Do you think Science is 100%?
I do not think science is 100%. It is simply too subjective. Although people use evidence to support their scientific claims, it has happened many times that the 'truth' is dependent on how the scientist uses the evidence, and how the scientist TAKES the evidence to mean.
For example:
In the famous study of pherenology, it was once belived becasue of 'scientific evidence' that women and people of other races were intellectually inferior becasue of head size.
It was found later, however, that head size had nothin to DO with intellgence: intellegence is based on genetics.
This, and several other scientific 'advancements proven false' show that science itself is not set in stone, and can depend on the person or group who is tryign to prove a claim.
Therefore: what do you think?
IS Science the answer to life? OR is it just a clue to some of the answers?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 27
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
0
points
1
point
-1
points
|
Science, itself, is the quest for knowledge. To me, that is the ultimate right thing to do. Anything else is not as accurate as science. Now, are scientific THEORIES 100%? Of course not. To suggest that would be against science. Even science says that nothing can be 100%. Side: Quantum Physics
Science is DESIGNED not to be 100%. If you think it's 100% you're doing it wrong. The entire central theme of the scientific method is hard nosed skepticism. you NEVER, EVER think your results are 100% complete/proven/correct. That is the great strength of the scientific method that keeps driving it forward and what sets it apart from religious dogma. Edit: P.S.... Phrenology used as an example of science? Seriously? Come on, please be serious. hat was never considered to be a serious science, it's in the same category as astrology. Even in the 1840's they knew that was nonsense and called it pseudo-science. Side: No
1
point
Science is in search for the truth. It strives to be accurate...100% correct. The scientists however all have biases....and that can affect outcome. Look at the pickle Ernest Haekle got himself into. The scientific method is not perfect......some things will never and can never be observed. Some questions will never be answered. So where does that leave us? With a lot of unanswered questions thats where. I don't think however that to have a God belief is irrational or a psychological crutch. There are scientists that hold to a God belief. Then there are people like Dawkins that believes that his atheism is grounded in biology, even though biology can't answer lifes toughest and most meaningful questions. The mere thought of a God repulses him. He can not nor can science even address the worlds complexity, yet they toss the idea of an intelligent designer out the window without so much as applying the same standards of evidence and research to science as they do to the idea of God. The fact is, it is impossible to say for sure that there is not a God. People have had experiences, near death, miracle in their lives that lead them to believe in God. How do we know if anyones experience of God is actually valid? Do you or anyone else for that matter have the right to tell anyone their experience is false? Now I don't personally believe in UFO's but there have been pretty believable accounts that I have heard from people who swear they have had experiences. So far...no one has proof...but that does not mean they might not be out there. Side: yes
It strives to be as close to 100% accurate as possible but NEVER EVER thinks it's there. The foundation of the scientific method is that your results must always be held provisional to new evidence. If you don't get that you've never done science. And of course it's not perfect, it's just the closest thing to it we have available. Appealing to things it can't explain is a ridiculous cop-out unless you have a way to answer those questions you claim science can't. To the best of my knowledge religion has never answered one single question about anything, let alone anything science hasn't been able to answer. Religion makes unfounded assertions and unsupported claims but it does not impart knowledge or answers. Like... ever. You're quite right that it's impossible to say for certain that there is not a God. It is also however impossible to say for certain that there are not magical invisible space elves that are really responsible for the motion of planets. How relevant do you think that statement should be to our understanding of astronomy exactly? Side: No
2
points
Nothing is ever 100%. Every definition is modified a billion times to be made correct. First Pluto was a planet and then suddenly the idea of a planet changed and it is chucked out of the league. Even today certain scientific inventions can be disastrous. But, this does not mean we must stop. It only means that reliability must not exceed. Side: No
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
People tend to think that science is the answer to everything. One day, the world is going to come across a question that they cant solve with science. I think if they can't answer it with some sort of concrete evidence, then the world will ignore it, and forget it was even there. Side: No
|
