Trying my hand at a discussion. What do you guys think about the following statement: Science is not complete, nor is it 100% accurate. Over the past 200 years or so I will agree, we've come along way in terms of knowledge, but on a larger scale, how far have we really come? A lot of people feel science is the definitive answer , but at any moment, something could change, or we could discover something, that completely alters what we once thought. Imagine, one or more of the "Laws of Science," essentially the basis of science, changing due to a new discovery or understanding. What happens then? Maybe one day, if we make it that far, we will in fact know why and how everything is, but not at this moment. I think people put a lot of weight on "science's" shoulders that really shouldn't be placed there in the first place, at least not now. Discuss!
The point of science is to take what evidence is known at the time and come up with the most plausible explanation for what occurred or what takes place. Yes, science can never be 100% definitive, as it does change as new evidence arises, but because of its purpose it is closer to right than any other theory regarding what it answers. Religion has a set belief, and new evidence is either tweaked around to fit into what this belief is (regardless of the probability) or the evidence is thrown out and the person who found it called a heretic. Science determines what most likely happened, and when new evidence is found it doesn't have the unchanging pride of religion. It changes when the evidence changes. Still, every decision made about anything should be made using the scientific method as much as possible, as it's the only method of decision making that assumes from the get-go that you MAY be wrong and encourages testing to make sure whether you are or not. Yes, we will never be 100% certain of the claims of science, but I trust it a hell of a lot more than I trust every other explanation I've heard for existence and "Why?".
I agree, and that's what point comes to mind when I see and ponder the science vs. religion debate, is that a lot of religion seems to be set in stone, whilst scientific understanding can be ever changing.
Relative to what? If the claim is science is not 100% accurate, this tends to imply there is something more accurate by which the accuracy of science is falling short of. So what is more accurate? What is more complete? What is science not accurate about? What is missing from science to make it incomplete? Generally, I'd agree that science is incomplete, simply because scientists continue to pursue the unknown, and discover more truth. It is difficult to imagine science every being complete, per se; as that would seem to put a complete stop to all technological advancement. Science continues to grow, expand, and adjust as new things are found and proven to be true. As far as accuracy, well I suppose that all depends on what you're specifically talking about. Science tries to find the most accurate, consistent, and objective explanations for natural phenomena in objective reality; but sometimes there are things it has yet to fully be able to explain--reference dark matter/energy.
It's easy to forget that science is only an assumption based on the latest available data, and our interpretation of it. We know that science constantly evolves and grows, but so often when I hear people saying something is 'known' in an argument, they're doing so to make a point, thinking that what they refer to is completely accepted. It may be the highest knowing science has right now, but it is not certain. My point is that in stating things as if they're fact, when they are no more than where we currently are, is little more than usurping something to make a point by someone who already thinks they know the truth. To me, that's the opposite of science.
You are free to attempt to disprove anything science has validated and holds to be objectively true; if you can, I'm sure such would be useful to the expansion of scientific knowledge. Until you do so, to regard everything as unknown, regardless of its ability to withstand rigorous scrutiny, based purely on supposition is rather illogical and not at all useful.
I never said everything was unknown, just not fully known yet, even if such a thing is possible in this material world. And you missed my point.
Science is a catalogue of facts about the uiverse around us. The laws of science don't really change, that's the point. Energy can never be created or destroyed. Force will always equate to mass multiplied by acceleration. In a closed system energy will always decrease in quality. Etc... The fact that science changes when new evidence is discovered (usually through more advanced or thorough reserach methodology or equipment) and religion does not says more about religious thought than scientific thought. There isn't really anything to discuss. Technological advancement is more or less needed for a more sustainable future. There are plenty of things that are known. They are known because they are observable and repeatable.
Still missing the point. It's not whether someone can come up with rhetoric to show that things can be certain in science, and qualify this with reasons why it is true. It's whether believing that you have the facts about anything puts your mind into a state that automatically stops true openness from being present. Not so you might one day discover that force does not always equate to mass multiplied by acceleration, just that another kind of science might appear that allows for things that aren't so certain to exist. Quantum physics reveals that something being observable doesn't mean it always occurs the same way when it isn't being observed. If something can change its nature due to observation, then certainty becomes a fluid thing. The last two responses to my post seem quite defensive, as if science was under attack. And regardless of the fact that both posters may not be scientists, they argue for something that for the most part has to be accepted on faith not experience. It is this state of mind i'm attempting to highlight. I'm not trying to make a specific point saying this, just using it as an example of the need to remain open to whatever may already be seen as certain.
Care to explain how any of it is rhetoric? It doesn't. That's why science constantly changes. Anyone can guess, unless you can back it up with evidence it's just noise though. It's a debate. I'm an engineer after transferring from an astrophysics degree, there's a large debate on whether you'd call me a scientist but I wouldn't. You're assuming that my beliefs are not based on experience on reproduced experiments. Faith does not come into science.
Well, let's say you have an idea. And in order to see whether there's any validity in that idea, you start to investigate, test, observe, follow the scientific method, and you begin to form a theory. You imagine other possibilities, tests, that might be considered, and all along, even while trying to be the impartial observer, you can't help hoping that the theory will be correct. This is a kind of faith. If the theory isn't correct, you might feel disappointed, but as the facts speak for themselves you can accept it and move on. But as things progress, at some point, you start to believe that you might be on to something else as a result of going down this path in the first place. You hope you're right, but you won't begin to accept anything until it's conclusive. Another kind of faith. This is one of the main arguments atheists throw at theists - that with science at least its theories can be proved or disproved, but faith or belief cannot. There's not much faith in science, but it's still a question of degree in that the kind of questions being asked can be proven, and many a scientist has had faith in his theory long before he was able to prove it.
You've lost me with that last part, how is not accepting or believing anything untill it's conclusively proven faith? It's the exact opposite of faith. Science is a catalogue of facts of the universe we inhabit. There is no room for faith.
You have faith that it will be conclusively proven. After all, it wouldn't be long before a scientist who just simply tried to prove some random thing got fed up with never doing so, and decided to test a theory he felt might be. He has faith that this time he gets to prove it. There's always room for faith.
You hope it'll be concusively proven, you don't have faith it will. There's a difference between the two. If it involves faith it's not science.
What is hope? Believing in the possibility that something you think might be true will be. To hold onto hope you need faith.