First, regarding your poll question; Science isn’t wrong. Science doesn’t do anything, it is just a way we can do things. If we follow scientific process correctly, we can’t get a wrong answer in the context of the available evidence meaning sometimes (often!), the right answer in context is “we don’t know”. We can get the wrong answer if we make mistakes in our implementation of science and we can get the wrong answer if we’re not aware of all of the relevant evidence but that can hardly be blamed on science. If you’re on a road trip and you get lost, run out of fuel or crash, would you call that “Driving” getting it wrong?
Science can indeed be wrong. Theory by its very nature has to be wrong to be right.But all that is not important, truth does not exist in a world/reality described by empirical means. Truth does exist in world described by religious metaphysical methods. In a world described by conventional empirical science truth is absent because quantum uncertainty and other reasons, most related to time and causality.I n a world/reality by empirical and metaphysical methods truly does exist because absolutes exist.
No, literally nobody believes that, even if they don’t realise it. Pretty much every piece of “evidence” we make use of in our day-to-day lives isn’t formally measured or vetted so obviously that doesn’t render the evidence meaningless. That said, different kinds of evidence can have different value, different levels of trustworthiness, relevance or importance and that is where formal vetting, either in person or by a trusted proxy, can be a key factor.
Well, you are referencing every day life. We are getting our word usage mixed up. That's why I used the con man analogy , the con man being science. We are saying the same thing but with different meaning. When I made the meaningless statement I was referencing it as used in verification. One of the first things I learned in philosophy of science 101 was if it cannot be verified, it remains a hypothesis, and never reaches the level of theory. Most scientists believe an idea presented without empirical vetting has 'no meaning'. I am using the word 'meaning' as its used the verification process. Btw, are you familiar with '(the) verification theory of meaning'? The reason I was getting into all that was because I think there is a double standard in the secular scientific establishment.
That isn’t your previous statement in other words, it’s an entirely different one. The key here is how you’re using the word theory. A formal scientific theory requires formal scientific evidence to back it up (though “maybe” and “we don’t know” remain valid conclusions). An informal “theory”, just a general idea of how something actually is can be based on similarly informal evidence (though the same conclusion options remain and are probably more likely). I think you’re wrong but we could get in to some major Inception-style problems if I asked you for evidence.
Yes, I remember my science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and testing validates the hypothesis, a scientific theory is theory that has been successfully tested, its the highest form of theory (still its only the best guess possible).
I’d have no issue with that in principle as long as it was taught honestly and correctly and I’d see it more in the humanities/philosophy side rather than the scientific. There’s be all sorts of practical issues of course, determining what should be taught at what age, having sufficiently qualified teachers (even establishing what is sufficient qualification) plus the general issue of piling yet another teaching requirement on schools to the ever-growing list of expectations and requirements they’re somehow meant to fit in to the fixed classroom time.
Yes you do seem like a honest Joe! I agree, Its kind of like my take on ID. It can not be taught because there is no standard theory of ID. I mean none at all.
I’m not sure how you expect this to happen. I don’t agree that metaphysics is as excluded from the formal sciences as you imply and there is certainly nothing preventing it from being applied by anyone who would wish to do so. While there may well be questions it could help with, you’ve offered nothing to convince me of the sudden massive shift you’re imagining would happen.
Yes well I was being a little melodramatic ? Btw, I respect your opinion, and maybe I am a bit of a conspiracy theory type. When I first started noticing resistance to the big bang theory it was obvious to me theistic implications were a cause. To my way of thinking that was a huge thing. I mentioned it but not many of my peers agreed with me. Today that idea is getting a bit of traction (there are formal debates on the subject etc). The acceptance of metaphysics alone will not produce a "massive shift" I agree. That kind of thing, would require emerging evidence for the existence of an ID or something similar. Thanks HJ for your reply.
