Scientific vs Wrong

[Justatruthseeker]

Impossible.

Science is about explaining facts, and facts are never wrong, therefore science is never wrong.

That's the weakness of science; it is able to be proven wrong, but never able to be proven right.

Wait, I thought you said science was never wrong???? So which is it?

 

[Doveaman]

Wait, I thought you said science was never wrong???? So which is it?

It's both.

Science is never wrong until it is proven wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's both.

Science is never wrong until it is proven wrong.

Then it was already wrong, long before it was proven to be wrong. People just didn't know it. Two different things....

 

[Brightmoon]

Ok so “prove” evolution is wrong. 1 demonstrate the invisible intangible creationist barrier that supposedly stops species from evolving into another species 2 in fossils that do actually show common descent ( and that does happen despite your protestations to the contrary) show that its not common descent . 3 demonstrate special creation .

 

[dzheremi]

That's the weakness of science; it is able to be proven wrong, but never able to be proven right.

That's not a weakness, though. That's science when it is 'working' properly, so to speak. Any field in which new theories and new conclusions do not come out to challenge what has thus far been accepted is a field that is stagnating. I could make an example in my own field of the 'strong' version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language shapes thought; this theory is generally agreed upon in some 'weak', non-deterministic version, but the 'strong' version of this idea that sees language as a straight jacket is not accepted. Linguistic science has moved on from such notions by finding counterfactual evidence that continuously weakened the 'strong' claim (which to the best of my memory was not what was actually put forth by Sapir or Whorf, who never co-authored any papers together anyway, but is the result of later distinctions made in looking at the question of linguistic relativity), to the point that basically no one would make it these days. It has been 'proven wrong' to the benefit of the entire scientific field and society in general. Again, this is just how science works. It's not a weakness any more than doctors advancing in the precision and efficacy of heart surgery methods could be called "the weakness of medicine", but I don't think anyone would actually say that.

Basically, things improving as people learn more is in no way a weakness.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Depends on who sponsored the science, and IF a pre-determine out come is/was requested / suggested or not, what bias are involved and how the research will be used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...st-2-000-slices-216-seconds-optimum-time.html

Scientists today revealed the mathematical formula for a perfect slice of toast, showing that it is best cooked for exactly 216 seconds.

What if my bread is thicker, made of different ingredients or I just like burned toast.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok so “prove” evolution is wrong. 1 demonstrate the invisible intangible creationist barrier that supposedly stops species from evolving into another species 2 in fossils that do actually show common descent ( and that does happen despite your protestations to the contrary) show that its not common descent . 3 demonstrate special creation .

1. You wont accept the evidence before your eyes. You can't see what creature mated with what creature from a pile of bones. They simply classify things that look a little different as separate species. You know, like a pug looks different than a wolf......

2. Oh those fossils show common descent all right, the same descent as from wolf to pug.... no change of species at all. It's when you get to the ones that are not related where you have to insert imaginary common ancestors.

3. Demonstrate life from non-life.....

 

[Tanj]

Your link begins with: "Dutch researchers stopped a clinical trial due to the deaths of 11 babies from a lung disease after their mothers were treated with the drug sildenafil"

Was it scientifically right to treat their mothers with the drug sildenafil"?

Yes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Or that orbits are circles instead of spirals or ellipses ?

Fixed that for you

Yes, when talking of orbits in general; but circles are a type of ellipse. There's no reason an individual orbit couldn't be near-as-dammit circular.

 

[jayem]

Good science accepts that knowledge is tentative. It will correct itself as new evidence is found. To me, that makes it superior to religious doctrine. Which will rarely, if ever, admit that it is mistaken. I also accept that scientific knowledge will always be incomplete. The deeper our understanding of nature's mechanisms, the more questions we'll encounter. That's not a problem. It's actually what makes science so exciting. There will always be new frontiers to explore. The thrill is in the journey, not the destination.

I think the fundamental difference in religious believers and non-believers is psychological. Believers need an answer to the existential questions of life. And if a naturalistic explanation isn't obvious, or seems unlikely, they'll create a supernatural one. And they'll cling to it. Non-believers--at least like me--don't have a problem with uncertainty. I accept that human knowledge is limited. And I'd much rather inch our way along in understanding the mechanics of how the universe came about, and how it operates, than make up some unverifiable supernatural myth.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

It depends on your definition of science, and your definition of wrong. Atheists have been known to claim their world-views of evolution, big-bangenism and heliocentricity are science, and also claim these theories to be right.

However, such theories are not "science" in the true sense of the word, but if they were (i.e. if the atheists presented falsifiable hypotheses for each of their beliefs), such beliefs would be both scientific (i.e. falsifiable hypotheses) and wrong (falsified hypotheses).

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends on your definition of science, and your definition of wrong. Atheists have been known to claim their world-views of evolution, big-bangenism and heliocentricity are science, and also claim these theories to be right.

However, such theories are not "science" in the true sense of the word, but if they were (i.e. if the atheists presented falsifiable hypotheses for each of their beliefs), such beliefs would be both scientific (i.e. falsifiable hypotheses) and wrong (falsified hypotheses).

Yup.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fixed that for you

Yes, when talking of orbits in general; but circles are a type of ellipse. There's no reason an individual orbit couldn't be near-as-dammit circular.

No, you inserted another error thinking you were fixing it.

The sun is moving at approximately 514,000 mph in its orbit around the galaxy.

I said spiral and I meant spiral.

There is one thing wrong with the representation of their orbital paths though, can you deduce what that is?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The sun is moving at approximately 514,000 mph in its orbit around the galaxy.

I said spiral and I meant spiral.

I'm aware that orbits can be spiral, e.g. the moon moving away from the Earth, but that nice animation is complete fiction - as Pauli would say, "Not even wrong".

There is one thing wrong with the representation of their orbital paths though, can you deduce what that is?

The whole thing is wrong on so many levels it's nonsense.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

What do you mean by "scientific"?

 

[Kylie]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Yes. Newton's ideas about gravity and his equations describing gravity were wrong.

Of course, I must point out that it's always SCIENCE that points out where it went wrong, because science always strives to be as accurate as possible, and is willing to change with new evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your link begins with: "Dutch researchers stopped a clinical trial due to the deaths of 11 babies from a lung disease after their mothers were treated with the drug sildenafil"

Was it scientifically right to treat their mothers with the drug sildenafil"?

If they were suffering from erectile dysfunction, certainly.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Not in the long term. Science changes when observable reality conflicts with the established dogma.

People win acclaim (and not a little cash) if they can find something new that doesn't fit, and can come up with a new reason that fits with all the available data.


And no, before we get there, because God is not a valid new reason. Enough people havemade a very good living off of it for it to be considered new.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the long term.

One of Aristotle's theories stunted the growth of science for two thousand years.

And Pluto was considered our ninth planet for seventy-six years.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can something be scientific and wrong at the same time?

Yes. But, AV, my caveat in saying this is that the honest scientist will not spout that he or she is working solely to establish various physical truths that will remain in time immemorial, but rather they are working to discover insights about our world that, from a human viewpoint, are "provisional." So, if these truths are provisional, it's always assumed that they might be improved upon (and thus our ideas about them now are a little bit wrong all along). That is, if they're honest. Of course, not all scientists are honest like that.