Is science really as realiable as we hear? Or should we say scientific findings and theories here?

[Smart_Guy]

Hello guys!

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Most dating of fossils and the like can be done with sufficient accuracy, to be a useful indicator of their relative age.

However at least half the science, we are taught as children, is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries in our lifetimes. However it is rarely proved to be totally wrong, it is just that it is rarely the full story.
Science is always open to further questioning.

But it is always better than tradition, supposition, guesswork or faith, as a basis for knowledge.

 

[Mindmaster]

Hello guys!

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

Science is a moving target, that's to say what is known now will probably be expanded upon as time goes on. If my memory recalls, we can't really date things past a couple of hundred-thousand years via direct Carbon dating, after that we are relying on where we've found fossils located in sediments in the ground. However, sediments are really accurate as long as we are not messing around in sites that are disturbed already. So all it really takes is multiple sites with the same fossils and dirt layers, and that's how we get where we are.

Science will always ultimately debunk itself, because it works on the premises of models, that's to say "tests based on the best / most likely outcomes", and that will change as we learn more. It will never be fixed, but always moving forward. All of the data won't be invalidated, but much of it will be expounded upon.

 

[Augustus]

The problem answering this question is that what is deemed 'science' covers a very wide range of disciplines with significant differences between them. Some fields of science are highly accurate and reliable, but others are not.

In some areas of research, more than 50% of published research findings are false (Neuroscience, social psychology, etc.) Medical research, especially drug trials, is another area with a poor record.

The sciences are undoubtedly a major source of untrue information in the modern world and as soon as something is deemed 'scientific' people are far more prone to accept it uncritically.

While the sciences are undoubtedly important, many of them are far less reliable than many people realise.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Most dating of fossils and the like can be done with sufficient accuracy, to be a useful indicator of their relative age.

However at least half the science, we are taught as children, is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries in our lifetimes. However it is rarely proved to be totally wrong, it is just that it is rarely the full story.
Science is always open to further questioning.

But it is always better than tradition, supposition, guesswork or faith, as a basis for knowledge.

If at least half the science, as you say, we are taught as children is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries, don't you think that dating of fossils and the like cannot really be done with sufficient accuracy? Not sure, but this sounds like a contradiction to me. Please advise. Also, doesn't saying "most" dating of fossils mean that there is really no accuracy in it as well? I'm under the impression that unless there is an "always" chance of finding something, there is no accuracy.

With the above said, don't you think this puts science on par than tradition or faith? I do agree with you that it is always better than supposition and guess work tho. This actually brings another point... with what's said in the first paragraph, don't you think that even science had suppositions and guesswork accordingly?

Thank you for sharing.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Science will always ultimately debunk itself, because it works on the premises of models, that's to say "tests based on the best / most likely outcomes", and that will change as we learn more. It will never be fixed, but always moving forward. All of the data won't be invalidated, but much of it will be expounded upon.

Don't you think this means science is not really as reliable as it is thought to be?

And thanks for sharing!

 

[Smart_Guy]

The problem answering this question is that what is deemed 'science' covers a very wide range of disciplines with significant differences between them. Some fields of science are highly accurate and reliable, but others are not.

In some areas of research, more than 50% of published research findings are false (Neuroscience, social psychology, etc.) Medical research, especially drug trials, is another area with a poor record.

The sciences are undoubtedly a major source of untrue information in the modern world and as soon as something is deemed 'scientific' people are far more prone to accept it uncritically.

While the sciences are undoubtedly important, many of them are far less reliable than many people realise.

That's one good explanation!

Thank you for sharing.

 

[HonestJoe]

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

I think the distinction between talking about “science” or “scientific findings/theories” is semantics. The key problem in this context is lumping them all together, presenting the idea that if one theory, idea or method in a particular scientific field is found to have errors or flaws, every other scientific theory, idea and method is less reliable as a consequence.

The fundamental principles of scientific process are fine – observation, hypothesis, evidence, conclusion etc. Most issues, confusion and errors come from people, either human error or limitations on our physical ability to gather all the necessary evidence. For example, the number of known planets in our solar system has changed several times, not due to any flaw in science but simply because we’ve developed better telescopes and other ways to observe, study and understand more distant objects. The true number always existed and could be theoretically known by a being with access to all of the relevant information using scientific method.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate?

That depends entirely on how it’s age is being determined. It’s certainly possible to reach a good conclusion on the general age of a fossil using established scientific methods. It’s also possible for that good conclusion to be incorrect (slightly or entirely) because of limited information or human error. That’s true of literally everything we know though. I’ve concluded it’s almost lunch-time by looking at the clock and applying my prior knowledge of when lunchtime is. I could be wrong though, for various possible reasons. That doesn’t mean my method for determining lunchtime is fundamentally flawed.

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

I guarantee many will. The problem is that we’ve no idea which ones or how. It’s worth noting that they’re superseded by using scientific method and reaching other scientific theories, many of which are only subtly different to the ones they replace. It’s certainly not a perfect way to address the world but it’s the best one we have.

 

[Altfish]

The problem answering this question is that what is deemed 'science' covers a very wide range of disciplines with significant differences between them. Some fields of science are highly accurate and reliable, but others are not.

In some areas of research, more than 50% of published research findings are false (Neuroscience, social psychology, etc.) Medical research, especially drug trials, is another area with a poor record.

The sciences are undoubtedly a major source of untrue information in the modern world and as soon as something is deemed 'scientific' people are far more prone to accept it uncritically.

While the sciences are undoubtedly important, many of them are far less reliable than many people realise.

But surely that is where science comes into its own.
The fact that it is published does not make it accepted science; it will need to be peer reviewed, experiments repeated and tested before scientists take it seriously. Even then it can later found to be wanting.
Most of the 'untrue' scientific information is published by tabloid newspapers looking at non-peer reviewed papers and printing them as fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With the above said, don't you think this puts science on par than tradition or faith?

As a source of knowledge? No. The fact that science corrects itself makes it a far better source of knowledge than tradition or faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello guys!

Hi!

Is science really as realiable as we hear?

Science proper is considerably more reliable than we often hear, as one would expect.

However, there are many people abusing the word shamelessly these days.

Or should we say scientific findings and theories here?

We could. It is much the same thing as science proper, really.

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

Indeed. I take it that you make a differentiation?

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Most of the time I trust the unavoidable rivalry among researchers. It is essentially impossible for them to cooperate on covering up a straight falsehood.

Dating fossils, however, is not even that little controversial. Dating techniques are far more reliable and redundant than the so-called "creationist" camp wants to admit.

The matter truly at work there is not one of reliability of science, but of eficacy of science education. Ignorance and misrepresentations have attained far more influence than they could ever deserve.

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

But that is not at all a problem. Science is supposed to do that. That is how it works, and always was.

 

[LuisDantas]

If at least half the science we are taught as children is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries, don't you think that dating of fossils and the like cannot really be done with sufficient accuracy? Not sure, but this sounds like a contradiction to me. Please advise. Also, doesn't saying "most" dating of fossils mean that there is really no accuracy in it as well?

No, not at all. Why would you think so?

I'm under the impression that unless there is an "always" chance of finding something, there is no accuracy.

That is not how things work in real life, though. We do not exist in such a radically dualistic, binary world.

With the above said, don't you think this puts science on par than tradition or faith?

Hardly. That is not even on the table for consideration, really.

I do agree with you that it is always better than supposition and guess work tho. This actually brings another point... with what's said in the first paragraph, don't you think that even science had suppositions and guesswork accordingly?

Science works with hypothesis as starting points, but its whole point is to raise above them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If at least half the science we are taught as children is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries, don't you think that dating of fossils and the like cannot really be done with sufficient accuracy? Not sure, but this sounds like a contradiction to me. Please advise. Also, doesn't saying "most" dating of fossils mean that there is really no accuracy in it as well? I'm under the impression that unless there is an "always" chance of finding something, there is no accuracy.

With the above said, don't you think this puts science on par than tradition or faith? I do agree with you that it is always better than supposition and guess work tho. This actually brings another point... with what's said in the first paragraph, don't you think that even science had suppositions and guesswork accordingly?

Thank you for sharing.

I said most fossils because some are orphans and it is not known in which strata they were originally found. However modern scientific testing can get accurate results in most fossils. though there will always be exceptions.

Over a life time, scientific methods are improved and refined and new discoveries are made, This does not mean previous results were wrong, It is that we can now obtain greater accuracy, and find out even more information.
This puts Science in a different league, compared to faith or tradition which have no more accuracy than chance would have.

Science starts with observation and questioning. Then a long series of testing and further questioning. at some stage sufficient information is gathered to create a hypothesis, which can be further tested. and the hypothesis adjusted.
A point is reached where every test confirms the hypothesis at this stage a paper is published and peer review is sought. It the results are confirmed by others a theory is postulated. All theories are always work in progress and open to review. however many are long established and seem to be true for the conditions postulated.

On other occasions Like Newtonian Physics, It is known that advances since are more accurate and and give more information. At a practical level they give no better results and are far more difficult to calculate with almost infinitesimal difference that are impractical for normal use. So Newtonian Physics is still the most used in many fields.
Much like a Millimeter ruler is accurate enough for carpentry. It is 100% accurate provide whole millimetres are chosen.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The sciences as we know it offers the most knowledge concerning most things in our life at least so far as the natural world. Also it does currently lack the capability or better et interest of exploring things other than the physical realm. This is why philosophy still exists in its present form as well along with soft sciences which are really no different than any other field.
Sciences could easily enter the realm of politics more with advances in neuroscience, sociology and psychiatry.

 

[Mindmaster]

Don't you think this means science is not really as reliable as it is thought to be?

And thanks for sharing!

It's not going to be unreliable, just will always be subject to change. The minute it doesn't change with the times it becomes a religion, not science.

 

[omega2xx]

Most dating of fossils and the like can be done with sufficient accuracy, to be a useful indicator of their relative age.

Actually they are not. ALL dating methods, except C14 make some assumptions and these assumption make the date older than it actually is.

However at least half the science, we are taught as children, is outdated and overtaken by further research and discoveries in our lifetimes. However it is rarely proved to be totally wrong, it is just that it is rarely the full story.
Science is always open to further questioning.

Do you have an example of outdated science?

But it is always better than tradition, supposition, guesswork or faith, as a basis for knowledge.

Actually unproven theories are no better than guesswork and if believed, they are based on faith.

 

[omega2xx]

It's not going to be unreliable, just will always be subject to change. The minute it doesn't change with the times it becomes a religion, not science.

What is not proven is the only thing unreliable.
To change with the times, is not science. It must change only when the evidence requires it to change.

 

[Augustus]

Science proper is considerably more reliable than we often hear, as one would expect.

However, there are many people abusing the word shamelessly these days.

What's you working definition of 'science proper'? What's in and what is out?

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

You might be interested in this, it is from a scientific journal rather than being an 'anti-science' article.

PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. Epub 2005 Aug 30.
Why most published research findings are false.
Ioannidis JP

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Why most published research findings are false. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[bobhikes]

Hello guys!

First, should we really say science here or scientific findings and theories? Or maybe scientific claims? Science does not act or have its stuff come out from thin air, people do that.

Is saying a fossil is 12 million years old, for example, a good conclusion? Is or can it be accurate? If anything, how accurate can it be? Would you take that conclusion for granted that someone else actually found out and you were just told about it?

Since some already became superseded/obsolete now, would the current ones or some of them face the same fate? This is one reference: Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia to check out.

So what do you think?

Science is a human product and as such only as good as humans. The scientific method states the the result must be verified. We only have the ability to verify to human abilities. We can not even ask an animal if they can verify. This is the biggest weakness of science. Our ego is what allows us to dismiss it. People will say well its better than any thing else and I would agree however it is not infallible and is only the best humans can offer. Humans are not all that great.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Actually they are not. ALL dating methods, except C14 make some assumptions and these assumption make the date older than it actually is.

Not so, all dating methods include a margin of error, the selected date could possibly be at either end of that margin. the accuracy depends on both the tests involved, and the sample to be tested.

Do you have an example of outdated science?

Yes. The text books at school in the 40's and 50's said that light was a wave in the "aether". they also mentioned
that some scientists believed that light was composed of Particles (photons)

To day, neither of those theories is completely true, as light is part of the electro magnetic spectrum and can be modelled as either a wave or a particle. A particle of Light "Photon" carries energy in proportion to its wavelength. The concept of "wave-particle duality" is well established by experimental evidence and the excellent models of Quantum Mechanics.

Of course the whole concept of the "Aether" is fully discounted.

Actually unproven theories are no better than guesswork and if believed, they are based on faith.

Unproven theories are not science. and have no value.
Testing a hypothesis a necessary stage of establishing a theory. all theories are thoroughly tested before they are accepted.