HOME | DD
slyeagle β Science is not Infallible
by-nc-sa
Published: 2008-04-18 21:46:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 8483; Favourites: 159; Downloads: 64
Redirect to original
Description
Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. Yet, the general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths. They think that if something is not certain, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, then any other non-scientific view is its equal. This misconception seems to be, at least in part, behind the general lack of understanding about the nature of scientific theories.From The Skeptic's Dictionary
In this day and age people will take anything with a grain of salt up until it has "scientifically proven" attached to it. Then it's accepted as an absolute truth. As a person with faith, I personally have had it up to the ceiling with people whose religion is "scientifically proven" and telling me everything I believe in is "scientifically proven" to be wrong. Once and for all, I'd like to say that science is the systematic observation of the natural world and is simply a mode of human understanding. It can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural.
Furthermore, scientific claims can ALWAYS be amended or disproved by new evidence and should NEVER be accepted as the final answer. People who further scientific claims usually do so with a very human agenda. In the early 1900s, Westerners believed that science had explained everything there was to know and there was nothing new to be learned. This included that bathing was bad for you (Europeans still believed that at this era). Up until 1945, the American law called for compulsory sterilization of the "feeble-minded" or otherwise "unfit," because these people were "scientifically proven" to create defective children. Up until very recently, people fighting for animal rights had a hard time going up against the fact that animals were scientifically proven to be programmed by instinct and were devoid of thoughts and feelings. Just two years ago, Lydia Fairchild nearly lost custody of all three of her biological children because current DNA testing was considered "infallible" in the courts. Makes you wonder how many innocent people we're sending to prison based on faulty science.
So support science AND humanity. Don't accept whatever is the current scientific claim as absolute truth!
Related content
Comments: 205
Some things are true. We KNOW that the earth goes round the sun, that nerve cells in the unborn form the connections that make up the brain between 12 to 13 weeks into pregnancy, that gay people cannot control being gay any more than straight people, that vaccines do not cause autism, and that vaccines aren't infallible. We KNOW throw analysis, testing and thorough study that these things are true. We can prove these things time and time again. These are reality.
Now... I doΒ agree that science isn't right 100% of the time, but it's beyond infuriating when people use the "science isn't infallible" excuse to dismiss genuine hard facts that are definitely true. Some things are simply true and to dismiss them so carelessly because of a distrust in genuine scientifically proved facts is horrible and stunts the growth and development of society and humanity as a species.
π: 1 β©: 0
True, but it's the best you've got.
Honestly, I know no serious people who claim science IS infallible (though I have seen religious people claiming their holy scripture is infallible).
the understanding of the universe will never be complete, even though the absolute truth does exist, we will probably never quite reach it.
However, science gives us the best way to come as close as possible to it. Scientific theories are the closest approximations to the truth that there are given the current evidence.
When the evidence changes, you change the theory, no shame in that : we know we didn't have quite as much evidence at first.
I have met some people who take huge issue with this, so they resort to blindly trusting a holy book and stop questioning. That's lazy and massively intelectually dishonest.
π: 0 β©: 0
Science is a wonderful thing.....but indeed, it is not infallible at all.
The eugenics movement is a great example of that. But so too, I think, is how the mainstream scientific community has dealt with certain alternative disciplines, such as consciousness studies(including research on near death experiences, which are largely brushed off by most, still, despite steadily growing evidence in favor of their existence).
π: 0 β©: 0
Science is currently Β at a loss to even know what 95% of the universe is made up of. It's embarrassing as an amateur astronomer having to resort to labels such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I'd might as well be saying that the universe is mostly made up of an inflating invisible pony andΒ fairy dustΒ matter.
Scientist Sir Martin Reese has even speculated the possibility that humanity has, or is reaching a point, where science starts to break down. From what I've seen, the subject of astronomy andΒ cosmologyΒ appears toΒ have reached this point, or will very soon reach it.
π: 0 β©: 2
I heard some scientists think our universe could be a simulation.
π: 0 β©: 0
Science might not know what most things are, but the whole goal of science is to find out. It's basically just the addition of knowledge to how our universe works. At least were not sticking something inside the unknown, like god or some shit.
π: 0 β©: 2
That's why so many things that can't exactly be proven by them yet are called theories. They never claimed it to be fully real(like with the whole dark matter and dark energy stuff). And, yes, it's far better than any unrealistic god. That much is true.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cosmology has begun to turn into a philosophy, just look at String Theory. As humans our science and math have begun to reach their limit.
We're at a crossroads when it comes to science and math.Β
Unless we all turn into V'GRs ("Voyager 6's") religion will always be a natural outcome of human consciousness, just like art.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then let's hope we evolve into something smarter than humans, eh?
: P
π: 0 β©: 0
Exactly. Science is stating that nothing is. This is the main reason I keep distance to religion since it is usually built up on the concept of infallibility.
π: 0 β©: 0
Look at it another way. Science is how the universe works, and is infallible. Scientists, however, are human, and can be wrong. Just because a person or group of people is wrong about something doesn't mean that science has failed, just that humans were wrong again.
π: 0 β©: 0
And who are the ones to know this best? The scientists. It's science the first to know that not all experiments find a certain proof of something. Science tells the way an experiment proves something ot not.
Β
Science isn't perfect. It's just the only thing that can get any result.
π: 0 β©: 1
The problem is, a lot of scientists like to treat science like it is perfect. That is really what the stamp is criticizing.
π: 0 β©: 1
I've never heard one scientist claiming that science is something metaphysic, in fact it's the opposite. It's often journalists who scream out loud that science has proven some unlikely fact with certainess. All scientists do is their work. Different branches have different levels of proving things and different scientific principles can prove determined things. To understand how supposed scientific claims are more or less true you need to listen to different sources and know a bitΒ about the argument in question. Few people care to inform correctly everyone.
π: 0 β©: 1
When did I say that there scientists think science is metaphysical (thought there actually are)? I meant that there are many scientists who believe that they can find the answers for every last answer that there is in the universe and that certain theories that have been proposed are 100% fact, ignoring disposing evidence and yelling out anyone who tries to question them.
π: 0 β©: 1
"there are many scientists who believe that they can find the answers for every last answer that there is in the universe"
We don't have 1 billionth of every last answer in the universe. So even conceiving them is meaningless. Meanwhile there are many more ignorant people who think that science hasn't found solution for problems that have been solved decades or centuries ago, and who'd want science not to do things they're against, claiming that "there are other ways to study", without having a clue themselves about which ones.
"ignoring disposing evidence and yelling out anyone who tries to question them."
Honestly I've never seen any example of this, by scientists, only by ignorant people talking about arguments they didn't have a clue on.
π: 0 β©: 1
Precisely, but there are still scientists who try to explain everything anyway
Some of which have been scientists, trust me when I say some scientists might as well be religious fanatics
π: 0 β©: 1
What you folks need to watch is The Little Island by Richard Williams. It's a philosophical argument without words. I'll let you come to your own conclusions on it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDcTRVβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
That was very interesting! Thank you for showing that
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome. 
π: 0 β©: 1
The thing about science is, though, that it never claims to be absolutely true. At least not by any reputable scientists.
The fact that nothing in science is ever absolutely certain or true is the core of the scientific method.
But what many religious people do, like stating nonsense like "I don't believe in evolution", is even more of a problem. Because while science can certainly be wrong and there were occasions where this has been known to be the case, it actually isn't in most cases. To quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson ...
βThe good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.β
π: 0 β©: 1
Funny thing is that last quote works perfectly for Christianity as well, "Its true whether or not you believe in it" XD
π: 0 β©: 1
No, it doesn't. The quote works for science because science is demonstrably true. In theory, you could verify each and every scientific theory, law, etc. for yourself - the evidence is there, you'd just have to evaluate it.
Christianity, and any other religion, is not demonstrably true. I cannot verify it for myself because the evidence I would need for that isn't there. All christianity has to offer is an old book full of stories that were written in a historical context but not necessarily describing historical events accurately. Imagine that in a few hundred years someone would read Stephen King's book 11/22/63 (which, in case you didn't read it, deals with a time traveller attempting to prevent JFK from being shot) and make a case based upon that book that time travel is real, since King accurately describes the US in the 50s and 60s and the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination - therefore the rest of the book (which we know to be fiction) must be completely true and accurate as well.
Taking the bible as evidence for anything supernatural, including so-called "miracles" or the existence of a god is roughly like that.
So, no ... quote-mining and taking those quotes out of context will not help your case. It will only show people who understand the subject that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
π: 0 β©: 1
Touchy :/
π: 0 β©: 1
Not really. Just assuming people mean exactly what they say. Safer bet on the internet, you know.
π: 0 β©: 1
Very good point
May God bless
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh boy, I hope not ... ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
You're righ. Some people don't seem to understand that the very pillar/core/foundation(Whatever you would call it) of science is the awareness of that everything you thought to be right all your life could suddenly one day sucker-punch you in the face and say "HA, FOOLED YA!!!"
A scientist is someone who keep their guard up at all times, waiting, just waiting for the inevitable boxing-glove trying to sucker-punch you - They are prepared and ready to counter it at any time with logic and reason.
God is not impossible, only improbable.
Many think that there are only three choices when it comes to supernatural stuff and gods - Belief, disbelief and uncertainity....But there's a fourth option, probability. Given our current level of understanding of the laws of the universe, such things seem improbable. We are just beginning to explore the the realm of quantum physics.
And I think that the question isn't "Is there a god?", but rather "Can the law of the universe support the existence of a god?". Maybe there is NO god, but it could also at the same time be POSSIBLE for there to BE a god(s) in this universe. That something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't one day be real, humans for example didn't always exist...But we do now.
π: 0 β©: 0
What I find tiresome --and troubling--among the more hardcore 'Gnu' Athiest strain is the complete, or near complete, dismissiveness of other avenues of learning, thought and study outside of the 'hard', physical sciences. As an atheist myself I don't like to say this, but a quick perusal of many of the blogs favored by the extreme 'science is infallible' camp (which are usually the blogs which align themselves strongly with New Atheist thought) reveals a good bit of smug, rather smirking contempt for such fields of study as philosophy, the arts, literature and the humanities. I personally find this narrow way of thinking highly disturbing; there seems to be a trend among many 'gnus' to suggest that all of these fields are mental wankfests, wastes of one's intellectual substance, and that only the glorious pursuit of 'science' is, or can be, in any way valuable to humanity.
Particularly disturbing, I find, is the hardline atheist's contempt for philosophy in any and all forms...almost as if they conflate the very idea of philosophy with that of religious thought. Disturbing, because, IMO science, in order to have a functioning ethical component, very much requires the exercise and disciplines of philosophical thought that is necessary to avoid the sort of moral neutrality which can allow for such things as the development of biochemical weaponry, 'scientifc' sterilization, and of course, that hoary old classic, the development of atomic weaponry. Would that many of the learned minds who came to Los Alamos in those early days allowed their, in many cases, not insubstantial knowledge of the disciplines of philosophical ethics to take some supremacy over their amoral desire to 'disinterestedly' be in on the creation of horrific weapons of mass death and suffering. The fact is, a good number of them came to their moral, ethical, and philosophical senses well after the fact--but by then it was far too late.
Modern athiests who enshrine 'disinterested science' would do well to examine the post-Los Alamos thinking of some of these scientists just a bit more closely than many of them have appeared to.
π: 0 β©: 0
"Up until 1945, the American law called for compulsory sterilization of the "feeble-minded" or otherwise "unfit," because these people were "scientifically proven" to create defective children. "
...That sound like Nazism..
I agree with you completely!
π: 0 β©: 0
The fun thing about science is that at any time anything can happen.
Tomorrow I might disprove gravity.
I might also vomit invisible monkeys that fly to Jupiter and eat it. Who knows?
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm pretty sure science is aware that it's fallible; that's why experiments are repeated over and over and if something is proved wrong it's reinstated or thrown out.
π: 0 β©: 0
Science is fallible and that's what makes it great: it's ability to change. I agree, there is no such thing as absolute scientific proof. No fact is ever proven, only backed by substantial amounts of evidence. We are limited to our humanity. People today just need to learn to be flexible. With knowledge growing so quickly, whole worlds are literally opening before our eyes by the year.
The people who believe in absolute scientific or religious truths are just misconstruing what is plainly evident.
π: 0 β©: 0
Is human logic fallible? Because all science is basically human observation.
π: 0 β©: 0
I just want to point out that this, whatever it is, is so loaded with misconseptions it makes my foot itch. ...and causes small villages in Southeast Asia to spontaneously combust.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for not paying attention, then?
π: 0 β©: 1
Feel free to enlighten me if I missed something that changes this, I prefer knowing about having been wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
Look, I'm just trying to point out that science is fallible and scientific claims shouldn't be taken as absolute truth. There will be new data next month. I'm (not really) sorry if that makes your foot itch, but I'm dubious that it is affecting villages in Asia.
π: 0 β©: 0
Science may be a great tool for understanding the world, but it is hardly free of values, nor is it morally neutral. Consider the development and implementation of the atomic bomb, for example.
π: 0 β©: 0
Like how people think embryonic stem cells will cure people when they actually cause teratumors and use aborted infants, and adult stem cells already cure people with little to no controversy?
π: 0 β©: 0
I completely agree, but I wonder this really needs to be stressed like this. Maybe its just personal experience, but most people I've talked to who accept science knows this. Meanwhile, quite a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that because science doesn't offer axioms it means that science is worthless. It's the fact that science is a self-correcting process, that it aims to recognize its own errors and correct them that makes it such a useful tool to find the truth. Yet most people seem to miss this, because all the time I hear "Why should I trust scientists? they keep changing their minds!"
So, I think that the message that "science works, bitches!" is much more important to get out there than this. I apprechiate the fact that you point it out in an intelligent and informed way, but I don't think I or my felow science-lovers NEED this pointed out to us, because everyone else out there with a bible or a pamplet on new age philosophy and a chip on their shoulder have already pointed it out.
π: 0 β©: 4
Science
"If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong.
If you don't correct those mistakes, you're really doing it wrong.
If you can't accept that you're mistaken, you're not doiing it at all."
And yes, I know this comment is old.
π: 0 β©: 0
You might infer that if I had not had some very frustrating experiences trying to defend my point of view from people who don't even understand the scientific method, I wouldn't have felt compelled to make the stamp.
You are, of course, welcome to make your own "science works, bitches" stamp.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hello, Well, I made this comment earlier, but then I realized that you, the creator the stamp, might not see it because it was posted as a response to someone else's comment. So...here's it again, left here because it seemed to fit pretty well with the conversation:
"Science does not claim to be infallible, and reassesses its conclusions when new information and new evidence is presented. Some people like to think of science as a thing. Science, within the context of this discussion*, is not a thing. It is a method. It is something that is done, something that is used, a tool. And in spite of the fact that science does not have all of the answers, and the fact that it is limited by human perception, it is the best method we currently have for understanding the world around us.
It's a shame...many people seem to think that because science isn't perfect that makes it an equally valid source of truth to other, far more arbitrary methods of discerning truth, like religious doctrine. This is not the case, for the reasons previously mentioned by both you [the person whose comment I was originally responding to] and myself. Unlike these methods, science isn't afraid of being wrong. And because it makes no claims of absolute knowledge, there is nothing at stake. It does not prove itself to be unreliable or without credibility when it has led to a wrong, or perhaps incomplete conclusion.
*I include this disclaimer simply because of the fact that there is, of course, the fact it is categorized as a noun, and thus, would technically be considered a 'thing' - but that's all grammatical mechanics, while we're discussing concepts here."
And I might also add that, as this poster stated, those who understand science understand that it does not claim, nor does it need to be infallible. It simply needs to be the most effective option that we have. And if it is not, evidence for some better option should be presented.
π: 0 β©: 0
Very true... and I have quite enjoyed reading the intelligent discussions over this in the comment area. I get so tired of people flaming each other without knowing or acknowledging the others right to their opinion
π: 0 β©: 0
Of course it isn't, but that's exactly the best thing about science: no matter how many times it makes a mistake, it is always going to continue investigating in order understand and explain better the world around us. Sadly, some people believe that scientific facts are like religious dogmas that can not be changed (and as a side note, that is problably one of the things I critique about religion, with no intention to offend anyone of course, but most people seem to avoid being skeptical about their own beliefs, and simply accept them as an unquestioned fact. Which is also exactly the same you are critisizing about science fanatics). You never know whenever there will be a new discovery. That's why science is awesome to me. It's about learning, even if it's from our own mistakes.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>