Should we trust science?

[Tom 1]

What other errors happen that we never hear anything about?!?

 

[Go Braves]

Lol. I like that that came from New Scientist. Folks tend to think that scientists lack a sense of humor but that's really not so.

I don't trust folks who lack the ability to poke fun of themselves now & then.

 

[AvgJoe]

Should we trust science?

Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.

www.gotquestions.org/science-God.html

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Seems to me, the more educated a person becomes, the more difficult it is to own up to committing errors, especially in the workplace, and even more so if it involves criticism from peers. Pride is so common to mankind, and it is often disguised, under grins and smiles. Btw, this is not intended as a criticism towards education, rather more of a criticism towards the innate nature of mankind. Despite this criticism, Science is a gift from God, it is the study of His Creation, and what a wonderful world He has made, full of awesome wonders. With Scientists though, the mileage varies, despite errors, countless discoveries and advances have been accomplished through Science. Personally, I am especially thankful for advances in chemistry and medicine and the technology to perform complicated procedures that only a hundred years ago were not only not possible, but inconceivable. So it's a give and take thing, like marriage. lol

 

[bhsmte]

View attachment 225850
What other errors happen that we never hear anything about?!?

You trust and enjoy, what science has delivered, every hour of every day of your life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Seems to me, the more educated a person becomes, the more difficult it is to own up to committing errors, especially in the workplace, and even more so if it involves criticism from peers.

Are you sure that's correct?

 

[bhsmte]

Seems to me, the more educated a person becomes, the more difficult it is to own up to committing errors, especially in the workplace, and even more so if it involves criticism from peers. Pride is so common to mankind, and it is often disguised, under grins and smiles. Btw, this is not intended as a criticism towards education, rather more of a criticism towards the innate nature of mankind. Despite this criticism, Science is a gift from God, it is the study of His Creation, and what a wonderful world He has made, full of awesome wonders. With Scientists though, the mileage varies, despite errors, countless discoveries and advances have been accomplished through Science. Personally, I am especially thankful for advances in chemistry and medicine and the technology to perform complicated procedures that only a hundred years ago were not only not possible, but inconceivable. So it's a give and take thing, like marriage. lol

I don't believe this generality is correct. IMO, whether a person is capable of admitting error, has more to do with their psychological traits, than anything else. Those who have higher narcissist traits, typically have a hard time admitting they are wrong, regardless of their education.

 

[Tom 1]

You trust and enjoy, what science has delivered, every hour of every day of your life.

I do indeed. Perhaps you missed the humour?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I don't believe this generality is correct. IMO, whether a person is capable of admitting error, has more to do with their psychological traits, than anything else. Those who have higher narcissist traits, typically have a hard time admitting they are wrong, regardless of their education.

Psychological traits have their seat in what, at the moment for lack of other description and terminology, I can only describe as human nature. If there is truth to them, and if there is not, it still makes the point, but if there is truth to reality shows such as Steve Wilkos, Maury, and Jerry Springer, these would be prime examples of how common and to what extent or level people lie and suppress what they know to be the truth. The extent of their pride is demonstrated by a willingness to even attempt to outwit lie detector tests. Yes, they are so bold as to attempt to outwit Science itself. We could investigate further into other realities like prison inmates and their unwillingness to confess even when incarcerated. You may say these are just average people, but all we need to do is look into another area like Politics where people tend to be more on the intellectual end of the spectrum to see that intelligence alone does not produce or create integrity. So based on many evidences, I have to respectfully disagree.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

We shouldn't just 'trust' individual scientists. We should make them convince us that they're right about anything by showing us the evidence, and allowing people to check claims by repeating experiments.

Whether we should, for example, trust science as a process should be based upon whether it has been shown to be an effective process for understanding the world. Has anyone noticed if there have been any successful theories about what causes disease, why planets orbit stars in the orbits that they do, what sort of fundamental particles make up the universe and so on?

 

[bhsmte]

Psychological traits have their seat in what, at the moment for lack of other description and terminology, I can only describe as human nature. If there is truth to them, and if there is not, it still makes the point, but if there is truth to reality shows such as Steve Wilkos, Maury, and Jerry Springer, these would be prime examples of how common and to what extent or level people lie and suppress what they know to be the truth. The extent of their pride is demonstrated by a willingness to even attempt to outwit lie detector tests. Yes, they are so bold as to attempt to outwit Science itself. We could investigate further into other realities like prison inmates and their unwillingness to confess even when incarcerated. You may say these are just average people, but all we need to do is look into another area like Politics where people tend to be more on the intellectual end of the spectrum to see that intelligence alone does not produce or create integrity. So based on many evidences, I have to respectfully disagree.

That's cool, we disagree.

 

[JackRT]

Lol. I like that that came from New Scientist. Folks tend to think that scientists lack a sense of humor but that's really not so.

I don't trust folks who lack the ability to poke fun of themselves now & then.

Scientists actually have a very healthy but somewhat quirky sense of humour:

Okay, We Give Up --- We Feel So Ashamed
by The Editors (Of Scientific American)
March 2005

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific UnAmerican, or even Unscientific UnAmerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either --- so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

 

[jayem]

If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction.

But is religion any different? Aren't religious believers also imperfect, fallible, sinful human beings? And you know that history is full of misguided, destructive, calamitous behavior by people thinking they are doing God's will.

God is never wrong.

That's faith in things unseen. What I see is that people who claim to believe in God, and who claim to know God, and to speak for God can be very wrong.

 

[Go Braves]

Scientists actually have a very healthy but somewhat quirky sense of humour:

Okay, We Give Up --- We Feel So Ashamed
by The Editors (Of Scientific American)
March 2005

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific UnAmerican, or even Unscientific UnAmerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either --- so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Thanks for sharing that.

 

[AvgJoe]

Aren't religious believers also imperfect, fallible, sinful human beings?

Yes they are, but us believers are not putting our faith in other believers, we are putting our faith in God, who is perfect.

That's faith in things unseen. What I see is that people who claim to believe in God, and who claim to know God, and to speak for God can be very wrong.

We've established that all people are imperfect, fallible and sinful. Being so, we often interpret things incorrectly, and even if we have the right interpretation, we can still mess things up by going about it in the wrong manner.

Christians are not the standard to look to, to emulate. Jesus, the perfect Son of God, is our standard to look up to and emulate. Jesus, our God and Savior, is never wrong.

 

[jayem]

Yes they are, but us believers are not putting our faith in other believers, we are putting our faith in God, who is perfect.

Not quite. From where did you obtain your understanding of God? You're actually putting your faith in the Bible. Which was written down by human beings. Who we have established are fallible and not always trustworthy. Your more fundamental faith is that the men who wrote scripture were inspired to depict God accurately.

 

[AvgJoe]

Not quite. From where did you obtain your understanding of God? You're actually putting your faith in the Bible. Which was written down by human beings. Who we have established are fallible and not always trustworthy. Your more fundamental faith is that the men who wrote scripture were inspired to depict God accurately.

From a 'God doesn't exist' point of view, what you've said here makes sense. But, from my 'God does exist' point of view, what you've said here is way off base. Yes, the Scriptures were written by the hand of men but they were inspired by God, meaning that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures, in such a way, that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written. My faith is in God, not the human authors God inspired to pen His Word.

 

[Tayla]

Regarding the question: Should we trust science?

What other errors happen that we never hear anything about?!?

We should only trust science within its proper domain. The scientific method requires that hypotheses be falsifiable by performing experiments capable of proving them false (if they are false). But the past is not falsifiable and, therefore, science can't prove anything about it.

All science can do is provide stories of what could have happened with evidence that the stories are true. But other stories can also be provided which also explain the evidence. Young earth creationism is such a story, and it can be demonstrated to be true.

 

[Jimmy D]

but they were inspired by God, meaning that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures, in such a way, that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written.

Who told you that?

 

[sfs]

We should only trust science within its proper domain. The scientific method requires that hypotheses be falsifiable by performing experiments capable of proving them false (if they are false).

No, that's not a requirement of the scientific method. Science requires that hypotheses be testable with empirical data, which can include both experimental and observational data.

But the past is not falsifiable and, therefore, science can't prove anything about it.

Many branches of science deal with the past with no problem at all -- astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, geology, evolutionary biology, even some physics. That's because you don't have to repeat the past to test hypotheses about it.