when did science become infalible?

Question

there are many examples. here r only two.
1. in the last century the inhabitants of the african rain forest told stories of a large, man-sized ape in the jungle. scientists scoffed at these stories; writing them off as pure folklore.
well, today we have the silverback guerrilla. simple example, yes, but enlightening none the less. this certainly highlights the arrogance of the scientific community.
2.in the last decade, or so, science has discovered that 11 dimensions exist.(see quantum mechanics and string theory) only thing is, before science accepted this fact, they discredited this theory and the scientist that brought it forth. this is in the last 10-15 years, remind you.
hell, people, your local meteorologists models can't predict next year let alone 25 to 50 years from now.
so, again, when did science become infallible?

Answer 1

Science is not and never has been infallible. That's one of the big differences between science and religion. But there comes a point in science when the evidence for a theory becomes so massive that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.



And that's the key: in science, you need evidence. Not sound bites, not talking points, not rhetoric. If you don't like Al Gore, I couldn't care less. Because no amount of dittos to Rush will change the fact that the planet is warming, and that we humans are primarily responsible.



Go read the IPCC's AR4, Working Group I. If you don't read the text, just read the references. In chapter 9 alone (attribution of causes), there are over 500 references to peer-reviewed scientific research. How much more massive does the data pile have to get before an objective person will admit that there's something there?



Is science infallible? No, quite the opposite: science is self-correcting, and frequently does correct itself. And that makes it the best method ever devised for determining truth.

Answer 2

That's how science works. Theories are just models of the world. And we use the scientific method to figure out which ones are the best models we've come up with. No one expects science to always come up with the right answer right off the bat. But you can be certain that whatever model scientists currently accept is the best one we have based on the information currently available. We may eventually discover new information, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, that give us a new theory and render the old one obsolete, but this is completely expected and has nothing to do with scientists being arrogant. In fact, admitting that you were wrong in the first place requires a great deal of humility.

Answer 3

As has been stated many times already, science is not infallible and nobody has suggested otherwise. What has been suggested is that the scientific evidence that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming is so overwhelming that any reasonable person who examines that evidence should conclude that this is the correct explanation.



What I find odd is that people accept science without question every day, then there's a scientific consensus that they don't like and all of the sudden it's 'well science isn't infallible'. If you get sick, you trust medical science to cure you. If you crash your car you trust the airbags and other safety features to save your life. If you're out in the sun you trust your SPF 30 sunscreen to protect you from skin cancer. But then the best climate scientists in the world tell you that GW is primarily caused by scientists and we need to do something about it, why is the response suddenly 'science isn't infallible'? Of course it's not infallible, nor is it all the other times that you trust a scientific consensus on a daily basis.

Answer 4

Science at the cutting edge is not infallible-and no one ever claimed it was.



But there is a difference between science at the frontier--where things are uncertain (or it wouldn't be the frontier) and established scientific facts.



With regard to global warming, we are talking about established science. 10-20 years ago that was not the case--but it is now.



Specifically:



1) The statement "global warming is happening" is not subject to debate. It is based on a set of measurments--repeatedly confirmed--that show temperatures are rising. That is observed fact--and will not change, regardless of our theoretical understanding of the phenomenon.



2) A multitude of causes for the current global warming were proposed. The only one that turned out to be correct was the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2--and the only additional source (beyond normal natural sources which have been constant) is human burning of fossil fulels--and, to a smaller extent, some other human activities. Again, this is observed fact-repeatedly confirmed. It will not change. There is no debate.



3) The assertation that "meterologists cannot predict the weather 20-50 years from now" is not correct. There are numerous instances in which precise short-term predictions are impossible--but long term trends can be predicted accurately. This is one of them. Here is an analogous example that illustrates how this works (though not the specific methodology, of course):



Take population changes. A demographer looks at a particular population and, among other things, makes predictions about how that population will change. Now, if he/she predicts that the population fo a given block in a city (currently with a population of 100) will be 110 5 ears from now, the odds the prediction will be correct are pretty lousy. There's too many small variables that would make little difference to the population of the entire city that would make a big difference to that one block. Someone might buy a lot and build an apartment building 4 years hence--jumping the population to 200.



But--if that demographer looks at all the large trends of growth, that affect the entire city, and predicts that in 5 years the population willl rise from 1 to 1.1 million, the odds are very high he will be very close--his prediction will be accurate.



The biggest difference between my example and the situation with global warming is that the level of certainty with global warming is far, far higher.



Just to dispel a few myths:

>what about volcanoes? A: the level of gases from volcanos has remaineed constant on average over the last two centuries (and, FYI, volcanic activity tends to cool,not warm, the Earth anyway). But the point is that effect has been--and remains--constant. Therefore, it has no net effect on temperature changes.

>The sun is causing global warming. A: for that to be the cause, there would have to be a sustained (for decades) rise in solar output (whhich is not the case; variations "skeptics" keep harping on are short term.). In addition, the amount of additional heat from the sun would have to be enough to account for the rise in solar output--and even the maximum variations observed are nowhere near that great.

>Global warming occurs naturally. A: of course it does--the first question scientists asked--25 years ago and more--was "is this a natural phenomenon?" The answer turned out to be no. That was far from certain at first. But it is certain now. And the corallory argemet: its natural because past warming trends have been natural"--is invalid. That's like saying because some forest fires are natural, no forest fires are caused by careless campers.



BTW: I'm answering you at length becaue the tone of your post shows some indication you may be open-minded enough to learn some of the real science that is involved. Please do not mistake it for a debate position--it isn't . It is an opportunity for you to learn, if you are willing to do so.

Answer 5

I don't know what you are talking about and your question makes absolutely no sense. The scientific community does not claim to be infallible, we in fact, discover new things that surprise everyday. Newton was wrong. So what. Einstein may just as well be wrong. Hopefully one day we will find out.



You have answered your own question with showing examples of how off scientific theories can be. A true theory is structured so that it can, in fact, be discredited or proven wrong. It is not wrong to prove a theory wrong, it just deepens our understanding of the universe.



Do you even know what infallible means?



It means incapable of error. Turn to religion when you want to find "infallible". Go open a book or two or just flame somewhere else.



edit (addition): I apologize for the tone of my post, after reading a lot of the religion debates on this site you really begin to wonder about the "logic" that people are using nowadays. I guess that just shows how non-infallible I am :)



Nice question though, you have received many thoughtful responses.

Answer 6

Now that's a thoughtful question. It's not infallible. But it's plenty good enough that most of the world, including world leaders on the left and the right, agrees we need to do something about global warming.



It's not politics, it's not a conspiracy. All the world's scientists haven't gone crazy. They're not lying to get research money. It's fallible, but good, science.



And science works pretty good. Otherwise we wouldn't be communicating like this or having the luxuries we do. We'd be struggling to survive.



Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:



http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html



And global warming theory has been closely examined by thousands of scientists over 20 years. It's stood the test of time.



By the way, it's much easier to predict this climate change than it is to predict the weather.

This "prediction" is pretty impressive:



http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png



Also see:



http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636/43

Answer 7

Hello Duke

1, in the last century we did not KNOW much about the african rain forest. Using our bombast of expression, we hid and denied knowledge of that fact.

2. the scientific principle is to always test, always question.



I. The holy book inspires otherwise.



3. the world and solar system and universe need testing, always. African rain forests have more than we know.

Answer 8

Ahhh, I was wondering whether or not you were referring to global warming. Ok. In answer to your main question, I have never considered science to be infallable nor do I consider people to be infallable either but rather I go by personal experiance and/or the observation of the world around me. And based on those 2 factors alone, I can easily see that if we dont do a better job of taking care of mother earth, both collectivly and individually, then it wont matter whos right and whos wrong. Well all still be dead.

Answer 9

Science is sport. It's not infalible. No one is perfect. Something else to think about....doctors and nurses how they get big g's to be in offices and hospitals yet their are so many sick people in this world. We're not near as great as we claim to be many aspects, just like starving and sick people in Africa and our states have these billion dollar surpluses and what do we do to help? Nothing, they're taking our tax money and wasting it on schools and salaries and then asking for your money out of your pocket to support other causes!!!!!

Answer 10

A booklet titled "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research" [18], published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, provides us with a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically.



"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."



Here, scepticism is held up as a virtue, in contrast with the hostile treatment afforded to sceptics in the climate sciences. But we also have this cogent warning against dogma and collective bias intruding into a science.

Answer 11

Scientists aren't infallible, they're just a better source of information than science fiction writers who decide global warming is a vast conspiracy (ie morons).

Answer 12

Tell us how many times you use the products of science every day.



You should rebel against the hold science has over your life, and not use anything but your Faith in yourself.



Many good things in this world come from science, but I`m sure you can replace all of those things, with.............what?



Oil companies use science, but when science cuts into their profits, they declare a "new science" one that agrees with whatever they tell their yes men to say.



/!\

Answer 13

I think part of what this guy is getting at, man made global warming is based ENTIRELY on the projections of scientists.



There is nothing about the current trend of temperature change that suggests something is wrong. Temperatures changed MUCH more rapidly during the little ice age, which couldn't have possibly been from man made CO2.



All this doom and gloom is based entirely on computer projections. And very specific ones. If projection is created that doesn't result in devastation, it goes mostly ignored by the general public.

Answer 14

scientific investigation is fallable. Men err.. but politics are the absolutes of the religions of the global warming crowd, and if you don't agree with them, they will eat you.

Answer 15

I'm with you, Duke. Scientists can't even come to total agreement on gravity, centuries after Newton, and a century after Einstein proved him wrong.

Answer 16

idk wat ur talking about