Science and certainty

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Science can't correct itself to the point it catches up to creationism since creationism isn't science.

Science doesn't seem at all to want truth nor correction - it keep getting worse and worse, continually, covering up previous errors over and over again.... making up new stories or ideas as it goes, not willing (ever?) to admit the truth nor to repent (turn to Yahweh for His forgiveness or for His help, or to go to Him, to go His Way ) ....

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't seem at all to want truth nor correction - it keep getting worse and worse, continually, covering up previous errors over and over again....

Science is good at starting fires, then putting them out.

 

[pitabread]

Science is good at starting fires, then putting them out.

Sometimes that is the best way to learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sometimes that is the best way to learn.

Y2K and Nebraska Man always come to my mind.

 

[pitabread]

Y2K and Nebraska Man always come to my mind.

I'm not sure why.

Y2K was a software development issue. Nebraska Man was a newspaper exaggeration.

 

[AV1611VET]

Y2K was a software development issue. Nebraska Man was a newspaper exaggeration.

I'm familiar with the excuses.

Y2K was a software development issue.

How many times, pitabread, have you seen someone tell us:

"If you don't like science, don't use a computer."

BUT ... let computer scientists "light a fire," and it's a different story, isn't it?

Now it's a "faulty development issue" ... isn't it?

Nebraska Man was a newspaper exaggeration.

Ya ... he came complete with a binomial: Haroldcookii hesperopithecus ... didn't he?

How'd that happen?

Do newspapers assign Linnaean classifications now?

 

[pitabread]

I'm familiar with the excuses.
How many times, pitabread, have you seen someone tell us:

"If you don't like science, don't use a computer."

Computers are the result of technological advancement based on scientific knowledge. But Y2K specifically is a software issue.

Still not sure what you are getting at and I have a feeling it's only going to make sense to you anyway.

BUT ... let computer scientists "light a fire," and it's a different story, isn't it?

Now it's a "faulty development issue" ... isn't it?

Do you even know what the Y2K issue was?

How'd that happen?

Simple: the newspaper took a preliminary conclusion about a fossil find, publicized it, and exaggerated it.

Same thing happens even today. This is why people should take reporting of science by journalists with a grain of salt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Same thing happens even today. This is why people should take reporting of science by journalists with a grain of salt.

Even if it was never published in the newspapers.

Even if it was never known to the general public -- only to the Fourth Reich.

Nebraska Man is still a scientific failure, isn't he?

 

[pitabread]

Even if it was never published in the newspapers.

Even if it was never known to the general public -- only to the Fourth Reich.

Nebraska Man is still a scientific failure, isn't he?

I wouldn't consider anything that yields knowledge to be a "failure". That type of thinking makes people to be afraid to try anything new.

Regardless the original classification was an error, but that's part of the learning process. Science has moved on. Creationists should too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regardless the original classification was an error, but that's part of the learning process. Science has moved on. Creationists should too.

Move on to what? other mistakes?

There's a popular saying: "The quality goes in before the name goes on."

Why wasn't Nebraska Man put through the scientific method from [pun] head to toe [/pun]?

How is it he was [pun] walked through peer review [/pun] and came out [pun] without a scratch [/pun]?

The name went on before the quality went in, didn't it?

 

[pitabread]

Move on to what? other mistakes?

Sure. Making mistakes is part of the learning process.

Anyone afraid of making mistakes will never learn anything new.

Why wasn't Nebraska Man put through the scientific method from [pun] head to toe [/pun]?

How is it he was [pun] walked through peer review [/pun] and came out [pun] without a scratch [/pun]?

It was. There was skepticism about the original find and when more work was done it was discovered the initial classification was in error. A retraction was then published noting that correction.

The name went on before the quality went in, didn't it?

This was the result of media publication and exaggeration. And the whole thing has been kept alive by creationists that keep bringing it up for some reason.

The whole "Nebraska Man" thing happened a hundred years ago. Let it go.

 

[juvenissun]

Science continuously corrects itself. It may be fun, but should anyone be proud of such a system?

Yes, only if one has nothing better to go along.