How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 01:23 (4604 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > 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. 
> -Why does it matter? By your own words, the process obviously corrected itself. Things won't move any faster than what *humanity* will allow. -> 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.-It is an intrinsic part of human nature to defend what you spent your career building. It's a *very* human trait. I don't expect that *any* human of any profession is capable of guarding against this at all times. -I agree that I would *like* it to move at the speed of light. *MY* field certainly does. But we're also a *pure logic* field. Medicine, archaeology, and anthropology are all sciences that are based on "inexactitudes" and interpretations. Because of this, we should expect exactly the kind of behaviour that you're describing, and (in my heart) I really do wish that we could all be "perfect, all the time." -But I know better. -Do I make any sense here?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"