Science isn't All That Reliable...

Science is imperfect, as is everything conducted by humans. It's better than every alternative, though. Sort of like that old Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for every other one that has ever been tried.

 

As I like to put it, there is nothing special about scientists but there is something special about science.

Science can be done correctly by anyone. The beliefs and prejudices of scientists do not affect the outcome when science is done correctly. That's the whole point of science!

 

Incorrect and irrelevant.

There is no way to figure out how a hurricane works using an electron microscope. You're conflating incompatible domains.

Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that evolution somehow goes against the grain of plain old physics.

 

Why is the applicability of quantum theory to evolution relevant to our understanding of common descent??? Mathmatics is used to quantify evolution in numerous ways and I'm at a total loss as to why "mass/energy performance" is relevant to the discussion of evolutionary theory at all. Am I missing something?

 

Well said!!!

 

It seems that you have blundered and mopped yourself into a corner. The emphasized text above shows an extremely bold and glaring contradiction.

 

I disagree. Something does not have to be absolutely true to prove that a competing explanation is absolutely false. There is no scientific evidence which supports any competing explanations for the condition of life on this planet as we know it. Conversely, all scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted in science- only those with preconceived notions or bias' refuse to accept it. Its unfortunate that so many people entirely misunderstand the theory of evolution or choose to entirely overlook the evidence upon which the theory is based.

 

I think cooky is saying that science is better at eliminating wrongness than finding rightness.

By the way, I already like you, cooky. I can tell we come from the same place in a lot of ways.

 

Enough testimony from others on this forum and this thread have been submitted that should cause almost any 'rational' person to realize that Evolution is not proven to be a fact, as it is not dealing with a complete set of data, therefore evolution cannot be conclusively declared a proven fact. As for honesty and integrity, a person who is honest and full of integrity would be at least man or woman enough to admit when something has not been conclusively and indisputably proven to be factual cannot be said to be factual.

 

That would be something like a 'personal opinion', would it not?

 

Nice little conditional phrase there... I like that. Is Science conducted "correctly" 100% of the time? BTW: How can it be determined when science is not conducting itself 'correctly'? What is the 'correct' way to conduct science?

 

This statement alone is stuffed with nonsense.

Scientific theories are models that subsume the widest range of facts possible. The phrase "proven to be a fact" is completely nonsenseical in science.

A complete data set is not necessary, nor even possible. All that's necessary is that as many facts as possible fail to contradict the theory. Confirmation in science happens when new facts already conform to the existing theory. This is why the principle of falsifiability is so important. A theory is not scientific if there is no fact that can contradict it. LOTS of facts COULD contradict evolution...but, so far, none do.

 

No scientific explanation is based on a complete set of data nor are scientists claiming that it is a proven fact. That is not how science works. By your rational no science should be accepted unless it has a complete dataset. In practical terms this would mean that no science should be accepted as no scientific explanations have complete datasets- NONE. We most certainly do not have complete set of data on gravity yet few people deny that gravity exists. I would challenge you to rigorously assess the actual science that supports the theory of evolution. The theory is based on a massive, robust and multi-disciplinary dataset. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of evolutionary theory with you. What exactly about the theory do you find disagreeable and upon what evidence are you basing your conclusions?

 

Ah, but let us examine your statement a little closer.

"Theories are not proof of an absolute truth so much as they prove that any competing explanations of a principle are absolutely false."

1st point: Theories are not proof of an absolute....
I concur with that ...

2nd point: "they prove that any competing explanations of a principle are absolutely false"

The second point contradicts the first point. No need to rationalize ...

You say that theories are not proof then you turn around and say that they are proof. Both points are directed at proof of absolutes.

 

I stand by my post. We could debate semantics indefinetely but thats really not why I'm here. The term 'scientific theory' is not synonomous with the term 'proven fact'. However, while it is not a 'proven fact' it remains the ONLY scientific explanation for the condition of life on this planet. In effect, the evidence that supports evolution simultaneously disproves any competing scientific explanations. There is no scientific evidence that supports any explanation other than evolution.

 

No it's not. An engineering failure does not invalidate science.

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though contemptible, CONFIRM the theory of relativity.

 

No. Science is not done correctly 100% of the time. But when it is not done incorrectly, IT IS NOT SCIENCE BECAUSE IT WAS DONE INCORRECTLY.

 

Good luck with Incorporeal, cooky.

Semantics is the only game he knows how to play. You asked him what part(s) of the theory of evolution he has a problem with. Instead of just answering your seemingly easy question he would rather play his stupid game of semantics. The more you 'debate' Incorporeal, the more you will see this.

 

Semantics is Incorporeal's bag. He thinks he can magic God into existence with lingo.

 

Too add on to this, the more people exam theories and test theories, the less likely of a chance that the methods are done wrong.

This is what science does, it strives to correct its 'mistakes', unlike religion; who's answers cannot be questioned!

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned so:

Science has been reliable enough to give us computers, flight, antibiotics, GPS, electricity and much much more. What has the Bible, or religion, (which never change), given us?

 

The will of 19 idiots to crash planes into buildings.

 

Ah, then you admit that there was a semantic error in your presentation, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the presentation contained a contradiction. The idea that you do not wish to discuss 'semantics' is irrelevant, especially when you admit that there is a semantic error. That is the important issue IMO. Your attempt at rationalizing the semantic error shows further that evolution remains a theory, and as a theory, and not a proven FACT, evolution theory is no better than the creation story. BTW: Science is not the only philosophy that deals with the subject of creationism.

 

Who was talking about 'invalidating science'? I thought the discussion was about science being unreliable. An engineering failure does point in the direction of a scientific unreliability, especially when that failure is found to happen in a laboratory (scientific type) and that the failure was the result of inadequate (unreliable) safe guards taken to prevent such occurrences.

They also confirm the FACT that scientists acting in consort with government financing place little respect and regard for the lives of many thousands of innocent people who, by military standards were viewed as nothing more than a vermin that needed to be eradicated. Again, unreliability of science to perform its function and do what is right for humanity.... again work conducted with no safe-guards to protect human life.

 

Then are you suggesting that the links I previously provided (the 'engineering failure' and the 'hiroshima' attacks) were not the product of science? Science had nothing to do with either of those events? Well of course they had something to do with science "The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though contemptible, CONFIRM the theory of relativity."