How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7) (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Monday, April 16, 2012, 16:47 (4602 days ago) @ xeno6696

As an illustration of the layman's impossible position when it comes to judging the accuracy of science, I referred to a website that challenges current methods of dating. With the dedication and thoroughness of a true scientist, Matt has investigated and in most cases challenged the challenges.-MATT: I'm done for today. This site really....really taxed me.-Matt, I am now filled with admiration and riddled with guilt. Firstly, heartfelt thanks for all the trouble you've taken over this. I really appreciate it ... and I also appreciate Tony's comments. These posts are all an education in themselves. However, I hadn't meant to tax you in this way, so please accept my apologies. My point was that the more you delve, the more confusing it all becomes, especially to a layman who HAS to rely on the experts. If they don't agree, then all their statements become suspect. You will see from the discussion on David's "upright before savannah" theory under Proteins, Apes & Us, that there is no consensus among the experts, and I'm afraid that in none of the fields relating to chance v. design is it all as simple as "the sun will (not) rise tomorrow". Towards the end of my last post to you, I made what I thought to be an important epistemological point, to justify my scepticism. I'll repeat it, because for me it sums up the situation we laymen are in:-"However, your defence that eventually science corrects itself doesn't help us a great deal, since at no given time can we ever be sure that the information we're being given (including the corrections) is accurate."-Bearing in mind your own epistemological background, I suspect that you will go along with this, despite your faith that eventually science will come up with the "truth", at least in some fields. -Thank you again, though, for the lessons on the less romantic forms of dating.