asked the postmodernist, "why don't you just ride the broomstick home instead of taking your car?"

Jason

Happy Wonderer

I'm not sure that we should trust what science proclaims now, or that is even what scientists want. This is the difference between science and religion.

Science isn't about trust, it is about mistrust. If it was about trust, then nobody would ever work to confirm or deny Einstein's theories. Who would you rather believe, the world's Greatest Modern Scientist (tm) or some puny brain working at a lab at the University of Podunk? This is the exact sort of argument one sees from theists when they are pressed to the wall.

Of course that isn't how science works. Although it is important to incrementally expand our understanding, I think that deep down all scientists live for the major discovery that overturns some existing and well-accepted theory. Work that confirms something 'discovered' in 1945 is an undergraduate lab assignment, work that overturns it is a Nobel prize.

So, no, I don't think one should 'trust' science. I was about to say that engineers have to trust science but that isn't completely true; Boeing relies on real world tests in addition to theory when designing a new engine. Science narrows the search space so they can have a better than random chance of their engine working, but they still test something made of real metal before putting passengers up into the air.

You can't rely on the scientific method to give you a completely correct answer to any scientific problem, but history shows that you can rely on it to provide a better answer than any other currently known method.

hw

wdog

I agree with what has been said so far, the only trust is that rational inquiry can lead us to knowledge about the laws of nature. as for any one particular result, there is never 100% trust, only various levels of acceptance.

as a working scientist I can tell you that most of all, I almost always mistrust my own results, I only present after I reach a certain level of comfort but I am never 100% certain. I think most scientists share my attitude. that is one thing that bothers me about creationists, they are so sure of what they know and don't understand the pains that real science goes through.

The Lone Ranger

Actually, I was discussing the matter with a philosophy professor of my acquaintance a few years ago. She asserted that science is "just another way of looking at things" and that "all points of view are equally valid." I asked her if she actually believed that, and she claimed that she did. She went on to explain that she believed that reality is what we believe it to be, and that each of us make his/her own reality.

I pointed out that moments before, she had been complaining about the traffic when driving to work. "So, if you find the commute so stressful, why don't you just teleport yourself to work?", I asked her. "If what you claim to believe is true, you should be able to do so."

She said I was being "close-minded" and promptly changed the subject.

Cheers,

Michael

Lizard

All points of view may be equally valid in philosophy. I don't know. But even in philosophy, I would think there are disciplined methods for determining relative validity of various assertions. Given a and b and c, perhaps assertion X is true; however, if only a and c are givens, then assertion Y is more correct.

When one sets up a scientific experiment, the results are not, as creationists seem to think, subject to any old interpretation, any of which might be "true." The hypothesis states that "If (Assumption) is correct, then we would expect that when we do (This), (That) will happen." The assumption is stated so as to rule out extraneous variables, and the test is designed to test only the hypothesis. If the experiment is designed properly, and the testing methods valid, then the test will either confirm or invalidate the hypothesis. Or it may be inconclusive, in which case, the hypothesis may be restated and the experiment repeated.

Creationists of the garden variety, i.e., non-scientists (and the public at large), generally have little to no understanding of the scientific method. The scientists at ICR, Discovery Institute, and other creationist organizations have undoubtedly been taught and required to use the scientific method, but somehow are unable or unwilling to employ it to test their anti-evolutionary beliefs. It hardly matters, though, I imagine, since the purpose of denying evolution or any aspect of modern science is to stave off doubts about the validity of the Bible as the Word of God, and hence, the existence of God.

If God were constrained to the state of scientific knowledge (non-existent, since the concept of "science" wasn't invented until the 17th century or so) at the time the books of the Bible were written, then we would be in the position today where modern scientists who can cure diseases and help create better food crops, etc., actually knew more and were more powerful than God. Is that the real fear?