(January 16, 2022 at 8:52 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:(January 16, 2022 at 11:51 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Sure, scientist can make a mistake and be biased in his research, but that is where many other scientists come in and test his claims and make scientific consensus, so that in the end science is objective.
Yeah, that's a bit of a fantasy, though. This may be your hope or expectation of science, but science isn't necessarily self-correcting or objective, and it certainly isn't omniscient (as I've heard some people like to say).
Like I said earlier, there are known limitations to science. See Thomas Kuhn and his notion of paradigm shift. Simplistically speaking, there is a specific framework in which scientists operate that makes it very difficult for new radical ideas to be readily embraced (even if they end up being true). There's often quite some resistance to these ideas (at least at the start). As such, it is more reasonable to say that scientists, collectively speaking, do not automatically opt to correcting errors made by any one individual scientist or erroneous positions held by the consensus. Certain circumstances need to occur first because these radical (but true) ideas become accepted within the scientific community.
There are also gaps in our knowledge that we may never be able to fill through science. For example, the hard problem of consciousness. To this point, despite many attempts, it has been very difficult to find a proper starting point to solving this problem scientifically. See also the gap between relativity and quantum. Additionally, see the many interpretations of quantum mechanics taken seriously within the scientific community (Copenhagen vs MWI for example), hard to see any consensus there in the foreseeable future.
More relevantly, putting aside whether science is truly self-correcting or objective or even omniscient (as some people elsewhere have said!), the statements that you (and others) have made about science do reflect an ideology. One that is often politically-driven and unshakable. How many times have atheists (for example) used science as a weapon to combat opposing philosophies and claims made by religious people? Do you see yourselves eventually thinking that evidence is more than just physical evidence, that maybe you should start taking the idea of revelation seriously? That maybe this world doesn't necessarily behave in a natural way (as in the laws of nature do not operate in a consistent manner)?
I certainly don't take revelation seriously and set a high bar for what constitutes evidence. And I don't mind saying that I hold to an ideology when it comes to my views of the world and the way it generally operates (including that science is the best way to attain conclusive knowledge about selective aspects of the world, despite its limitations). We shouldn't be so averse to the term, and we needn't feel so insecure if our views are compared to those of religious folks and called ideological views just like theirs.
What are you asking for? You want all resistance to be removed?
Which circumstances must occur?
Personally, I doubt that the hard problem of consciousness would be solved.
The gap between relativity and QM is an indicator that the current theories that we have are just models. The models are sufficient to explain a wide range of situations. Since they are able to explain and have predictive power, these models are considered good and usable.
They are not going to get eliminated just like classical physics has not been eliminated. These things are just models and work well under certain circumstances and that is why we keep them and use them.
One example that is still used is the localized electron bonding model (LE model). It is a simple concept and very successful at predicting which electrons are lone pairs and which electrons participate in bonding. From that, chemist deduce the properties of compounds.
The problem is that it relies on the octet rule and so, it does not work in the case of BF3. The Boron in BF3 ends up with 6 bonding electrons. Apparently, Boron has an orbital that is empty. You can draw the molecule such that it obeys the octet rule but this does not match experimental evidence. The bond length B-F are all the same length. Also, BF3 is a very reactive compound, it behaves as a electrophile (This has to do with the empty orbital).
Quote:One that is often politically-driven and unshakable. How many times have atheists (for example) used science as a weapon to combat opposing philosophies and claims made by religious people?
That’s normal. With science, we extract information from nature.
Science contradicts the Bible quite a number of times.
So, when the Bible says that a star was floating above the manger of Jesus, it is something that we have to object to. It is an indication that primitive people thought that stars are little dots on a dome shaped firmament.
When the Bible says that stars will fall down like leaves, again, it is an indication that primitive people thought that stars are little dots on a dome shaped firmament.
Back to your line
“even if they end up being true”
Science is always tentative. We just keep on refining the models that we have.
We can be very certain of certain things. Stars are not little light bulbs on a dome. Ancient humans didn’t know much about the universe and the Bible reflects it.
