Science Isn't Perfect

Archie the Preacher said:

Science does much to explain natural laws and invent nifty doo-dads to make life more comfortable.

Click to expand...

I've noticed this is how most people view science but I would argue this is a mistaken perspective. Science is best viewed as a methodology to arrive at explanations of natural phenomena. It does so by first recognizing that we have cognitive biases and make errors quite often. We are prone to confirmation biases, selection biases, social desirability biases, among others. Even when we have solid data, this would be useless in the hands of a person who is incompetent when it comes to valid and sound reasoning skills -- which we are very prone to making. Understanding fallacies is important. We also have sensory limitations, blind spots and such. We can also misremember things or be led by our cursory impressions of something and infer causality on the basis of assumptions we aren't even aware we're making.

Science proceeds, then, by creating clever and nifty work-arounds for these errors. It stresses empiricism but in a directed and refined way. It takes into account, for example, spuriousness. It takes into account falsifiability. It also creates an environment whereby individual reasoning is moderated heavily by rigorous scrutiny from your peers, skeptically poking holes repeatedly at your work to see if it stands up to scrutiny. The acquisition of knowledge is hard and a rigorous methodology is thus warranted.

By contrast, religion proceeds by doubling down on many of our cognitive weaknesses (given that our minds are prone to fallacies, illusions and superstitions). As psychologist Steven Pinker once put it, "Most of the traditional causes of belief—faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, conventional wisdom, the invigorating glow of subjective certainty—are generators of error and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge. To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity." Just recall the story of Doubting Thomas, who was derided for being a skeptic and only accepting the truth claim he was initially doubting until he was able to get more concrete evidence. This religious story embodies the problem with religious thinking. It instructs people to view skepticism as the enemy, and to view dogma as virtue. Dogma is by definition the antithesis to an open mind willing to have one's beliefs challenged by new incoming evidence.

GrowingSmaller said:

You seem to be arguing like this: their moral systems werent as developed as ours, just look at all these flaws. Thats totally accurate.

IMO morality is about "rational attraction to being". Of course, in a progressive age, we are liable to look down on past efforts as ignorant, but I am sure thy had a few virtues even if they were not so lucid as our insight is.

I see your point, but that division (myth, untestable, etc) didnt exist in those times. In those times scraps of paper and insight were what they clung to. Without them, they woul have been back to square one, even if square two was not so happy or insightful a state as 21st C academics enjoy.

Click to expand...

Yes. But, as you say, that was then. Today, it's not like back then anymore.
I'll keep it in the middle wheter or not it was necessary back then or not. It doesn't really matter that much even. What matters though is, as you seem to suggest, we don't need to cling to scraps of paper today. So why do so?

OK I accept that is not a good situation, but generalising to from one part to all (or other) parts can be precarious.

Click to expand...

Not really getting your point here. Are you suggesting to cherry pick from religions?

Like I say, IMO the texts were a mix of the functional and the dysfunctional, not all bad and not all good.

Click to expand...

I never said it was "all bad". What I will say though, is that religion in general is given as a total package. If we are going to cherry pick what we like and discard what we don't, then clearly we are using a reaoning and standard for that cherry picking that does not come from the religion, but which comes from us. In such a case, I'ld have to ask: "why bother with the religions at all?", more specifically - all the supernatural, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable and, to me, rather obvious nonsense.

If ethics is about "attraction to being" or "attraction to life" then the fact that there are generations of religious community suggests they may have some virtue, even if it has not been so self aware, either critically or not.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me.

Conscious Z, In science it is called jumping to conclusions, in religion it is called a leap of faith and both are the result of insufficient evidence or not knowing what all the variables/options are. Yes, this can be considered irrational because we are never forced to make these conclusions when we still have doubts. Adding vitamin D and calcium to pasteurized milk did not solve the problem that was created. Adding iodine to salt did not solve the problem either. These are examples of science gone bad.

single eye said:

Conscious Z, In science it is called jumping to conclusions, in religion it is called a leap of faith and both are the result of insufficient evidence or not knowing what all the variables/options are. Yes, this can be considered irrational because we are never forced to make these conclusions when we still have doubts. Adding vitamin D and calcium to pasteurized milk did not solve the problem that was created. Adding iodine to salt did not solve the problem either. These are examples of science gone bad.

Click to expand...

That's not "science gone bad." Those are bad conclusions arrived at by scientists. There is a difference between saying that science isn't perfect and scientists aren't perfect.

Science is perfect.

DogmaHunter said:

Yes. But, as you say, that was then. Today, it's not like back then anymore.
I'll keep it in the middle wheter or not it was necessary back then or not. It doesn't really matter that much even. What matters though is, as you seem to suggest, we don't need to cling to scraps of paper today. So why do so?

Click to expand...

Are you looking for philosophy or sociologically and psychology here? I think on paper the skeptics (or agnostics) win. Translating that into mass deconversion has its sociological and psychological barriers.

Not really getting your point here. Are you suggesting to cherry pick from religions?

Click to expand...

No but there is both good and bad in faiths, insofar as they can promote intelligent life or cause its dissolution. Think lowering entropy, promoting health and life etc. Or the opposite.

A lot of religious people seem to be fairly healthy, even if their health is based in part on erronous Bronze Age cosmology. That ("mere health") is not going to win a Nobel prize I know, but its still statistically unusual (i.e. far from thermodynamic equilibrium) for the cosmos AFAICT.

I know that before science things were harder, but still there is practical wisdom in faiths. Dont underestimate "your enemy".

I never said it was "all bad". What I will say though, is that religion in general is given as a total package. If we are going to cherry pick what we like and discard what we don't, then clearly we are using a reaoning and standard for that cherry picking that does not come from the religion, but which comes from us. In such a case, I'ld have to ask: "why bother with the religions at all?", more specifically - all the supernatural, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable and, to me, rather obvious nonsense.

Click to expand...

Its a good point on paper, like I said though, there are institutionalised sociological and psychological barriers.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

For me ethics causes attraction to life (or being), just as does any other adaptation. Even if its in a roundabout, imperfect way. Thats why I have respect of faiths, they helped, and do help keep the species alive.

The problem is they can be blind, we all know that. Blowing one another up is a germaine example. But I am trying to be fair and just, and look at both sides... functionality included.

Conscious Z said:

Where exactly is the evidence that science isn't perfect? Everyone on this thread seems to have taken that for granted, but it doesn't seem obvious to me. Are there known cases of the scientific method not working?

Click to expand...

From what I gather from theists on this site, science 'doesn't work' when it fails to affirm their religious 'truths', or conflicts with those 'truths', fails to provide comfort, or 100% certainty - all those things you can get with your average religion.

As for getting an accurate description of reality, if that is what interests you, then religion definitely has its blinders on.

I would not say science is perfect; to paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

Blue Box said:

The failures of science don't speak to its unreliability. Science fails because it tries, and the successes come because science learns from its failed attempts and improves the experiments along the way. Knowledge isn't a foregone conclusion. Knowledge is a process. And unlike religion, science sets up systems of peer review, accountability and collaboration to improve upon itself.

Click to expand...

This is a naïve view of western science. Science hasn't been immune to politics. Especially in medicine, there's a fair amount of it that is not rigorously evidence-based.

In addition, so many of the advances in "modern life" are built off exploitation of other peoples. Conveniently this is ignored in this discussion.

Frankly, I see no conflict. Religion and science deal with different things for the most part. A religious worldview is no less valid than a materialistic worldview.

FireDragon76 said:

This is a naïve view of western science. Science hasn't been immune to politics. Especially in medicine, there's a fair amount of it that is not rigorously evidence-based.

In addition, so many of the advances in "modern life" are built off exploitation of other peoples. Conveniently this is ignored in this discussion.

Frankly, I see no conflict. Religion and science deal with different things for the most part. A religious worldview is no less valid than a materialistic worldview.

Click to expand...

By what methodology do you establish the validity of a worldview?

Concious Z, does having "perfect science" or "perfect faith" matter if we can never master them perfectly? Very few have mastered both, like Elijah, Jesus, and the disciples. They knew how to heal the sick and cast out demons. Eliminating the problem is not profitable.

single eye said:

Concious Z, does having "perfect science" or "perfect faith" matter if we can never master them perfectly? Very few have mastered both, like Elijah, Jesus, and the disciples. They knew how to heal the sick and cast out demons. Eliminating the problem is not profitable.

Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin on this one. Yes, I think that science itself being perfect is a good thing because it lets us know that our method is reliable, thus, if we do it well, we should get good information. It's always nice to know that the process works, which is what is meant by "science is perfect."

As for "perfect faith"....I'm not sure what that is. I also don't know what you mean by "eliminating the problem is not profitable." Is that some knock on the pharmaceutical system in the US?

Science & faith are corrupted by politics and financial gain. As long as people are corrupted their faith and/or science will be corrupted also. Everyone who is profiting from the healthcare industry has a conflict of interest. An ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. I know you have not yet seen real faith, be patient, you will.

Conscious Z said:

That's not "science gone bad." Those are bad conclusions arrived at by scientists. There is a difference between saying that science isn't perfect and scientists aren't perfect.

Science is perfect.

Click to expand...

I dont think so. "Science" is not just the idealized method. Its also the ongoing scientific enterprise and institutions.

Science is a technology of knowledge. As with other technology it can be used for evil. I think thatin the hands of free society it is being used to create more gadgets than we really need IMO. Stuff like peace psychology is more important, but what multi-billion dollar corporations dedicate themselves to that?

The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology , available online through Wiley Online Library or as a three–volume print set, is a state–of–the–art resource featuring almost 300 entries contributed by leading international scholars that examine the psychological dimensions of peace and conflict studies

Click to expand...

Davian said:

By what methodology do you establish the validity of a worldview?

Click to expand...

I look at religious people and see most of them living happy lives. I also realize there are psychological and sociological benefits to religious faith. Finally, I look at my own experience and I realize that I'm a religious creature, as are most human beings.

FireDragon76 said:

I look at religious people and see most of them living happy lives. I also realize there are psychological and sociological benefits to religious faith. Finally, I look at my own experience and I realize that I'm a religious creature, as are most human beings.

Click to expand...

That does not speak to their validity, of being logically or factually sound, does it?

Blue Box said:

What do you think of this blog written by Atheist activist and former Christian broadcaster Seth Andrews?


Science Isn't Perfect

People a few hundred years ago couldn't conceive of the advances we've made, and those advances have been made in the teeth of religious dogma. (Remember that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for daring to suggest that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. This is a single symptom of the epidemic, anti-science nature of religion, and it's been going on for centuries.)

The advances we've made as a species? They came from science. They came from testing, discovering and developing real solutions in the real world. (God was apparently busy making rainbows and finding lost car keys. Too bad he couldn't find time for the children's hospitals and the 30,000 who will starve to death today.)

Click to expand...

It sounds like the zeal of a new convert - to atheism in this case.

Science isn't perfect. Scientists aren't perfect. But science is our most reliable method for understanding, and it's our most valuable tool for progress. It's what makes our cars drive. It's what makes airplanes fly. It's the medicine which fights infection, the vaccines which prevent disease, the smartphones in our pocket, the ability to forecast the weather, the devices which boil our water and cook our foods, the videos of our children, the cause for our almost 100-year lifespans, etc. It's the reason we could unlock the genome, the reason we can fix eyesight with lasers, the reason we have a human footprint on the moon.

Click to expand...

The 1 megaton H bombs seem to have slipped his memory. Everything about the new creed is good, and everything about the old creed is bad, sounds very much like the new convert.

Blue Box said:

What do you think of this blog written by Atheist activist and former Christian broadcaster Seth Andrews?


Science Isn't Perfect

People a few hundred years ago couldn't conceive of the advances we've made, and those advances have been made in the teeth of religious dogma. (Remember that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for daring to suggest that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. This is a single symptom of the epidemic, anti-science nature of religion, and it's been going on for centuries.)

The advances we've made as a species? They came from science. They came from testing, discovering and developing real solutions in the real world. (God was apparently busy making rainbows and finding lost car keys. Too bad he couldn't find time for the children's hospitals and the 30,000 who will starve to death today.)

Science isn't perfect. Scientists aren't perfect. But science is our most reliable method for understanding, and it's our most valuable tool for progress. It's what makes our cars drive. It's what makes airplanes fly. It's the medicine which fights infection, the vaccines which prevent disease, the smartphones in our pocket, the ability to forecast the weather, the devices which boil our water and cook our foods, the videos of our children, the cause for our almost 100-year lifespans, etc. It's the reason we could unlock the genome, the reason we can fix eyesight with lasers, the reason we have a human footprint on the moon.

We haven't reached this point in human history because we sat around, deferred to ancient texts and chanted to the sky. We busted our asses, tried, tried again and created real solutions in the real world.

The failures of science don't speak to its unreliability. Science fails because it tries, and the successes come because science learns from its failed attempts and improves the experiments along the way. Knowledge isn't a foregone conclusion. Knowledge is a process. And unlike religion, science sets up systems of peer review, accountability and collaboration to improve upon itself. It certainly doesn't ever claim Absolute Truth, but instead is prepared to continually subject our "facts" to further testing, and when new/better information is discovered, science updates the record. Then...it tests again. And again. And again.

Try that with religion.

Science. It wins by a landslide - See more at: The Thinking Atheist - Blog | Science Isn't Perfect

Click to expand...

All of this and they still can't cure the common cold. LOL!!

Conscious Z said:

Where exactly is the evidence that science isn't perfect?

Click to expand...

The failure to combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity comes to mind. Not only has the scientific method failed to 'combine' the two theories - both of which seem to work on their own - but the attempt to 'combine' them, actually make them compatible under normal conditions - is largely abandoned.

Another glaring example is the opposition to Lemaitre's "Cosmic Egg" theory. Sir Fred Hoyle opposed the theory for years on the grounds it sounded too much like the Biblical account. Hoyle was shown to be wrong in his pet theory later.

Conscious Z said:

Are there known cases of the scientific method not working?

Click to expand...

The failure of science is in 'results' which do not bear up under scrutiny; usually occasioned by the claimant failing to observe the scientific method.

In a massive, Cosmic coincidence, this is usually the problem with some Christian theology; the failure of the claimant to understand the Bible.

Blue Box said:

What do you think of this blog written by Atheist activist and former Christian broadcaster Seth Andrews?

Click to expand...

Not much. I don't give much attention to the ranting of any 'former' anyone.

People who are no longer a [fill in the blank] tend to have stopped being a [same fill in] for personal reasons. So their claims and observations are tinged with resentment and anger.

I don't give serious credence to 'ex-atheists' who have long and involved tales of horror and misconduct, either.

Here's a question on the subject for you: What will you think of Seth Andrews when he reverses his stand and becomes an 'ex-atheist'?

Hezekiah Holbrooke said:

All of this and they still can't cure the common cold. LOL!!

Click to expand...

That must be because they are caused by evil sprits. How can science deal with that?