How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, April 14, 2012, 19:05 (4604 days ago) @ xeno6696

The problem is that the only dissenters are proponents of ID, which is a philosophical challenge only. There isn't a single testable claim made by ID, so in that light it is rightly castigated. Saying "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a scientifically testable statement. 
> -Not all opponents of evolution are basing their opposition on ID. Some simply see that there are fundamental flaws in evolution. -Also, there IS a testable claim made by ID, actually. Evolution is not sufficient to explain innovation(versus adaptation). That is testable. Ironically, that is the same way to falsify Evolution. It is falsifiable. All evolutionist would have to do is prove a single repeatable experiment that shows a completely new innovation as a natural process. That would be the end of the Evo/ID debate. Show a single-celled organism that spontaneously combined into a multi-cellular organism with a completely new function in an environment consistent with the natural habitat. (i.e. not a "designed" environment with carefully controlled conditions and mediums that could not exist in nature with scientist feeding them carefully controlled nutrients and/or chemicals.) Again, this would have to show a completely NEW function, not a new way of doing something that it was doing previously. When the question of a SINGLE example of this was posed to Dawkins, he couldn't answer it. -
> Who's getting buried where? -A while back I posted a link to a South American Archaeologist.. I will see if I can find it again and re-link it. ->That's what the process of replication is for. -Which according to an article recently linked by David is something that has NOT been happening as often as it should. 
 
> 
> Have you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" It focuses on Einstein as a case study. If there is a duplicity in science, it'll come out. The process hasn't failed us yet. It just doesn't work as quickly as you or David would like, because there's some idea that both of you like, that you think should be the paradigm, and it isn't. 
> 
> Sit back, take a holistic view, and let the process do its job. 
> -This is where you and I differ. You are satisfied to sit back and watch the process unfold over centuries while countless peoples lives are detrimentally affected. I am not. I hold the people who make false claims, and those that cling to them doggedly in spite of contrary evidence responsible for the damage that they cause, and you do not. To you, it is all part of the process.--> For your question marked in yellow: It's how I expect humans to operate. If her ideas stand on their own merits however, there is no choice but to accept those ideas. Like Mendel, it might not be until after she's dead, but *someone* will either come up with a similar idea or find hers and then cause a revolution. 
> 
> You need to respect that in my mind you're asking humans to be "all rational, all the time." -Not all humans and not all the time. I expect those whose profession is built solidly upon the foundations of rational thought, reason, and evidence, to live up to the requirements of the task that they set for themselves. If they can not, then they shouldn't have taken the job.
 
> 
> The bottom line is this: Even if it takes 100 years, science corrects its own mistakes. THAT is exactly what I would expect.-And in the meantime, entire generations of humanity are negatively impacted by a small group of peoples stubborn refusal to follow the ethics and methods set out for themselves and by their refusal to accept accountability for those effects. Science has long enjoyed a complete immunity for nearly everything that it does. That article I linked of the heart surgeon is a prime example. How many years did they have the evidence right in front of them? This doctor claims to have performed over 5000 operations and had seen this evidence every single time. Yet, the paradigm did not change. -In some scientific fields, such as cosmology, a wait of a century doesn't matter one iota. But science is not limited to those fields where the impact may not be seen for a century or an eon. More to the point, there is no longer any excuse. Information can be shared almost instantaneously. There are numerous resources for sorting and sifting and gleaning the nuances out of the massive amounts of data that could be accumulated. The science you speak of, that of rigid ideology and centuries long debate over which theory is the right one is no longer acceptable. The world is changing too fast for scientific dogma to have a place in it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.