We just got to witness an amazing event.

[Grooveriding]

Oh dear lord did the OP take a turn for the worse.

Science is not some abstract all-encompassing authority of knowledge.

Science is the all-encompassing authority of knowledge when it comes to explaining how everything got here, what it is and how it works. It's just a barely started encyclopedia is all, but everything we have learned about nature thus far falls under its umbrella. Its methods of developing understandings is what we all owe our thanks to for not still living in caves and dying out in our 20s.

 

[HumblePie]

Science is the all-encompassing authority of knowledge when it comes to explaining how everything got here, what it is and how it works. It's just a barely started encyclopedia is all, but everything we have learned about nature thus far falls under its umbrella. Its methods of developing understandings is what we all owe our thanks to for not still living in caves and dying out in our 20s.

No.

Science is a method. Plain and simple in the following steps:

1) Conjecturing a hypothesis
2) devising tests to disprove that hypothesis
3) running those tests to disprove,

4a) if it is disproven then revise hypothesis otherwise
4b) devise more tests to disprove hypothesis

5) repeat 4a and 4b until no one can come up with a new test.

Tests devised in steps 2 and 4 need to be concise, and repeatable to give consistent results.

That is science. It helps us find answers to questions. Truthfully, no answer found is ever free from being disproved with the scientific method.

Some scientists do things the wrong way though and have for a long time. The do things this way.

1) Devise a hypothesis you want as an answer
2) Devise tests to prove that hypothesis
3) If tests don't prove it or only partly prove it, then cherry pick the data and tests that prove it.

This crap has been going on for a very long time.

Science doesn't claim to know or prove anything. True science is about the discovery and quest; not the destination.

Now that isn't the same as observations. Observations of a phenomenon tends to be highly conflated with the scientific method and incorrect statements way too often.

 

[MrDudeMan]

No.

Science is a method. Plain and simple in the following steps:

1) Conjecturing a hypothesis
2) devising tests to disprove that hypothesis
3) running those tests to disprove,

4a) if it is disproven then revise hypothesis otherwise
4b) devise more tests to disprove hypothesis

5) repeat 4a and 4b until no one can come up with a new test.

Tests devised in steps 2 and 4 need to be concise, and repeatable to give consistent results.

That is science. It helps us find answers to questions. Truthfully, no answer found is ever free from being disproved with the scientific method.

Some scientists do things the wrong way though and have for a long time. The do things this way.

1) Devise a hypothesis you want as an answer
2) Devise tests to prove that hypothesis
3) If tests don't prove it or only partly prove it, then cherry pick the data and tests that prove it.

This crap has been going on for a very long time.

Science doesn't claim to know or prove anything. True science is about the discovery and quest; not the destination.

Now that isn't the same as observations. Observations of a phenomenon tends to be highly conflated with the scientific method and incorrect statements way too often.

Your post doesn't really conflict with his. He's talking about the implication and you're talking about the implementation.

 

[HumblePie]

Your post doesn't really conflict with his. He's talking about the implication and you're talking about the implementation.

Not at all. His post is to state science has all the answers. Science makes no such claim. Any scientist that tries to claim that you should run away from. Science is a method to attempt to find potential answers. It makes no claim it will or even has found any answers. There is the rub. It has found observations, and repeatable tests, but doesn't find actual answers. You may be asking, "what the frack does that mean?"

Simple, answers can be derived from hypothesis that have been tested against to be disproven but haven't and are now the prevailing theory on a given subject. But that does not mean it is THE answer for that specific subject at all. It makes it highly likely, but as we evolve and new people can discover a new way to test an old theory, things can and do change. Derived answers change. Some a little, and some so much they may be opposite of the original answer.

Claiming science is an all-encompassing authority on knowledge is just wrong. That is saying science holds all the answers, but it doesn't actually hold any. It is a method for deriving possible answers. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Not at all. His post is to state science has all the answers. Science makes no such claim. Any scientist that tries to claim that you should run away from. Science is a method to attempt to find potential answers. It makes no claim it will or even has found any answers. There is the rub. It has found observations, and repeatable tests, but doesn't find actual answers. You may be asking, "what the frack does that mean?"

Simple, answers can be derived from hypothesis that have been tested against to be disproven but haven't and are now the prevailing theory on a given subject. But that does not mean it is THE answer for that specific subject at all. It makes it highly likely, but as we evolve and new people can discover a new way to test an old theory, things can and do change. Derived answers change. Some a little, and some so much they may be opposite of the original answer.

Claiming science is an all-encompassing authority on knowledge is just wrong. That is saying science holds all the answers, but it doesn't actually hold any. It is a method for deriving possible answers. Nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks for the high level, generalized lecture that says nothing of value. No one has claimed science has all of the answers. It does, however, provide answers and the degree to which the answers are accurate given the physical world are refined over time. Thus, the original statement to which you took exception is not incorrect: "It's just a barely started encyclopedia is all, but everything we have learned about nature thus far falls under its umbrella. Its methods of developing understandings is what we all owe our thanks to for not still living in caves and dying out in our 20s." If you want to continue this, know that it's a philosophical debate at best and claiming an absolute position is, to use your words, just wrong. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to continue working on the radio NOAA is using to talk to the GOES-16 satellite that's taking pictures of Irma using science, which provided all of the information I needed to design, test, and use the radio.

 

[HomerJS]

Question

95% of engineers say a given bridge is in danger of imminent collapse
5% of engineers say its safe

Do you cross?

 

[zinfamous]

Question

95% of engineers say a given bridge is in danger of imminent collapse
5% of engineers say its safe

Do you cross?

How much does it cost to update the bridge?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Question

95% of engineers say a given bridge is in danger of imminent collapse
5% of engineers say its safe

Do you cross?

There's not enough information to answer this question. Am I running away from a volcano and the only way to escape is across the bridge? Yes. Is there another relatively similar path to a safe location? Maybe. Do I have time to analyze the various opinions and/or see the bridge in person to get a sense of the condition? Maybe. Am I deciding based on a stupid hypothetical question with a dubious agenda without knowing anything else? Probably still yes, but maybe no depending on how I'm feeling at that moment.

As an engineer, I realize the level to which many other engineers will scrutinize something. If 95% are in agreement, then I would most likely trust their collective judgment as experience tells me the other 5% are unlikely to uncover a significant flaw. Has it happened? Sure. Is it likely? No.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In some cases things that scientists say are not actually what they WANT to say or what is right, and that's usually because of government censoring them. Climate change is a good example of this. Governments don't like the idea of climate change being caused by humans/industry because it makes people start to look into changing their ways, which in the end often involves less mass consumption and less money in corporation/their pockets. Not sure if this is the case in the US, but for the longest time here in Canada under the Harper regime, scientists were not allowed to publish anything before it is vetted by government. They were sometimes told to say stuff that's not true, or skew results etc. This was very frustrating for them because it's not how they want to do science. Thankfully that is now a thing of the past.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Scientists were able to able to use math, observation, and some fancy degrees to predict the exact time and path of the eclipse. Hundreds of thousands of families traveled for hours, even days, to be directly in the path of the solar eclipse. Little paper glasses sold out in anticipation, and more than half the nation ground to a halt as they ran outside to watch the event.

No one questioned the science behind it. Anyone who did was quickly dismissed.

Yet...

The scientific community is being questioned about their findings on how the climate has been impacted by humans.

We should not only listen to science when it makes a good Instagram story.

But the Furher is always right!!