Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf
First of all lets remove the words Truth and Faith from the sphere of Science. Science is neither a vehichle for finding truth nor is it a faith. Scince is an evolving understanding of the world around us. It evolves with the human element. The strong theories prevail and week fall to the side.
The scientific method is about proposing theories and testing those theories by observation and amending them to fit what we observe to draw conclusssions. These conclussions are not truth, because they rely on human observation and limits that go with that. But with the Scintific method it is a given that the theories will change with time, as we observe more and our understanding grows. It will provide a better model to approximate the evolving truth at that point in time.
However as I said before the limiting factor is the human element. That is unavoidable. There are vices and virtues to human nature. Unfortunately therfore the strong theories may not neccesarly be the best. Because one must consider, what are the influnce's behind the theory. For example Newtons particle theory ruled for 100 years simply because he was British, he was better known etc etc. Even when Einstien proposed relativity the British scientific community did not want him to be right simply because he was German. And we all know how that turned out.
The problem today is weeding out the best is more complex. Because we must also examine what is the agenda behind the theory. While this may seem paranoid, it is nevertheless true. This is the perhaps the only truth. The human element is influcned by factors outside the scientific method. Those can be political, captilist, religious etc etc. But they are there. And even if the theory is complelty without the above bias, some one will no doubt claim there is.
In the world today we have agendas set to drive profits. Can we really say the outcome of this will be truth? or even a close aproxmiation of the truth? Do you think big pharmcuiticals want you to know the truth? or chose there medicine?
The problem today is in being able to see that Bias. It is not simply about remvoing the dark frames from the light, we need Bias and Flat frame removal too 
Science has been turned on itself to serve the influential. As such it is inevtiable that people will turn away from the theories. But I dont think people will ever turn away from the endevou of Science. This is the virutous side of the human element, that which is better will eventually surface and carry forward. We just need to be perecevere and be paitent. Keep putting forward new and invoitaive theories and keep chalenging that evolving understanding. That will not change and that is the Scientific method. Indeed the very exisitnace of this thread is proof of that. |
A couple of semantic points here.
Firstly you, and a lot of others in the wider community, have their theories and hypotheses mixed up. What you have described in the first part of your post is a hypothesis. It is largely unknown as to it's relation to fact, but is usually under some sort of experimental testing. A theory on the other hand is a hypothesis that has undergone extensive testing and still fits the observable results, not fact, but accepted as so until contrary evidence comes to light.
Your post also touches on the perception that Science is untrustworthy, hey, it's even implied in the thread title. I think that the show on SBS exposed this as a myth, usually trotted out by someone with a vested interest in saying so. If you read the published, peer reviewed, literature from reputable journals then you get no bias. Large pharmaceutical companies do what every other company does, they look for the most lucrative target, not the one that will save the most lives, why are they criticised for this when every other company does the same thing? Most of us would be dead if it wasn't for the research undertaken by large Pharmaceutical companies, so give them some credit.
The show also exposed the bloke who broke "climategate" for the fraud he is. Unresearched, online "journalist" who took a couple of words out of context, never asked the person for a reasonable explanation, and is now on the lecture circuit peddling his trash. Do you think he's going to admit that it was all mountain out of molehill stuff? Who has the vested interest in this case? Perhaps if he was as scrupulous about HIS research as the scientist then there would be no such thing as "climategate".
An excellent show, showing that the climate change denialists are underinformed. I have to agree with Mike on this one. I didn't always, but have been swayed by the overwhelming evidence. Also I trust NASA and the Royal Society.
Hence the 3kW on the roof.
Next weeks show on at the same time looks good as well, might tell me whether the 3kW is worth it?
Thanks SBS.
Cheers
Stuart