Good point! Thank you for pointing it out.
I'll tag whom to the question was directed so they can see this.
Earth to @viole , do you copy?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is science really as realiable as we hear? Or should we say scientific findings and theories here?
- Thread starter Smart_Guy
- Start date
Good point! Thank you for pointing it out.
I'll tag whom to the question was directed so they can see this.
Earth to @viole , do you copy?
This is an important fact that deserves wider spread and acknowledgement.
In science there are always confidence intervals, although they are not always easy to determine and may not be acknowledged in the most casual communications with the larger public.
In a sense that means there is never complete certainty. But there are ways of testing the confidence and improving it as well.
Basically, we should be reasonable and realistic in our goals and expectations.
Augustus
…
One issue I have with the way 'science' tends to be discussed is that it is treated as a normative concept, rather than the positive reality that results from it being a human endeavor.
All too often, at least in certain fields, 'science' (well scientists...) does not know how to deal with uncertainty, randomness and confidence levels. That is why there are so many false positives in many fields and woeful replication rates.
The quest for novelty, the need for scientists to be published, the hunt for funding, the need to protect ones reputation, poor methodology, poor understanding of statistics, poor methodology, wishful thinking, groupthink, confirmation bias and other factors all contribute to making the positive reality very different from the normative expectations in many of the sciences.
I think for society to maximise the benefits of the sciences and minimise the harms, it should be recognised that science is a human activity and that many of its failings are result from things that fall within the boundaries of what is considered 'proper science', not from dishonest manipulations of the concept.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The answer to this both yes and no.
In the scientific papers, a date like 12,000,000 would actually be written like this: 12,000,000 + or - 500,000 (actually is shows up in a different form but I can't duplicate it here-- I'm low tech.). What this is saying is that the fossil is 12,000,000 plus or minus 500,000 with 90% chance of accuracy; therefore it being between 11,500,000 and 12,500,000 with 90% certainty.
This depends on what you mean by wrong. There are very simplistic views of truth and falsehood floating in the popular culture. For example:-
If a scientific theory can match observations within 99 % accuracy for a wide range of phenomena within certain bounds of applicability, is it wrong because its only 99% and because it has those bounds? A good example is in much of fluid mechanics (the science that keeps the planes flying and ships from drowning), liquids and gases are considered continuous entities (i.e. no atoms) with global properties (temperature, pressure, viscosity etc.) and the science that comes out of there is excellent and accurate for most of the domains of ordinary life (weather systems, flying, flowing rivers etc. etc.). Is it wrong because it does not consider the fluid as made of atoms? Has atomic theory somehow falsified the physics of fluids?
In all testing methods they hve to assume the amount of the element that wa originally in the sample and they have no way of know it the hs been contaminatd by outside forces like radiation.
Right, I am not saying something science has said in the past have been discounted because of the progress science had made over the years.
Unproven theories are not science. and have no value.
Agreed.
Btw Richard Feynman said the scientific theories can never be prove right they can Only be proven wrong because over time theories change. That said intelligent design absolutely is not science or religion neither require it but it is fantasy dressed up as science hijacking religion at the same time .
This reminds me of another important aspect: sciences are frequently conflated with technologies. The main benefit sciences themselves bring is satisfaction to an inquisitive mind that likes probing and exploring the depths of the universe. The practical applications are moreso the realms of technologies, products that might be grounded in sciences, but not necessarily. Practical applications might also fall into the realm of public policy and politics, where normative values and ethics are introduced.
To put your question in perspective:
The nuclear physics that radiometric data is based on is the same nuclear physics that medical radiology is based on.
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor recommended radiation therapy, would you go along with it or would you say "no"?
If nuclear science is so wrong about radioactive decay that it say something is 65 million years old when it's really only a few thousand years old, then being irradiated - even to treat a tumor - would be ridiculously dangerous.
Do you trust nuclear physics enough to treat cancer? If you do, why wouldn't you trust it enough to rely on radiometric dating?
Well, yeah. Applied sciences (aka, technologies) are no longer just science, though... which is the point I aim to get across. They also end up including a lot of non-science things in them. Technology usually aims to be prescriptive (aka, normative), which is non-science. Plus, you don't need to use science to develop technologies. It's the typical approach in the modern day, but I'm pretty darn sure our ancestors didn't use the sciences when they created the wheel.
No science needed to develop technologies?
I think you're just taking some of the basic science for granted.
Some of what science tells us is incredibly reliable, some is still in the process of being discovered. But - for example - your cell phone depends on the satellite GPS system, which all depends on incredibly precise and reliable parts of science. In this case, engineers have to use Einstein's theory of how space/time is bent around the earth in order for the GPS system to work.
Of course something like carbon dating is no where near as precise as the GPS system, but scientists don't try to mislead anyone when discussing the precision of whatever they're studying. I'm just making these numbers up, but a technique like carbon dating might be known to be plus or minus 10% (again, just guessing), whereas the science used for the GPS system is precise to probably something like plus or minus .00000001%.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'd say there has always been an important distinction between science; the method, and science; the fashionable academic opinion. Historically, they are often found to be diametrically opposed.
Using the method; by the direct observation, measurements, the fossil record shows abrupt appearances of highly evolved species, followed by little change and/or sudden extinction.
But add a little creative imagination, peer pressure review, all the gaps can be easily filled with speculation. Not so long ago, you could live an entire generation with Piltdown man, global cooling, steady state universes as the accepted 'scientific consensus'
So I agree with you, real science is about NOT taking other people's word for it, modern media does not these falsehoods more difficult to disseminate!
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes - and not so long ago, you could have lived a dozen generations believing in a 6000 year old earth, special creation and eternal punishment for the wicked as the accepted 'religious consensus'...wait a minute...they haven't changed that yet?...OK - so which one should I trust?...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yes - and not so long ago, you could have lived a dozen generations believing in a 6000 year old earth, special creation and eternal punishment for the wicked as the accepted 'religious consensus'...wait a minute...they haven't changed that yet?...OK - so which one should I trust?...
The claims I mentioned were debunked...
siti
Well-Known Member
...by science I presume...but wait...are you suggesting that a 6000 year old earth has not been "debunked"?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
science; the method