How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 16:29 (4603 days ago) @ xeno6696

I am going to respond to both your posts in one shot here.-I do not expect scientist to be more than human. I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't even expect them to give up on an idea without a fight. However, if a policeman(to use one of your examples) fires his weapon and kills a person mistakenly, he is held accountable for that action, so there is a very strong incentive for him to be certain of his actions. If the mistake was made in good faith, his career will continue unabated, otherwise, he is punished. Science, conversely, has no real accountability for its mistakes. A scientist that makes a mistake in good faith, should be able to continue his career unabated with a clean conscience. However, under the current system, as noted in the article that David linked, the scientist were not making mistakes in good faith. They were being sloppy and dishonest, and that dishonesty cost lives. Yet, no one will ever know who made the mistakes, and they will never be held accountable, even by their own community. -Secondly, there is a difference between my professional expectations of them and my personal expectations. In their personal lives, I do not care at all what they believe or what they think of any given theory or idea. However, scientist are quick to tout, just as you have done, how they follow the evidence and revise their theories and, yes, I absolutely expect them to live up to that in their professional lives. That is not demanding that they are more than human. That is recognizing that there job has a far reaching impact and that the fulfill the obligation that the job THEY CHOSE places on them. Nearly all other members of the community who impact the lives of the general populace are held accountable to some degree. How am I being untoward to expect that the same standard be applied to them? How much more so should I demand it when they actively and purposefully pursue political financial agendas? (Such as removing all but the theory of evolution from schools, or Dawkins own reason rallies and call to persecute anyone that shows any degree of faith that disagrees with his own.)

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