HOME | DD
slyeagle — Science is not Infallible
by-nc-sa
Published: 2008-04-18 21:46:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 8544; 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
Also, some people also believe that Evolution and Creationism cannot cohexist because they "contradict themsleves" when they actally don't in some points. For example, it's commonly misunderstood that Evolution also involves Cosmogenesis (the origin and development of the universe) and Abiogenesis (how life began) when it actually doesn't even mention those topics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Let me get something straight (please)...
Science is not something we use occasionally or that only a small elite group understand. Science is everything around us. Science IS infallible because it is not a human concept. The laws of physics are not mere inventions. Scientists can make mistakes, but a scientific fact cannot. If a scientific theory contains some kind of mistake, then it is not scientific. For example, alternative medicine is not scientifically proven, because it either did not pass any test or it has failed the tests. If something fails scientific testing, then it is not true. You can argue that we discovered that we were wrong about some things that we considered scientifically proven at some time, but that is not because science was wrong, it was because WE were wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You mean "nature," not "science." Science is humans attempting to understand nature, so to say science is not a human concept is very silly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Science is nature. Science is everything. Like I said, for something to be scientifically proven, it must be true. Science is how natural phenomenas interact with each other and scientists try to understand it. Then now, it is just a matter of proper definition, I think we both agree that scientists can be wrong. However, what I wanted to point out is that a scientific fact is true. Name one concept that we thought was a scientific fact in the past (since the beginning of modern studies) and that we know today as wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please consult a dictionary. I feel there's little point in trying to discuss this with you because of a wide semantic divide.
Also, I listed three disproven facts up in the comments, but I'll humor you with a fourth. Look up "outer space is not a vacuum." That might surprise you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for this! I'm constantly running into people who practically worship science, and I always wish I could put these thoughts into words as well as you did here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When meeting those people you should contradict something in science. Just to teach them a lesson/show that science isn't always right.
Matter for example. They say matter can not be created...yet if that's the case how dose it exist ;D. Something had to CREATE it for it to exist now. Lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Of course not, infallible implies that it doesn't change when something new enters its field of view. By the very nature of science, it MUST change when new information contradicts existing theory, allowing a better theory, or a better version of existing theory to take over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pseudoscience, which is a lot of what you have described, can be very dangerous. It's amazing how many people get sucked into trying to prove/disprove the supernatural. You can't. Ideally with science you test something an infinite number of times, but this is unreasonable so there is going to be error. Also, people don't understand a "science fact" is different from an everyday "fact" and other terms like theory and hypothesis. So please, question everything, don't blindly trust the media. There are scientists out there who do falsify data, which doesn't help the cause. Science is not the truth, and science does not prove. Science is simple gaining knowledge through research.
I am not religious. I don't know if there is or is not a God. I don't know if the Bible is or isn't fiction. I probably never will. So, I am going to continue to question, to learn as much as I can about this earth, and hopefully make a positive difference as a scientist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Bible has a lot of historical fact in it, but the same should be said for many important surviving texts from the same time period(s). I happen to think it's unique, special, and very important, but not all people do or will.
But, yeah, you go out on the street and ask a random person what the difference between science and pseudoscience is...well, chances are they couldn't tell you what science is in the first place. At least not accurately.
Also, I should link to this in my comments: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Science is simply what we believe to be true now.
Who is to say that it will not be untrue at some later stage?
It's not like that hasn't happened before is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting point. On that note it practicaly makes it a religion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This just in! Junk DNA isn't! Film at eleven!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It doesn't need to be. It's not built on the concept of absolut proof.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree, it's quite funny seeing everyone worry about the end of the world with Scientist being the Doomsayers.
I'd only believe in a Scientific Evolution if there was proof God/Jehovah/Yahwah did it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes! YES! science is constantly changing! I am so sick and tired of atheists shoving their scientific 'facts' down my throat and treating me like some sort of neanderthal for believing in a higher power.
I am totally using this stamp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if you really want to get on their nerves, just ask them this one question,
"Where did the universe come from?" There's NO scientific answer!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not YET
Anyways, the Universe might not have haf a "beginning", nor an end. It has always existed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I totally agree. I'm tired of being treated like I'm somehow hindering scientific progress just by having faith and believing in God. It sickens me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think you have it backwards. There are certainly those who require an air of scientific legitimacy, but usually they are easily taken in by mushy claims about "clinically proven" or "studies have shown" when those studies and trials are often extremely preliminary or poorly conducted. I actually encounter more people who are skeptical "science" as a method for testing claims, probably because a credulous media with little or no scientific literacy reports on the tentative, qualified conclusions of pilot studies or poorly made studies as "omg scientific fact." I think the popularity of homeopathic treatments and belief in psychics attests to the general disregard for science in our society. Not to mention the fact that fewer than fifty percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution in spite of widespread scientific consensus.
I'm not opposed to faith, only anti-scientific attitudes because I think they lead to poor policy, like undermining science education, which will eventually put us behind countries like India and China in technological and scientific development.
As an addendum, your stamp is still absolutely true, though maybe not in the spirit you intended it. Scientific consensus is only a best method available for evaluating claims, as you're right that it is highly subject to change. In our modern age, scientists will be the first to tell you that you must always follow the evidence, even if it changes, and changes everything you know. The literature is always being revised, not as a weakness, but as a strength, to improve our knowledge and understanding of natural processes.
If anyone asserts that we know everything there is to know, that is their personal failing. No scientist believes that, or wants to. And there are certainly things beyond science. For instance, science was never intended to test matters of faith, such claims not being testable. I suppose that's why they call it "faith." You shouldn't need evidence. There have been many scientists of faith. I believe it was Kepler who believed that scientific inquiry was how we revealed and could better appreciate God's work.
Sorry, that ended up being longer than I intended...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Maybe I should move to where you live, as I don't run into many people who even understand how clinical studies work. I say I'm skeptical on some claims because of loose or junk science, and they have no idea what I'm talking about...
I suppose the "spirit" of my stamp is that public understanding of science tends to be a "faith" too. People trusting blindly in the work that "scientists" do and basing their world belief on it, even when they do not practice science themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow these comments are literally making my heart beat faster, I just had to put my two cents in!
Now, as a Creationist I of course don't believe in the various types of evolution (with the exception of micro-evolution which of course has been proven by the scientific method/observation, but I digress). However, I have no real problem with the theory being believed or taught so long as it's presented as a theory. It's good to present people with various ideas and theories and challenge them, it keeps our society in shape.
My only problems with the way our society treats this theory is:
1) Exactly what your stamp says. Science is based on human understanding, and so it's always going to have flaws and change.
2) People thinking Creationists hate science. It really gets to me that people think that, because I love science, and I know a lot of Creationists who love science; God made that too. Also, there's a lot of science supporting creationism.
The most important thing is that we keep the dialogues open and remind people to challenge what they've been taught to find the truth, and that's what your stamp does. Good job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think you would be able to appreciate an introductory evolution class, seeing that you understand micro-evolution. I always got the feeling from creationists that they believe scientists are trying to disprove the existence of God. Whether or not he does we don't know, it's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat conundrum. Anyway, the key point to evolution is that it occurred AFTER the earth was created, and does not touch the idea of God's existence. Charles Darwin, was a very religious man, his main concern with his theory of evolution was that it removed the idea of life being a hierarchy, and that man was at the top. Nowadays we can back up Darwin's findings with DNA (98% of our DNA is the same as a monkey's), carbon dating (looking at bones of extinct animals and determining age) and of course natural selection. Natural selection works with the same properties as artificial selection and we know artificial selection occurs, just look at broccoli, it was created from Brassica oleracea! Sorry I get really excited about plants. Anyway evolution, it's pretty cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have studied evolution. I've also heard those arguments and their counter-arguments (there are, for example, a lot of problems with carbon dating). What it comes down to, in terms of how things are taught in school, etc., is how it is treated as inarguable fact. Trust me, there is a lot of persecution in school for students who believe otherwise. However, until someone uses a time machine and can actually go back and observe these things happening, even in the scientific community it can only be treated as a theory.
As far as scientists trying to disprove God, well, at least some are, but that's more of a personal issue for them, and isn't really my concern. For a lot of faiths, it's just as if not more important about WHO God is, not just whether He exists. God creating the Earth in six days is an integral part of who my God is, because that's who He told me He was...if that makes sense. My point is issues like this shouldn't be treated as if set in stone by education or even science, because it closes dialogues and creates assumptions that can ruin objectivity.
It's like slyeagle said in their OP. Science is not infallible and has been wrong before (as a historian I can point out SO many examples of this). Most religions rest on revelation, so it is essential that their core beliefs don't change. Science, however, is based on discovery, and should remain objective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
THANK YOU! I hear the same arguments everytime.
People think Christians are a bunch of science hating, self ritchious, supremecists, who only belive what we've been told by the group. Could not be more false.
All we want is for science to match history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So basically scientist can do whatever research they want as long as they come to your conclusion? That's called fraud. There are certain things that simply do not match up, like the age of the earth and how old the Bible says the earth is. I like to look at the Bible as a theory, by those who came before us. It has been proven multiple ways many times (carbon dating, fossils, scarring from glaciers, and much more). There are event in the Bible that are not falsifiable (not testable), and science simply can't touch those.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this stamp. I feel the same way. And honestly most science if read properly can back up my faith! I don't tell others they are stupid for what they beleive so I hate when others feel like it's ok to do it to me.
Respect goes both ways. And my faith doesn't hurt anyone so why do they care so much?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like the artist's comments as much as the stamp! Well done!
It's annoying how so many people think that you have to choose between evolution or God as if they're mutually exclusive! It's as simplified as good versus evil (the "evil" being those ignorant Creationists, of course), but stupider. I guess people just like to try squeezing things into black-and-white stereotypes so that they don't have to acknowledge the fact that people's beliefs are usually more intricate than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, science is not infalliable.
But, it can be altered. You try to 'fix up' a holy book, see how long it is before someone tries burns down your house, depending on the religion.
You fix up a scientific theory, everyone pats you on the back, and you may get an award.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depends whose theory you're trying to fix.
Ideally that's the case, but the reality is that new science is either accepted or thrown out based on how open your peers, and more importantly, you funders think of your results.
Darwin's made out to be a saint, a man who showed a beacon of light in a hostile world. In reality, the Origin of Species was written using a lot of existing ideas and presented to a ready atmosphere. People wanted that book. Another time, another place, Darwin himself couldn't have even written it. (Yes, Darwin faced some boos, later, but that was in response to Descent of Man, which was considered controversial.)
Sorry if I rant on Darwin much, but I just saw a Nova broadcast that attributed at least a dozen different scientists work to Darwin alone and it pissed me off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
[link]
Just to clarify that "Darwinism"/"Darwinists" is old and misused.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good grief, don't these kids drive you nuts?
There's been this "impossibility agenda" lately that's popped up on the Internet, staffed completely by pimply adolescents who believe it's their purpose in life to use Science to screw with people and to try and Scientifically disprove beliefs, whilst hilariously proving that they have no clue what Science & Research are actually about.
Science is a set of guidelines by which we understand reality, we use that understanding to grow as a people based on constant observation of a changing World and an amazingly complex Universe. To believe Science can be used to disprove anything is the height of both stupidity and arrogance, and it proves nothing more than that the individual believes they have an ounce of omniscience, which they don't.
Science is fallible because people are fallible and because human understanding is fallible, we grow and we learn, and part of that is accepting that we are flawed and there's not a single thing we can objectively classify as factual or impossible, we can only reason in regards to what we've observed and attach probabilities and theories to that. That's Science.
I'm a huge fan of Scientific progress myself, but the kids today who're out to make a mockery of both themselves and Science are getting me down, so this stamp has taken its place in the custom-text of my dA profile page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just an addendum:
When I talk about Science and disproving, what I'm getting at is a lack of evidence does not equate to something being impossible, it simply equates to a lack of evidence, something we haven't observed yet is just that, something we haven't observed. Some people read far too much into that and go off on a spazzing spree about how different things are impossible just because we haven't observed them.
I don't like concepts like objective facts or objective impossibility because it means that we're locking the Universe down into a very small and neat box, one that can fit into the most narrow form of understanding, and it means that even if we observe something new it would have to be disregarded if it contradicts with something we already 'know to be a fact'.
It's bad Science to lock up one's mind in such a way that one can no longer actually observe reality in an unbiased way, the kind of thinking I've detailed above would be the death of real Scientific endeavour, rather than the progress of it. It's good that Science is fallible, it needs to be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You must learn to tell the difference between Science, and Non-Science.
[link]
I was trying to find the part that just had them compare and contrast science and pseudo-science, but I cannot seem to find it. So skip till about the last 3rd of the movie.
See if someone says it's been proven they must be able to show physical proof of it, invoking the supernatural doesn't apply because science can only study the physical world. And never in history has blaming the supernatural even increased our understanding about anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said that I don't believe in evolution and common ancestors. I _do_ believe Darwinism is a stagnated cult following that bogs science down. While other fields advance, life scientists constantly disregard or explain away any new scientific findings that may conflict with a theory that was laid down in a book written in the 1850s.
Consider this:
"Late Triassic "bird-like" footprints from the Santo Domingo Formation in Argentina were reported by Melchor et al (2002). These footprints are very similar to those made by modern birds, with claw marks and a backward-facing toe (the hallux) and many other features that are found in modern bird footprints. However, the authors conclude that "these bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters". That is, while they acknowledge that these prints have "clearly avian characters" and the most likely conclusion is that these are bird footprints, this is not possible because there are no known Triassic bird fossils. Further, although they acknowledge that there are no known theropod dinosaurs with feet showing these avian characteristics, they maintain that they must have existed." - Dr. Marc Surtees
Stupid? Oh, yes. And standard life science practice. Darwinism is a bad habit that modern science needs to break.
I like how you immediately assume that since I'm not an "Evolutionist," I must be a "Creationist." From the standpoint that an "Evolutionist" believes in "science," while a "Creationist" believes in "non-science." One or the other? There's nothing else? Thank you for being a prime example of what I'm trying to combat here. When did I happen to say what it was that I believed?
Would you perhaps be interested to know that, no, I do not necessarily believe the rote seven days of creation? (Technically six). But I'll tell you that I don't believe that life just "evolved." Evolution is a natural phenomenon, yes, but to this date there is no evidence for the origin of life. There is simply no evidence for the current origin of life theory that is taught as "the truth".
And, for once, just think about it. Since the late 1800s, guys started putting together old bones that they dug up. They organized these into "fossil records" and put together an outline for who evolved from what and when. Nowadays we've got exciting innovations in DNA and genetics technology, where researchers discover exciting new data on the relations of species all the time. And what do the Darwinists with their crusty fossil record do with it? Why, ignore it of course, and explain away some new bones they've found. How dare birds exist in the world a few billion years before we say they can.
Smells like rotten science to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think the quotations you chose is trying to say that it is not possible to back up the theory with "the footprints belong to an avian creature" because no other evidence exists of an avian creature from the late Triassic. Therefor, it is more plausible that the footprints belong to theropods with avian characteristics. Many fossil records and living records have been altered with further understanding of genetics, such as the placement of whales which have been placed closer to hippos and other Artiodactylas into Cetartiodactylas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Given that the article was about 5 examples that suggest avians existed in the Triassic but are ignored or willfully misinterpreted to protect the theory that avians evolved from theropods in the Jurassic, I seriously doubt that's what he was trying to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you have a link to the article? I would like to read it, it seems interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I linked to it as the author's name at the end of the quotes, but here is is again~
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I didn't imply that you were either, I was simply posting my opinion.
And evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, so don't confuse two different things.
And they aren't called "Darwinists" either.
You really don't seem to understand evolution
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess Biology majors count for nothing. This is a sad world we live in.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
LOL! Nice retort
I agree with you. Science is debunked all the time, not to say is bad though. I like to us cigarettes as an example. They don't damage your health!....at least when they came out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Even in that link you didn't even bother to read it through.
While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory [6][7][8] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel[9], having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.[10] In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[11]
The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement [16] to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[17][18][19] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[11] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I didn't bother to do more than skim it. I won't trust Wikipedia to be neutral and/or correct again. Next time, I'll use the dictionary. That first segment you copied is just bull.
All right, so your protest was to the term itself, rather than you doubted the term existed? Does Neo-Darwinist make you feel more comfortable?
The meaning is the same. Someone who adheres to evolutionary theories about the origin of life as if it were a proven law. If you want, sure, an atheist who uses "science" as their "bible." But I meant it more as someone who promotes the dogma as proven fact. There is a lot of pressure on the scientific community to do so.
[link]
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Except evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
| Next =>