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

by dhw, Sunday, April 22, 2012, 20:20 (4596 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: As has been made apparent to me from Tony and yourself in your response here...
I'm missing the point of your criticism. Technically, I'm college-educated and am equipped with the skills to be able to carefully weigh a "scientific" argument vs. one made from thin air, yet still logical. -The discussion has branched out from my starting-point. Tony and David have launched a concerted attack on the corruption now rife in the scientific world, as it is in so many of our human institutions. My approach is an epistemological one, based on the fact that for whatever reasons, we cannot trust the accuracy of the scientific information underlying our quest for the truth about our origins. Earlier you thought I was dismissing technology, whereas I was trying to make it clear that technology is different because its accuracy can be verified by its practical results. Theories relating to our origins cannot be verified, and scientific pronouncements must remain suspect. Tomorrow may reverse the findings of today, and tomorrows will continue from day to day "to the last syllable of recorded time".
 
MATT: The disconnect between the ivory tower and "the common man" is going to grow exponentially, and not even because of a deliberate effort. Statistically speaking, a human being absorbs more information in a year than a person in the 18th century would have access to in their lifetime.-I'm sure you're right. But in the context of our discussions, the layman needs to be aware of the gap ... sometimes huge ... between the information (in itself suspect) and the conclusions drawn from it. If a renowned scientist claims that "natural selection explains the whole of life", you and I know enough to dismiss the claim as arrant and arrogant nonsense, but kids in the classroom probably won't, and his devout followers probably won't either. Some scientists have assumed an authority they do not have, and the view that science alone can provide us with "truth" ... again, I'm talking about particular areas of our existence ... is one that I find increasingly irksome and unscientifically subjective. For all its truly astonishing achievements, science does not support materialism; materialism is the basis of science.