believing in science

tincanonastring wrote: »

weightingforgodot wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Science relies on facts.

thank you for your replies - most of which are based on the belief that scientific knowledge is factual.
My understanding is that scientific theories are constantly evolving. Hence they are not 'facts'.

Scientific theories are models that best fit all available evidence. Although nuances within the theory may change, enhancing our understanding of the subject, it is absurdly improbably that such new information would completely invalidate a theory (in the scientific sense of the word). E.g., gaining new information of how gravity works at a quantum level is quite unlikely to disprove our basic understanding that bodies of mass attract each other in predictable ways.

Scientific knowledge isn't factual...it's observable, testable, and repeatable. More importantly, the discovery process is not just aware that the findings may be wrong, it actively seeks to prove them so. What other way would you want to live your life than that which requires constant introspection and course correction?

tincanonastring wrote: »

JohnZain wrote: »

General Relativity is the best theory of gravity we have today but it doesn't fit ALL of reality. At Planck's length both quantum mechanics and general relativity break down. We don't have a theory which we can use to do calculations at Planck's length.

Just like when Newton unified celestial motion and terrestrial motion, we need a unified theory of quantum gravity. So, you see Einstein's "Theory" is proven but it's insufficient and it will eventually be replaced.

The beauty of the scientific process, though, is that we know it is insufficient and needs to be refined or replaced. That's the best thing I can ever say about Science: it never settles for our current level of understanding. Whether it be cosmology or the human body, we never say, "Ah, *kitten* it. That's good enough."

weightingforgodot wrote: »

I explained to a friend that I believe in following methods that have sceintific studies to back them up.

My friend made a couple of points:

1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.

2. There are many truths out there which are yet to be discovered by science.

ie I am putting my beliefs in something (namely, 'proven by science') which I know to be both incomplete and inaccurate in parts.

Or to put it another way, I give 'proven by science' an almost god like status. When I make a decision, I consult what 'proven by science' has to say about it and base the actions I take in my life on this. Even though I know that I am following something which is not entirely true.

He then said that I try to convince people that my beliefs are the right way, and that they should follow my beliefs. Also that I consider people who don't follow my beliefs to be wrong.

He added that I enjoy spending time with people who share my beliefs because it gives us a feeling of community and superiority.

I do all this while knowing that my beliefs are not correct. (see points 1 and 2, above).

What do you think ? Is 'proven by science' just another set of beliefs, no different to the many others that are out there ? In fact perhaps its worse because implicit in the belief is the understanding that the beliefs are wrong ???