How reliable are the findings of science?

[Storm]

PBS "Secrets of the Dead" Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud

Sorry, but I didn't find that convincing at all. Most of the problems it highlighted were acknowledged by the show; the textile expert was not discredited, only contradicted with no given basis; and the explanation of tempera paint was discredited in the show.

It mostly addressed the question of whether the Shroud could be Christ's, which neither the show nor I have attempted to support.

 

[Nepenthe]

Sorry, but I didn't find that convincing at all. Most of the problems it highlighted were acknowledged by the show; the textile expert was not discredited, only contradicted with no given basis; and the explanation of tempera paint was discredited in the show.

It mostly addressed the question of whether the Shroud could be Christ's, which neither the show nor I have attempted to support.

But that's the very point mentioned in the article I linked! The problems were highlighted then dismissed in favor of mystery mongering. If it's the same episode I'm thinking of I saw it a few years ago so I don't remember the details on the tempera paint claims being discredited. But the evidence is convincing that red ochre and vermillion bound with a collagen base are present on the shroud. I'm going to see if I can hunt down that episode after work today.

 

[Storm]

But that's the very point mentioned in the article I linked! The problems were highlighted then dismissed in favor of mystery mongering. If it's the same episode I'm thinking of I saw it a few years ago so I don't remember the details on the tempera paint claims being discredited. But the evidence is convincing that red ochre and vermillion bound with a collagen base are present on the shroud. I'm going to see if I can hunt down that episode after work today.

It's been a while since I've seen it, too, so admittedly, I might be remembering it as more impressive than it was.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps this topic deserves it's own thread?

wa:do

 

[Storm]

Sorry.

 

[Nepenthe]

Doh! Derailed by sindology....

To respond to the OP directly:

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high.

Not at all. The criteria to establish scientific concensus is a constant uphill battle of peer review, falsifiability, repeated tests and a lot of hard work. It's a constant question of accumulating data and evidence then exposing it to the slings and arrows of your peers all over the planet and always questioning what, if proven true, would invalidate your results or at least alter them. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is extremely high.

think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING.

Not a fault imho, but a consequence of selective pressures that resulted in that trait. But that's another thread.

With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

I agree that suspending judgment is often a positive. That's how science works though- propose something with sufficient evidence to supplant the former idea and you're good to go! What I find ironic is that while science is suspending judgement as long as contrary information is influencing hypotheses, religion does just the opposite. Your paragraph describes religion perfectly, but is a gross misinterpretation of what science or scientists do. And yes, I've heard many scientists say "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it", time and time again.

And pop science as shown on nature shows or PBS are hardly accurate portrayals of science at work. It's a lot of tedium, second guessing oneself, debating colleagues and getting really bad sunburns while studying borate deposits at Tick Canyon- no luck with finding any Pliohippus teeth though.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know or much care what the Shroud of Turin is. The question is, what is the best way to find out. And the answer is: the scientific method. Do you dispute this, toms?

 

[A Truth]

Science is only a small peice of the puzzle of knowledge.

 

[painted wolf]

But is all knowledge equal?

On one hand I have a fair bit of knowledge on how genetics influences conservation efforts for endangered species... I also have more than a fair bit of knowledge on dragons.

wa:do

 

[A Truth]

Knowledge is indeed a very diverse thing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Science is only a small peice of the puzzle of knowledge.

I would debate the "small" aspect of your point, but it is a valid point, nonetheless.

In my opinion, science is the keystone to the knowledge that mankind has developed. It is the mechanism that brought us from the Dark Ages to the Age of Enlightenment.

 

[3.14]

science is almost never both permanent and compleetly right, this create's progress
religion claims to be both, this create's congress

science is trail+error=x but it doesn't stop with x, x gets tested again for errors untill we are absolutly sure x=x

 

[Kilgore Trout]

science is almost never both permanent and compleetly right, this create's progress
religion claims to be both, this create's congress

science is trail+error=x but it doesn't stop with x, x gets tested again for errors untill we are absolutly sure x=x

But I want absolute answers for everything. And I want them now.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

But I want absolute answers for everything. And I want them now.

... and if no one can provide us with the absolute answers immediately, we reserve the right to attribute the glory to God (who just doesn't want us to know His will).

 

[MindHunter]

But I want absolute answers for everything. And I want them now.

Well that sucks for you because there is only 1 absolute in science and that is this: there are no absolutes, nothing is 100% and nothing is 0% accurate, valid, reliable, known, understood, etc... . If you want an absolute, then go to faith, science will not be able to provide you with what you want.

You cannot know everything, as that implies you'd need to know something that isn't discovered yet. Wait for the research then you'll know but it won't be absolute.

 

[Seven]

If science was to start giving absolute answers it would be a religion.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Well that sucks for you because there is only 1 absolute in science and that is this: there are no absolutes, nothing is 100% and nothing is 0% accurate, valid, reliable, known, understood, etc... . If you want an absolute, then go to faith, science will not be able to provide you with what you want.

You cannot know everything, as that implies you'd need to know something that isn't discovered yet. Wait for the research then you'll know but it won't be absolute.

The Hermetic Principal of Polarities: there are no absolutes only extremes.

 

[MindHunter]

The Hermetic Principal of Polarities: there are no absolutes only extremes.

Hmm, well now I know the fancier name for that.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Hmm, well now I know the fancier name for that.

The Principal of Polarities says: "Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

In my view science and spirituality are opposite poles of the same thing (two sides of the same coin so to speak). Each pole holds half-truths, together they may hold the whole truth or at least something close to it. :rainbow1:

 

[Enoch07]

The only real flaw is assumptions. For instance a classic argument: People like to use Carbon Dating to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old thus proving the bible wrong. The flaw is that you are assuming the bible states the earth is only 6,000 years old which is incorrect. The bible does not state how old the earth is at all. Therefore Carbon Dating as proof the bible is wrong is irrelevant.