The scientific method is by simple definition:
A "body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning...[the scientific methods is] a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses...The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false." [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method]
Note two very important points in this definition: (1) Science and the scientific method are open to "correcting" previous knowledge and to challenging previously held theories AND (2) Science enables "reality speak for itself" even when that reality challenges previously held theories.
Why, then, do anti-science activists and their allies (in society and government) claim that science is unreliable as a source of knowledge of reality simply because it sometimes needs correcting?
I am not sure that "anti-science activists" exist. More often, people reject specific scientific "conclusions", not science itself. Most people will accept a scientific explanation of, say, how a light bulb works and not attribute the generation of light to magic or a supernatural origin. But some might reject the theories about the causes of global warming. A complex and chaotic environment is more difficult to analyze than a simple electrical circuit.
I think what you're saying is that people accept technology and engineering (for example: the light bulb), but not science---the stuff that underwrites technologies and engineering.
And, I agree with that, but I strongly disagree that an anti-science biases and anti-science activism is non-existent.
Clearly, we are at a cultural point of privileging religion (mythology) while working to discredit science---no matter what the subject.
How else can one explain 7 people seeking the Presidency of the United States raising their hands claiming to believe in Creationism and to reject evolutionary biology?
How else can we explain a persistent litmus test among conservative voters being whether or not a candidate is a Creationist and rejects evolutionary biology?
The idea that science and religion are inherently contradictory (the warring camp theory) has been discredited. There are no serious academics today who maintain that religion and scientific thought are mutually exclusive.
The problem comes when you get logical positivism (which also has been discredited).
Science and FAITH are not contradictory, but science and religion can be and often are contradictory.
For example: Science tells us that the earth is billions of years old and that humans evolved over time. Religion---admittedly some religions and not all, tells us that the earth is barely thousands of years old and that humans arrived on it in the forms of Adam and Eve. Such thinking cannot be reconciled.
Have you ever heard of "old earth creationism?"
I'd recommend this lecture series, lecture 2: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour … x?cid=4691
Your definition of faith is equivalent to "blind faith" right?
Well then, provided that you use you the "lack of belief" redefinition for atheism, aren't you staying that you believe something without knowledge, but isn't that in itself blind faith?
Not playing this game.
Science is about facts and evidence.
Faith is about belief. Atheism too is a function of belief.
Belief is unrelated to science.
End of story.
I would like to respectfully disagree if I may.
Science is about facts and evidence. Yes.
But the empirical method isn't the only way to know what is true about the world. We can use logic and reason as well to determine what is true. To say that the scientific method is the only way to "know" something, or "It isn't scientifically testable, and therefore cannot be true" is called logical positivism, which died in the 1960s. See: http://press.anu.edu.au//info_systems/m … 01s02.html
I don't agree with the definition that you use of faith. This is my understanding of the biblical concept:
In the words of Jung, "I don't believe, I know."
And so, like I said before in conjunction with that lecture series, the warring camps thesis is dead and buried.
You could repeat yourself and simply reassert your definitions, but that wouldn't be addressing my points in a rational manner.
Don't you think using a definition of faith offered in the Bible and Scriptures---documents whose earthly authors and editors were deeply invested in maintaining their worldly authority, is at the very least problematic?
Do some research on the Council of Nicaea (Nicea) for details and substantiation of my comments.
I'm already decently versed in Church history.
http://www.audible.com/pd/History/Churc … B00GTWYXTW
If you don't want to substantiate your remarks this conversation is probably over.
by mbuggieh3 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge...
by emrldphx6 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by paarsurrey16 months ago
As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion and or philosophy. Right? PleaseRegards
by Oztinato2 years ago
Is the scienctific method infallible?Like many ancient religions modern scientists regard their methods to be infallible. Is this the right attitude?
by TMMason8 years ago
As I see it. Only one of these things can exist. They are mutually exclusive ideas. If not? Then explain how they are not.Cause I don't see it. You can have one, or the other, not both.I simply ask because I am a humble...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Science of itself does not present claims and reasons on issues; others interpret it wrongly; it is a useful tool of the humanity ; and if interpreted correctly it is not in contradiction of the truthful religion.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.