Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How the Scientific Process Fails

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I think you are incurring in a bit of a contradiction here. First you accept science's purpose is to produce models of reality, then you appear to presume science claims to discover the "truth" about reality.

If science is concerned with making models alone, this means it doesn't really care about what it's true or not. It cares only about making models that serve to predict reality with accuracy. To put you an example, I can construct a gravitational model based in:

"Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other."

Or based in:

"God makes all physical bodies attract each other".

Both serve to predict reality, but which one is true? Science presuposes the first one is true because of its simplicity (Occam's razor), but it really isn't concerned so much about claiming the truth of each, if both work to make the same predictions.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I think you are incurring in a bit of a contradiction here. First you accept science's purpose is to produce models of reality, then you appear to presume science claims to discover the "truth" about reality.

If science is concerned with making models alone, this means it doesn't really care about what it's true or not. It cares only about making models that serve to predict reality with accuracy. To put you an example, I can construct a gravitational model based in:

"Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other."

Or based in:

"God makes all physical bodies attract each other".

Both serve to predict reality, but which one is true? Science presuposes the first one is true because of its simplicity (Occam's razor), but it really isn't concerned so much about claiming the truth of each, if both work to make the same predictions.

My suggestion is not just 'model', but 'useful model'.
Accuracy is implied, Truthfulness is implied.
Models that do not represent truthfulness of reality are rather useless.

Occam's Razor is a fallacious argument, and useful for adolescent debates but rather useless for the foundation of Scientific laws and theories such as the Law of Gravity.

I am unconvinced there is contradiction in my usage.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I think you are incurring in a bit of a contradiction here. First you accept science's purpose is to produce models of reality, then you appear to presume science claims to discover the "truth" about reality.

If science is concerned with making models alone, this means it doesn't really care about what it's true or not. It cares only about making models that serve to predict reality with accuracy. To put you an example, I can construct a gravitational model based in:

"Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other."

Or based in:

"God makes all physical bodies attract each other".

Both serve to predict reality, but which one is true? Science presuposes the first one is true because of its simplicity (Occam's razor), but it really isn't concerned so much about claiming the truth of each, if both work to make the same predictions.

My suggestion is not just 'model', but 'useful model'.
Accuracy is implied, Truthfulness is implied.
Models that do not represent truthfulness of reality are rather useless.

Occam's Razor is a fallacious argument, and useful for adolescent debates but rather useless for the foundation of Scientific laws and theories such as the Law of Gravity.

I am unconvinced there is contradiction in my usage.

We've had this discussion before and it was kinda fun, but I'm gonna make my argument a little different this time. I don't think you liked my argument very much and the conclusion it led us to.

I'll start of by saying that I agree with you that things like Occam's Razor have no place in science. I also don't think you're contradicting yourself. However, I believe the fundamental mistake you are making in your argument is marrying the content of a falsifiable statement to the scientific process.

When you say that "science is concerned with making models" [I'm paraphrasing, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your intentions here] you're misrepresenting science a little bit. Science is nothing more than an attempt to test falsifiable statements. It's a way to either dismiss or strengthen those statements. The scientific process, however, has nothing to do with the content of those statements.

A theory (i'm assuming that's what you mean by models) in science is a systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. (borrowed from dictionary.com)

So, in the "model" we don't see science. We see the content of a hypothesis/falsifiable statement. Those statements may only be partially correct or only be of correlational value rather than causal. Our scientific knowledge is constantly evolving. This constant gain in knowledge is leading us to see connections we couldn't see before. This is why our hypothesis and theories are ever growing, expanding, and changing. It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge.

To say that the scientific process is flawed, you'd have to show that science produces consistently false data.

The one point I'm willing to concede is correlation is often mistake for causation in science. However, I maintain that this is a content issue rather than an issue with the scientific process itself. Since those mistakes are self corrected as we continue to test theories. Granted, this may be a slow process, however, science corrects our mistakes in data interpretation eventually. Some times we simply fail at doing science (i.e. bad methodology, bad sampling, human prejudice towards an outcome). But in it's purest form, the scientific process doesn't fail.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:


We've had this discussion before and it was kinda fun, but I'm gonna make my argument a little different this time. I don't think you liked my argument very much and the conclusion it led us to.

I'll start of by saying that I agree with you that things like Occam's Razor have no place in science. I also don't think you're contradicting yourself. However, I believe the fundamental mistake you are making in your argument is marrying the content of a falsifiable statement to the scientific process.

When you say that "science is concerned with making models" [I'm paraphrasing, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your intentions here] you're misrepresenting science a little bit. Science is nothing more than an attempt to test falsifiable statements. It's a way to either dismiss or strengthen those statements. The scientific process, however, has nothing to do with the content of those statements.

A theory (i'm assuming that's what you mean by models) in science is a systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. (borrowed from dictionary.com)

So, in the "model" we don't see science. We see the content of a hypothesis/falsifiable statement. Those statements may only be partially correct or only be of correlational value rather than causal. Our scientific knowledge is constantly evolving. This constant gain in knowledge is leading us to see connections we couldn't see before. This is why our hypothesis and theories are ever growing, expanding, and changing. It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge.

To say that the scientific process is flawed, you'd have to show that science produces consistently false data.

The one point I'm willing to concede is correlation is often mistake for causation in science. However, I maintain that this is a content issue rather than an issue with the scientific process itself. Since those mistakes are self corrected as we continue to test theories. Granted, this may be a slow process, however, science corrects our mistakes in data interpretation eventually. Some times we simply fail at doing science (i.e. bad methodology, bad sampling, human prejudice towards an outcome). But in it's purest form, the scientific process doesn't fail.

I like your previous argument just fine, I found it amusing, entertaining.
So you want to make a new argument. I find it also amusing, entertaining.

My smiles started here: 'Science is nothing more than an attempt to test falsifiable statements. "
"nothing more than an attempt"? So, sometimes it is not successful at testing, I take it.
Sometimes it fails at testing, I take it.
Sometimes it is not able to test a falsifiable statement, I take it.
Some or all of these are true, or we would not see the word 'attempt'.
It seems to me this puts a big hole in this 'Science is never wrong.' idea of yours.

Next: "The scientific process, however, has nothing to do with the content of those statements."
When I learned one of the many variations of the Scientific Method I was taught that before testing could ever be done on a 'falsifiable statement', one had to formulate these falsifiable statements. This was not as easy as we supposed. Of course, in junior high school nothing was as easy as we supposed.
Now you tell me this is not part of the process at all.
What am I to think? Where do scientists find these statements?
Do others provide them? Please explain to me why the formulation of these statements is no part of the process of the Scientific Method.

"A theory (i'm assuming that's what you mean by models)"
No, I meant 'scientific 'model'
""An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system."
Contained in the idea of 'scientific model' is the idea of 'scientific theory'.

"So, in the "model" we don't see science. We see the content of a hypothesis/falsifiable statement."
What can I say, except more double speak.
No 'science' in 'scientific theories' (since you equate models with theories).
I will have to remember that for my fundamentalist friends who are fond of scuffing at Science.
There is no Science in the statements about the theory of evolution. That is one for the books, as they say.

"It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge. "
The process is not flawed, only the results of the process. Do I have it right?
Where I come from the purpose of a process is to yield results.
If those results are not what we expect, we think the process needs improvement - it is flawed.
Sometimes a process cannot be improved, or improvement is cost prohibitive, so we continue with a flawed process.

" It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge. "
'Knowledge' is a justified true belief.
Scientific theories require justified true beliefs.
If a scientific theory is identified as incorrect, that means some of the justified true beliefs where mistaken, aka wrong.
Do you see it another way?
You may be one who wants to say, 'Ah, not mistaken, just incomplete. We only had part of the knowledge, but that part was correct.'
Like a car with no motor, or no brakes, or no tires, or no steering wheel.
The perfect car, missing some parts.
Not just insignificant parts, like chrome trim, but parts that prevent the car from operating as a car should.

In some cases the problem is that others have knowledge, that the process of Science will not accept, since it is fallacious by the standards of Science.
The knowledge is available, to others, rejected by Science.
Science is aware of it, and disregards it, until some future time, when it is accepted.

So when you say "flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge", it is worth noting that others have this knowledge, but Science rejects it.
In many cases it errors on the side of caution, but it errors regardless.

There are others who would say this is not the only way the Scientific process fails.
I would agree with them, but I will let it to them to present their case, as they would do it better than I could.

~ ~
Another point I would to add is that if this process is so perfect, why is it that it has to change so frequently?
The primary scientific process is the Scientific Method, and just in my lifetime I have seen three versions that I know of, and I am in the process of discovering even more.
This perfect process of yours needs constant improvement. At least one every generation, probably more.
I am all for improvement, don't get me wrong. I just don't see how perfection can be improved.
You sound like my friend's husband, who says he has the 'perfect wife', he only has to change a few more things about her and she will be a 'real keeper'.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:04:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:



Glad you liked the argument, I always enjoy your rebuttals.

Let's dive right into it shall we

'Science is nothing more than an attempt to test falsifiable statements. "
"nothing more than an attempt"? So, sometimes it is not successful at testing, I take it.
Sometimes it fails at testing, I take it.
Sometimes it is not able to test a falsifiable statement, I take it.
Some or all of these are true, or we would not see the word 'attempt'.
It seems to me this puts a big hole in this 'Science is never wrong.' idea of yours.

---Simply because we don't devise a test to come up with evidence against something doesn't mean the scientific process failed. The technology may not be available to test a claim in a certain way. It would have been really hard to test the existence of the Higgs Boson before the we had the Hadron Collider....we had the theory, we just didn't have a way of testing it.

"The scientific process, however, has nothing to do with the content of those statements."
When I learned one of the many variations of the Scientific Method I was taught that before testing could ever be done on a 'falsifiable statement', one had to formulate these falsifiable statements. This was not as easy as we supposed. Of course, in junior high school nothing was as easy as we supposed.
Now you tell me this is not part of the process at all.
What am I to think? Where do scientists find these statements?
Do others provide them? Please explain to me why the formulation of these statements is no part of the process of the Scientific Method.

---the content of the statement has nothing to do with the scientific process. The way the question is stated does. Examples:
*the sun rises because a blanket is removed from the heavens
*the sun rises because the earth rotates exposing certain sections to sunlight etc...
both are valid hypothesis, both are falsifiable....the content isn't part of the scientific process, the way they are to be phrased is.

"A theory (i'm assuming that's what you mean by models)"
No, I meant 'scientific 'model'
""An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system."
Contained in the idea of 'scientific model' is the idea of 'scientific theory'.

---my apologies

"So, in the "model" we don't see science. We see the content of a hypothesis/falsifiable statement."
What can I say, except more double speak.
No 'science' in 'scientific theories' (since you equate models with theories).
I will have to remember that for my fundamentalist friends who are fond of scuffing at Science.
There is no Science in the statements about the theory of evolution. That is one for the books, as they say.

----again, my apologies for misrepresenting your argument.
It can still work though. Let's talk about evolution.....The theory is a simple falsifiable statement really
Speciation occurs through natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, genetic variation, etc... you can test all these.

A model of this would be to place fruit flies in a controlled condition and remove all but the variables you want to test. Sure enough, if you remove genetic variation, introduce genetic drift etc... you get exactly what you would expect if the theory of evolution was correct within a few generations. Therefore the model stands. It's void of too many variables and we can say we've created an approximation of a real system.

However, note that the process is testing the content of the hypothesis. It only becomes a theory when enough data is collected to deem the hypothesis true. The hypothesis is then simply elevated to a new level. The content doesn't matter.

"It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge. "
The process is not flawed, only the results of the process. Do I have it right?
Where I come from the purpose of a process is to yield results.
If those results are not what we expect, we think the process needs improvement - it is flawed.
Sometimes a process cannot be improved, or improvement is cost prohibitive, so we continue with a flawed process.

---Perhaps I could have worded that better. The content of the hypothesis is limited to the knowledge we have on the subject already. Similar to how demonic possession made perfect sense during times of illness because we didn't know things like germs existed. Now, the scientific process will determine those kinds of statements to be falls in time. Again, like the Hadron Colider, some things may have to fall into place first before we can answer some questions.

In some cases the problem is that others have knowledge, that the process of Science will not accept, since it is fallacious by the standards of Science.
The knowledge is available, to others, rejected by Science.
Science is aware of it, and disregards it, until some future time, when it is accepted.

So when you say "flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge", it is worth noting that others have this knowledge, but Science rejects it.
In many cases it errors on the side of caution, but it errors regardless.

There are others who would say this is not the only way the Scientific process fails.
I would agree with them, but I will let it to them to present their case, as they would do it better than I could.

----What kind of knowledge are you talking about?
I would argue that the scientific standard is required to be accepted by the scientific community. Even though we may think we know something that eventually turns out to be scientifically true, we have a level of certainty once it goes through the scientific process. Also, to show that science is flawed, you'd have to demonstrate some technical knowledge that can't be obtained through science.

I would argue that time taken to dismiss or prove a claim isn't a flaw in the process. It doesn't produce false outcomes, simply takes time.

Another point I would to add is that if this process is so perfect, why is it that it has to change so frequently?
The primary scientific process is the Scientific Method, and just in my lifetime I have seen three versions that I know of, and I am in the process of discovering even more.
This perfect process of yours needs constant improvement. At least one every generation, probably more.
I am all for improvement, don't get me wrong. I just don't see how perfection can be improved.
You sound like my friend's husband, who says he has the 'perfect wife', he only has to change a few more things about her and she will be a 'real keeper'.

-----The basis of the scientific process are the same....have we refined it? sure. We've added levels of proof and all that. However, the basic tenants remain the same
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:16:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I have personally never met anyone who believed science is a perfect process that cannot fail. Do you know of anyone in the field of science who actually believes this?

If the field of science is inadequate to finding correct answers, then what would you suggest be done to improve it? If you believe improvement is futile, then what would you suggest to replace scientific endeavor?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:25:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:04:32 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:



Glad you liked the argument, I always enjoy your rebuttals.

Let's dive right into it shall we


---Simply because we don't devise a test to come up with evidence against something doesn't mean the scientific process failed. The technology may not be available to test a claim in a certain way. It would have been really hard to test the existence of the Higgs Boson before the we had the Hadron Collider....we had the theory, we just didn't have a way of testing it.

A hole, a weakness, not failure.
My argument about the failure of the scientific process has nothing to do with this.
Not the issue at hand. I did not mean to get you sidetracked.
You simply open the door to other issues, and I point them out.
The scientific method allows for the testing by computer models.
Ideas can be tested with a computer, and that is acceptable to the Scientific process, the Scientific Method, as 'an experiment'.
So your rebuttal is rather weak.


---the content of the statement has nothing to do with the scientific process. The way the question is stated does. Examples:
*the sun rises because a blanket is removed from the heavens
*the sun rises because the earth rotates exposing certain sections to sunlight etc...
both are valid hypothesis, both are falsifiable....the content isn't part of the scientific process, the way they are to be phrased is.

Arriving at the content is part of the scientific process.
Many statements of belief are not capable of being examined by the Scientific Method, and must be reformulated.


"So, in the "model" we don't see science. We see the content of a hypothesis/falsifiable statement."
What can I say, except more double speak.
No 'science' in 'scientific theories' (since you equate models with theories).
I will have to remember that for my fundamentalist friends who are fond of scuffing at Science.
There is no Science in the statements about the theory of evolution. That is one for the books, as they say.

----again, my apologies for misrepresenting your argument.
It can still work though. Let's talk about evolution.....The theory is a simple falsifiable statement really
Speciation occurs through natural selection, reproductive isolation, genetic drift, genetic variation, etc... you can test all these.

A model of this would be to place fruit flies in a controlled condition and remove all but the variables you want to test. Sure enough, if you remove genetic variation, introduce genetic drift etc... you get exactly what you would expect if the theory of evolution was correct within a few generations. Therefore the model stands. It's void of too many variables and we can say we've created an approximation of a real system.

However, note that the process is testing the content of the hypothesis. It only becomes a theory when enough data is collected to deem the hypothesis true. The hypothesis is then simply elevated to a new level. The content doesn't matter.

And what do you say when the theory has been shown to be false? (not all theories, just some)
The content of the statement makes it false.
How is it that the content of the statement does not matter, when it decides the truth or falseness of the statement, theory, hypothesis?


"It's not that the scientific process of testing those falsifiable statements is flawed, rather the content of those theories if flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge. "
The process is not flawed, only the results of the process. Do I have it right?
Where I come from the purpose of a process is to yield results.
If those results are not what we expect, we think the process needs improvement - it is flawed.
Sometimes a process cannot be improved, or improvement is cost prohibitive, so we continue with a flawed process.

---Perhaps I could have worded that better. The content of the hypothesis is limited to the knowledge we have on the subject already. Similar to how demonic possession made perfect sense during times of illness because we didn't know things like germs existed. Now, the scientific process will determine those kinds of statements to be falls in time. Again, like the Hadron Colider, some things may have to fall into place first before we can answer some questions.

In some cases the problem is that others have knowledge, that the process of Science will not accept, since it is fallacious by the standards of Science.
The knowledge is available, to others, rejected by Science.
Science is aware of it, and disregards it, until some future time, when it is accepted.

So when you say "flawed due to a lack of previous knowledge", it is worth noting that others have this knowledge, but Science rejects it.
In many cases it errors on the side of caution, but it errors regardless.

There are others who would say this is not the only way the Scientific process fails.
I would agree with them, but I will let it to them to present their case, as they would do it better than I could.

----What kind of knowledge are you talking about?
I would argue that the scientific standard is required to be accepted by the scientific community. Even though we may think we know something that eventually turns out to be scientifically true, we have a level of certainty once it goes through the scientific process. Also, to show that science is flawed, you'd have to demonstrate some technical knowledge that can't be obtained through science.

Well that is my whole point, but it seems you still do not see it.
Of course evidence must meet scientific standards to be considered as scientific evidence. That is exactly what I have been saying.
Because of this, it rejects knowledge, justified true beliefs, held by others.
It denies reality, because of the process.
It fails at its intended goals. because of its own weakness. This weakness is also its strength. but that is not the point.
Failure, caused by its own weakness, that is the point.

I would argue that time taken to dismiss or prove a claim isn't a flaw in the process. It doesn't produce false outcomes, simply takes time.

It produces false outcomes, that must be corrected at some future point.
You said as much yourself previously. Self-correcting - wasn't that you who pointed it out.
Somehow it can be wrong for a decade, or a century, or a millennium, and all is forgiven when it finally gets it right. It never had it wrong in the first place.
Double speak.



Another point I would to add is that if this process is so perfect, why is it that it has to change so frequently?


-----The basis of the scientific process are the same....have we refined it? sure. We've added levels of proof and all that. However, the basic tenants remain the same

Actually, we have removed some levels of proof, as well.
When I was tested on the scientific method the first time there had to be an actual, hands on experiment, or there was no 'testing'.
Later, it was decided that computers - machines than can do what humans can do, only faster - could replace hands on experiments.
I am all for computers. Rave all you want, they are not equivalent to the real deal.

As it happens, there is a correlation with computer models and the theory of evolution. (correlation is not causation)
Many points of evolution cannot be tested with 'hands on' experiments.
I remember creationists complaining that the theory of Evolution failed the Scientific Method, because of a lack of hands on experiments.
About the same time, computer models became acceptable.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:46:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:16:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
See a more in depth coverage here:
http://www.gly.uga.edu...

In seeking to understand and describe reality Science will sometimes disregard information that does not meet scientific standards, and in doing so it fails to perform its purpose.
Early on, Science accepted too much information, that would fail scientific tests today, in doing so they proclaimed "Truth" that was false.
The pendulum has swung the other direction, in order to filter out these false claims.
Previously false things were said to be true, today true things are said to be false, it is in the nature of the Scientific process.

I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am only describing.
I am not saying things should be different, I am only describing.
In its attempts to accurately describe reality, sometimes Science gets it wrong.

The current philosophy is to error on the side of caution " the key word being "error".
Some of us wonder, "What is it that today, Science says is an accurate account concerning reality, that is in fact false?".
http://www.debate.org...

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I have personally never met anyone who believed science is a perfect process that cannot fail. Do you know of anyone in the field of science who actually believes this?

If the field of science is inadequate to finding correct answers, then what would you suggest be done to improve it? If you believe improvement is futile, then what would you suggest to replace scientific endeavor?

I do not know if sosoconfused is "in the filed of science", but they make the claim that the scientific process is without error, in this thread (and other posters elsewhere). This thread is a rebuttal to that belief.

I said elsewhere I am suggesting no changes, only describing, what you and I agree on.
Not 'inadequate', just limited.
Science is fine as far as I am concerned, in as far as it goes.
it is limited.

~ ~
Scientists, in doing their jobs as scientists, use math, and logic, and other tools that are independent of Science.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein

~~~~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com......
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I have personally never met anyone who believed science is a perfect process that cannot fail. Do you know of anyone in the field of science who actually believes this?

If the field of science is inadequate to finding correct answers, then what would you suggest be done to improve it? If you believe improvement is futile, then what would you suggest to replace scientific endeavor?

I do not know if sosoconfused is "in the filed of science", but they make the claim that the scientific process is without error, in this thread (and other posters elsewhere). This thread is a rebuttal to that belief.

I said elsewhere I am suggesting no changes, only describing, what you and I agree on.
Not 'inadequate', just limited.
Science is fine as far as I am concerned, in as far as it goes.
it is limited.

~ ~
Scientists, in doing their jobs as scientists, use math, and logic, and other tools that are independent of Science.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein


~~~~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com......

I don't believe sosoconfused is claiming science is perfect as much as he is arguing that the process isn't as flawed as you claim. The process, after all, only responds to the actions of the processor.

The process of adding three apples to three apples and arriving at six apples isn't flawed. But should the result be seven apples, then the process isn't to be blamed, not can it be accused of being flawed. The process remains reliable, it is the processor that needs to be questioned.

So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?

Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:45:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.

'Conclusions', for individual scientific papers, are almost always on the basis of a statistical analysis. Therefore, in order to report them honestly, no absolute claims can be made. That is simply inherent to good science. Look at the thread on assessing the quality of research for more of an explanation. A science paper that makes strong conclusions and absolute claims is very often a bad paper and may even be quite unscientific.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:45:59 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.

'Conclusions', for individual scientific papers, are almost always on the basis of a statistical analysis. Therefore, in order to report them honestly, no absolute claims can be made. That is simply inherent to good science. Look at the thread on assessing the quality of research for more of an explanation. A science paper that makes strong conclusions and absolute claims is very often a bad paper and may even be quite unscientific.

That really depends on how often the hypothesis was tested. It's still very unscientific to warn. It sounds to the layman like you are unsure about anything.
And that is unscientific.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:06:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 4:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:45:59 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.

'Conclusions', for individual scientific papers, are almost always on the basis of a statistical analysis. Therefore, in order to report them honestly, no absolute claims can be made. That is simply inherent to good science. Look at the thread on assessing the quality of research for more of an explanation. A science paper that makes strong conclusions and absolute claims is very often a bad paper and may even be quite unscientific.

That really depends on how often the hypothesis was tested. It's still very unscientific to warn. It sounds to the layman like you are unsure about anything.
And that is unscientific.

It is not unscientific to use language which the layperson may interpret. The layperson is not involved in this process, and scientific papers are not written for the layperson's benefit (though I support more open access journals and try to only publish in those). The point about laypeople is orthogonal to the issue of making scientific or unscientific statements.

We are purposely trying to make it sound like we are not sure about most things (there are things we are sure about, and those statements are made with more certainty). Scientific writing requires that the statements you make are only as strong as you can justify quantitatively. If you can't show that your statement is true with probability = 1 +- 0, then you cannot make absolute statements. That would not pass peer-review (well, good peer-review anyway). Making such statements would be unscientific. Making statements with uncertainty to reflect your quantitative uncertainty is more scientific, and required in scientific writing.

The only place you'll find statements with the level of certainty you seem to be advocating for in the scientific literature is in the mathematics literature where statements can be proven. In science, there are no proofs, only statistics. Statistics do not allow for absolute statements.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:06:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:45:59 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.

'Conclusions', for individual scientific papers, are almost always on the basis of a statistical analysis. Therefore, in order to report them honestly, no absolute claims can be made. That is simply inherent to good science. Look at the thread on assessing the quality of research for more of an explanation. A science paper that makes strong conclusions and absolute claims is very often a bad paper and may even be quite unscientific.

That really depends on how often the hypothesis was tested. It's still very unscientific to warn. It sounds to the layman like you are unsure about anything.
And that is unscientific.

It is not unscientific to use language which the layperson may interpret. The layperson is not involved in this process, and scientific papers are not written for the layperson's benefit (though I support more open access journals and try to only publish in those). The point about laypeople is orthogonal to the issue of making scientific or unscientific statements.

We are purposely trying to make it sound like we are not sure about most things (there are things we are sure about, and those statements are made with more certainty). Scientific writing requires that the statements you make are only as strong as you can justify quantitatively. If you can't show that your statement is true with probability = 1 +- 0, then you cannot make absolute statements. That would not pass peer-review (well, good peer-review anyway). Making such statements would be unscientific. Making statements with uncertainty to reflect your quantitative uncertainty is more scientific, and required in scientific writing.

The only place you'll find statements with the level of certainty you seem to be advocating for in the scientific literature is in the mathematics literature where statements can be proven. In science, there are no proofs, only statistics. Statistics do not allow for absolute statements.

In the cases of what I describe as "how often you test your hypothesis" and you describe as "quantitative uncertainty," it is unscientific to warn.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 5:12:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2015 5:06:51 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:55:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:45:59 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:13:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I just wish scientists would do a lot less "warning" and more concluding.

Leave the "warnings" to the religious prophets who would never test their hypotheses.

Simply state your findings, and shut up.
Let your research speak for you, not some banter reeking of faith and the unknown.

'Conclusions', for individual scientific papers, are almost always on the basis of a statistical analysis. Therefore, in order to report them honestly, no absolute claims can be made. That is simply inherent to good science. Look at the thread on assessing the quality of research for more of an explanation. A science paper that makes strong conclusions and absolute claims is very often a bad paper and may even be quite unscientific.

That really depends on how often the hypothesis was tested. It's still very unscientific to warn. It sounds to the layman like you are unsure about anything.
And that is unscientific.

It is not unscientific to use language which the layperson may interpret. The layperson is not involved in this process, and scientific papers are not written for the layperson's benefit (though I support more open access journals and try to only publish in those). The point about laypeople is orthogonal to the issue of making scientific or unscientific statements.

We are purposely trying to make it sound like we are not sure about most things (there are things we are sure about, and those statements are made with more certainty). Scientific writing requires that the statements you make are only as strong as you can justify quantitatively. If you can't show that your statement is true with probability = 1 +- 0, then you cannot make absolute statements. That would not pass peer-review (well, good peer-review anyway). Making such statements would be unscientific. Making statements with uncertainty to reflect your quantitative uncertainty is more scientific, and required in scientific writing.

The only place you'll find statements with the level of certainty you seem to be advocating for in the scientific literature is in the mathematics literature where statements can be proven. In science, there are no proofs, only statistics. Statistics do not allow for absolute statements.

In the cases of what I describe as "how often you test your hypothesis" and you describe as "quantitative uncertainty," it is unscientific to warn.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean it is unscientific to give a warning under uncertainty?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:21:02 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

Some minds are deluded into thinking that Science has a perfect process, and cannot fail, when in fact that has never been the case, for the Scientific process.

I have personally never met anyone who believed science is a perfect process that cannot fail. Do you know of anyone in the field of science who actually believes this?

If the field of science is inadequate to finding correct answers, then what would you suggest be done to improve it? If you believe improvement is futile, then what would you suggest to replace scientific endeavor?

I do not know if sosoconfused is "in the filed of science", but they make the claim that the scientific process is without error, in this thread (and other posters elsewhere). This thread is a rebuttal to that belief.

I said elsewhere I am suggesting no changes, only describing, what you and I agree on.
Not 'inadequate', just limited.
Science is fine as far as I am concerned, in as far as it goes.
it is limited.

~ ~
Scientists, in doing their jobs as scientists, use math, and logic, and other tools that are independent of Science.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein


~~~~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com......

I don't believe sosoconfused is claiming science is perfect as much as he is arguing that the process isn't as flawed as you claim. The process, after all, only responds to the actions of the processor.

The process of adding three apples to three apples and arriving at six apples isn't flawed. But should the result be seven apples, then the process isn't to be blamed, not can it be accused of being flawed. The process remains reliable, it is the processor that needs to be questioned.

So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?

Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure.

First the position of sosoconfused.

Quotes f rom sosoconfused (click on the link, for context)
"Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data."
http://www.debate.org...

"No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be."
http://www.debate.org...

"My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses""
Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument."
http://www.debate.org...

I believe his position is clear. The institution of science is never wrong.
By this he means, when it gets it wrong, eventually it will find out, and self-correct, and that puts everything back on an even keel, and it is as if they were never in error.

~ ~
And now your questions:
So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?
There are no perfect processes. All are subject to failure.

"Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure."

Science fails when it makes an incorrect statement of fact.
When a 'scientific fact' is shown to be incorrect, those in the scientific community say (paraphrased)
"Whoops, messed up on that one.
Listen folks, we are changing our position on that issue. We no longer say White is Not-White, but agree with those who said all along that White was White.
The information they had given us did not meet our standards, but that has changed, we have received some new information, it does meet our standards.
So, no harm, no foul, we agree, White is White."

Do you agree that such an occurrence would constitute a failure of the Scientific process, most noticeable the Scientific Method, since it is employed before 'scientific facts' are put forth?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I don't believe sosoconfused is claiming science is perfect as much as he is arguing that the process isn't as flawed as you claim. The process, after all, only responds to the actions of the processor.

The process of adding three apples to three apples and arriving at six apples isn't flawed. But should the result be seven apples, then the process isn't to be blamed, not can it be accused of being flawed. The process remains reliable, it is the processor that needs to be questioned.

So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?

Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure.

First the position of sosoconfused.

Quotes f rom sosoconfused (click on the link, for context)
"Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data."
http://www.debate.org...

"No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be."
http://www.debate.org...

"My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses""
Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument."
http://www.debate.org...

I believe his position is clear. The institution of science is never wrong.
By this he means, when it gets it wrong, eventually it will find out, and self-correct, and that puts everything back on an even keel, and it is as if they were never in error.

~ ~
And now your questions:
So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?
There are no perfect processes. All are subject to failure.

"Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure."

Science fails when it makes an incorrect statement of fact.
When a 'scientific fact' is shown to be incorrect, those in the scientific community say (paraphrased)
"Whoops, messed up on that one.
Listen folks, we are changing our position on that issue. We no longer say White is Not-White, but agree with those who said all along that White was White.
The information they had given us did not meet our standards, but that has changed, we have received some new information, it does meet our standards.
So, no harm, no foul, we agree, White is White."

Do you agree that such an occurrence would constitute a failure of the Scientific process, most noticeable the Scientific Method, since it is employed before 'scientific facts' are put forth?

I'm afraid you and I interpret sosoconfused's position very differently. He's saying that while the scientist can be guilty, science remains innocent. Science is not an entity, it is a study, like mathematics. Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless. Sosoconfused was not focusing on science being flawless, but on human imperfections being responsible for scientific flaws.

If all processes are subject to failure, do we mistrust everything as you do science, and doubt or reject all studies?

I asked for examples of scientists denying failures, but all you gave me was an example of your attitude toward science. Could you find no examples?

It would be easier to agree with your position if I saw examples that supported it.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:29:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:45:58 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

I don't believe sosoconfused is claiming science is perfect as much as he is arguing that the process isn't as flawed as you claim. The process, after all, only responds to the actions of the processor.

The process of adding three apples to three apples and arriving at six apples isn't flawed. But should the result be seven apples, then the process isn't to be blamed, not can it be accused of being flawed. The process remains reliable, it is the processor that needs to be questioned.

So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?

Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure.

First the position of sosoconfused.

Quotes f rom sosoconfused (click on the link, for context)
"Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data."
http://www.debate.org...

"No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be."
http://www.debate.org...

"My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses""
Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument."
http://www.debate.org...

I believe his position is clear. The institution of science is never wrong.
By this he means, when it gets it wrong, eventually it will find out, and self-correct, and that puts everything back on an even keel, and it is as if they were never in error.

~ ~
And now your questions:
So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?
There are no perfect processes. All are subject to failure.

"Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure."

Science fails when it makes an incorrect statement of fact.
When a 'scientific fact' is shown to be incorrect, those in the scientific community say (paraphrased)
"Whoops, messed up on that one.
Listen folks, we are changing our position on that issue. We no longer say White is Not-White, but agree with those who said all along that White was White.
The information they had given us did not meet our standards, but that has changed, we have received some new information, it does meet our standards.
So, no harm, no foul, we agree, White is White."

Do you agree that such an occurrence would constitute a failure of the Scientific process, most noticeable the Scientific Method, since it is employed before 'scientific facts' are put forth?

I'm afraid you and I interpret sosoconfused's position very differently. He's saying that while the scientist can be guilty, science remains innocent. Science is not an entity, it is a study, like mathematics. Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless. Sosoconfused was not focusing on science being flawless, but on human imperfections being responsible for scientific flaws.

The "box' is a process.
Not just a holder, with data. You attempt a gross over simplification.
It evaluates data, and makes observations about reality.
The process is not perfect. The process had been flawed, and continues to be flawed.
Your claim, as I understand it, is that the process is perfect, except for human error.
The process is an invention of man, not a natural event.
I say, the process itself, operating exactly as it is intended to operate, is flawed.
It will sometimes yield false results. No human error involved, except to say humans developed the process.
One of the ways it fails is that it has certain criteria for evidence. This is not bad, it is necessary, but it will mean that some evidence that is presented is rejected, as not valid.
At some point in the future, there will be other evidence, that it accepts, and validates the earlier fallacious evidence.
So what others have been saying is true, Science has been saying is false, and now Science agrees.
Of course the opposite happens as well.
Others say something is true, Science says it is not, and at some point in the future others agree it is not true.

If all processes are subject to failure, do we mistrust everything as you do science, and doubt or reject all studies?

Mistrust Science????
Because things are not perfect, we do not thrust them???
Hogwash.
This is not about trust.
This is about admitting weaknesses, which you and others deny.
This is about recognizing limitations.

I asked for examples of scientists denying failures, but all you gave me was an example of your attitude toward science. Could you find no examples?

Not an attitude, a description.
And a question.

It would be easier to agree with your position if I saw examples that supported it.

There is no sense discussing examples that might support it, if you disagree with it in principle.
First the principle, then the examples.

I would like to know how long you believe this perfect Scientific process has been with us.
For example, I would say early science told us the sun was the center of the galaxy/universe. The scientific process of the day was applied, and that was the result.
You may say that was too long ago, does not count.
Or you may say the process was perfect even then, but it was the fault of the natural philosophers.
So tell me, what was the turning point in Science where it became a flawless process?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:29:25 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:45:58 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

I don't believe sosoconfused is claiming science is perfect as much as he is arguing that the process isn't as flawed as you claim. The process, after all, only responds to the actions of the processor.

The process of adding three apples to three apples and arriving at six apples isn't flawed. But should the result be seven apples, then the process isn't to be blamed, not can it be accused of being flawed. The process remains reliable, it is the processor that needs to be questioned.

So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?

Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure.

First the position of sosoconfused.

Quotes f rom sosoconfused (click on the link, for context)
"Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data."
http://www.debate.org...

"No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be."
http://www.debate.org...

"My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses""
Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument."
http://www.debate.org...

I believe his position is clear. The institution of science is never wrong.
By this he means, when it gets it wrong, eventually it will find out, and self-correct, and that puts everything back on an even keel, and it is as if they were never in error.

~ ~
And now your questions:
So, is intuition a perfect process that cannot fail?
There are no perfect processes. All are subject to failure.

"Could you please give some examples where science failed, and scientists denied the failure."

Science fails when it makes an incorrect statement of fact.
When a 'scientific fact' is shown to be incorrect, those in the scientific community say (paraphrased)
"Whoops, messed up on that one.
Listen folks, we are changing our position on that issue. We no longer say White is Not-White, but agree with those who said all along that White was White.
The information they had given us did not meet our standards, but that has changed, we have received some new information, it does meet our standards.
So, no harm, no foul, we agree, White is White."

Do you agree that such an occurrence would constitute a failure of the Scientific process, most noticeable the Scientific Method, since it is employed before 'scientific facts' are put forth?

I'm afraid you and I interpret sosoconfused's position very differently. He's saying that while the scientist can be guilty, science remains innocent. Science is not an entity, it is a study, like mathematics. Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless. Sosoconfused was not focusing on science being flawless, but on human imperfections being responsible for scientific flaws.

The "box' is a process.
Not just a holder, with data. You attempt a gross over simplification.
It evaluates data, and makes observations about reality.
The process is not perfect. The process had been flawed, and continues to be flawed.
Your claim, as I understand it, is that the process is perfect, except for human error.
The process is an invention of man, not a natural event.
I say, the process itself, operating exactly as it is intended to operate, is flawed.
It will sometimes yield false results. No human error involved, except to say humans developed the process.
One of the ways it fails is that it has certain criteria for evidence. This is not bad, it is necessary, but it will mean that some evidence that is presented is rejected, as not valid.
At some point in the future, there will be other evidence, that it accepts, and validates the earlier fallacious evidence.
So what others have been saying is true, Science has been saying is false, and now Science agrees.
Of course the opposite happens as well.
Others say something is true, Science says it is not, and at some point in the future others agree it is not true.


If all processes are subject to failure, do we mistrust everything as you do science, and doubt or reject all studies?

Mistrust Science????
Because things are not perfect, we do not thrust them???
Hogwash.
This is not about trust.
This is about admitting weaknesses, which you and others deny.
This is about recognizing limitations.

I asked for examples of scientists denying failures, but all you gave me was an example of your attitude toward science. Could you find no examples?

Not an attitude, a description.
And a question.

It would be easier to agree with your position if I saw examples that supported it.

There is no sense discussing examples that might support it, if you disagree with it in principle.
First the principle, then the examples.

I would like to know how long you believe this perfect Scientific process has been with us.
For example, I would say early science told us the sun was the center of the galaxy/universe. The scientific process of the day was applied, and that was the result.
You may say that was too long ago, does not count.
Or you may say the process was perfect even then, but it was the fault of the natural philosophers.
So tell me, what was the turning point in Science where it became a flawless process?

I would like to continue this discussion with you, but a clarification is needed. Would you please point out where I stated that a scientific process, or any process, was perfect.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:49:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:25:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:04:32 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:




I'm gonna simplify, I think we can actually find some common ground here even if we don't agree on the conclusion

Let's look at a scientific paper as to where content can fail and whether or not science fails

The introduction portion
This is where we look at previous knowledge and hypothesize on possible connections. This is content, obviously, not process. This is where we produce either correct statements or type 1 errors. (Type 1 error is to see a connection where there isn't one. This is an obvious trait in the human animal....makes sense when you're looking over you shoulder for predators. Type 2 errors is to fail to see a connections/correlations. We don't make these errors very often). Obviously a type 2 error would be to fail to see a connection and never hypothesize the correlation in the first place. So in this portion science hasn't failed us yet, would you agree? Content is all that's being discussed, not process.

The Methods section
Here is where we describe how we plan to test the content of the theory. This is where science starts. Obviously there is good science and bad science. There is the potential that the methodology used precludes certain outcomes. However, the publication of this section means the testing method is up for review and the remaining paper can be dismissed if the set up is poor. This is a bit of a blurry line between content, intent, prejudice, and science. This is probably where you have the best argument for a flawed process since there is no prescribed way of setting up an experiment. There are only standards. However, if the standards are met, the process continues. Has science failed us here? I would say not so much. Human prejudice and pride may fail us here. The intentional misuse of a process doesn't constitute a flaw though.

The results
This is the meat of science. This is the raw data. That way we can replicate the experiments described above and see if we get the same results. This is pure science, content is irrelevant here since data is the only thing that is at stake. If there is a flaw with science, this is where you would see it. However, I don't think you're making the argument that science gives us false results.

Conclusion
This is where we draw parallels between the content of the hypothesis and what the scientific process says about the correlation of certain events. Is there or isn't there a correlation? That's it. Science can't tell us any more than this. It can't give us more than correlation. This is where the limitations of science become apparent. It would be nice if it gave us a definitive cause and effect correlation. However, the way science is set up, it can never give us this definitive knowledge here. This is a limitation, not a flaw.

Discussion
This is the section driven by content again rather than actual science. Given the data from the results and the correlation drawn in the conclusion, scientists discuss potential impact, potential testing going forward, and possible connections. This is really more hypothesis than science. This is where we can make type 1 errors again and often do. This is where the human imagination and excitement often draws far-fetched conclusions that still need testing.

So where in that process would science fail? Where is the inherent flaw that science has? To me it seems that the only thing we are correcting for in science is human error, or content error.

Now, let's talk about limitations. This is, I think, what you're getting at with science being flawed after reading some of your posts again.

Science can't account for type 2 errors. It can't answer questions that aren't being tested. It also can't address metaphysical questions. Why are we here? is a good example of this. It's just a type of question that doesn't fit the scientific model.

If your criticism of science is then that it has limitations in the types of questions it can answer, I would agree. It has very strict limitations. However, that doesn't make if flawed. It's flawless in the types of questions it can answer. You wouldn't call an Ipod flawed because it can't play vinyl records would you? Hopefully that clears up my argument a little as it seems like things got a little convoluted along the way.

By the way I spent 4 years in academic research, 6 years in clinical research, and now I'm in medicine. So I've done this process too often.....
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 6:07:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:47:33 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

I would like to continue this discussion with you, but a clarification is needed. Would you please point out where I stated that a scientific process, or any process, was perfect.

"Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless."

Science is a process.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

It is not a container filled with data. that is the product of Science.
Giving your statement the benefit of the doubt, I will insert thus:
"When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; the product of science remains flawless."


In order for the product to remain flawless, the process must be flawless.
How can a flawed process always yield a flawless product?

Additionally, you pick up the argument of sosoconfused, who did say the process is flawless.
So on two points, by inference, I read you to say the process of science is flawless.

If you agree with me that the process of Science is flawed, and that a flawed process will yield flawed results, we are in agreement.

Please note that by 'flawed' I do not mean it needs to be changed.
As I have stated, and as you inferred, any process will be flawed. It is up to the craftsmen to recognize these flaws, and do the best they can.
There are others who say the flawed process needs changed, and I may agree with them but not on his issue.
There may be room for improvement in the process of Science, but none of them will cure this issue.
It will always be a process, there are no perfect processes, flawed processes will from time to time yield flawed products. It is the nature of the beast.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 6:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:49:34 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:25:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:04:32 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:





I'm gonna simplify, I think we can actually find some common ground here even if we don't agree on the conclusion

Let's look at a scientific paper as to where content can fail and whether or not science fails

The introduction portion
This is where we look at previous knowledge and hypothesize on possible connections. This is content, obviously, not process. This is where we produce either correct statements or type 1 errors. (Type 1 error is to see a connection where there isn't one. This is an obvious trait in the human animal....makes sense when you're looking over you shoulder for predators. Type 2 errors is to fail to see a connections/correlations. We don't make these errors very often). Obviously a type 2 error would be to fail to see a connection and never hypothesize the correlation in the first place. So in this portion science hasn't failed us yet, would you agree? Content is all that's being discussed, not process.

The Methods section
Here is where we describe how we plan to test the content of the theory. This is where science starts. Obviously there is good science and bad science. There is the potential that the methodology used precludes certain outcomes. However, the publication of this section means the testing method is up for review and the remaining paper can be dismissed if the set up is poor. This is a bit of a blurry line between content, intent, prejudice, and science. This is probably where you have the best argument for a flawed process since there is no prescribed way of setting up an experiment. There are only standards. However, if the standards are met, the process continues. Has science failed us here? I would say not so much. Human prejudice and pride may fail us here. The intentional misuse of a process doesn't constitute a flaw though.

The results
This is the meat of science. This is the raw data. That way we can replicate the experiments described above and see if we get the same results. This is pure science, content is irrelevant here since data is the only thing that is at stake. If there is a flaw with science, this is where you would see it. However, I don't think you're making the argument that science gives us false results.

Conclusion
This is where we draw parallels between the content of the hypothesis and what the scientific process says about the correlation of certain events. Is there or isn't there a correlation? That's it. Science can't tell us any more than this. It can't give us more than correlation. This is where the limitations of science become apparent. It would be nice if it gave us a definitive cause and effect correlation. However, the way science is set up, it can never give us this definitive knowledge here. This is a limitation, not a flaw.

Discussion
This is the section driven by content again rather than actual science. Given the data from the results and the correlation drawn in the conclusion, scientists discuss potential impact, potential testing going forward, and possible connections. This is really more hypothesis than science. This is where we can make type 1 errors again and often do. This is where the human imagination and excitement often draws far-fetched conclusions that still need testing.

So where in that process would science fail? Where is the inherent flaw that science has? To me it seems that the only thing we are correcting for in science is human error, or content error.

Now, let's talk about limitations. This is, I think, what you're getting at with science being flawed after reading some of your posts again.

Science can't account for type 2 errors. It can't answer questions that aren't being tested. It also can't address metaphysical questions. Why are we here? is a good example of this. It's just a type of question that doesn't fit the scientific model.

If your criticism of science is then that it has limitations in the types of questions it can answer, I would agree. It has very strict limitations. However, that doesn't make if flawed. It's flawless in the types of questions it can answer. You wouldn't call an Ipod flawed because it can't play vinyl records would you? Hopefully that clears up my argument a little as it seems like things got a little convoluted along the way.

By the way I spent 4 years in academic research, 6 years in clinical research, and now I'm in medicine. So I've done this process too often.....

I have a problem here, at the very beginning:
"This is where we look at previous knowledge and hypothesize on possible connections. This is content, obviously, not process. "

As I pointed out previously, Science has a criteria for 'knowledge'.
This is a requirement, not something to be avoided.
Knowledge is 'justified true belief'.
Before Science can look at knowledge, information must be put through the process of Science to determine if it is up to standards.
Science rejects fallacious evidence. Fallacious evidence is not false, it is suspect.
Science will try to raise the level of fallacious evidence to 'scientific knowledge', but if that is not possible, it is disregarded, with good reason - part of the process.

In some cases it will not only fail to raise fallacious evidence to scientific knowledge, it will actually show Scientifically that the fallacious evidence is false, by scientific standards., aka the Scientific Method.

When the bar for acceptance is high, we might expect that some valid information is lost, not accepted.
When the bar for acceptance is low, we might expect that some erroneous information is accepted.
There is no perfect place for the bar. There is no way know that Scientific knowledge is perfect, always accurate.

The evidence that the individual willingly accepts in their daily life is fallacious.
What routinely convinces the mind of an individual or group, fails to convince the Scientific process.
I am describing, not suggesting.

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 6:32:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 6:09:25 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:49:34 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:25:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:04:32 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:31:08 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 4:32:34 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/7/2015 2:41:27 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/7/2015 10:58:10 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/7/2015 7:58:33 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:





I'm gonna simplify, I think we can actually find some common ground here even if we don't agree on the conclusion

Let's look at a scientific paper as to where content can fail and whether or not science fails

The introduction portion
This is where we look at previous knowledge and hypothesize on possible connections. This is content, obviously, not process. This is where we produce either correct statements or type 1 errors. (Type 1 error is to see a connection where there isn't one. This is an obvious trait in the human animal....makes sense when you're looking over you shoulder for predators. Type 2 errors is to fail to see a connections/correlations. We don't make these errors very often). Obviously a type 2 error would be to fail to see a connection and never hypothesize the correlation in the first place. So in this portion science hasn't failed us yet, would you agree? Content is all that's being discussed, not process.

The Methods section
Here is where we describe how we plan to test the content of the theory. This is where science starts. Obviously there is good science and bad science. There is the potential that the methodology used precludes certain outcomes. However, the publication of this section means the testing method is up for review and the remaining paper can be dismissed if the set up is poor. This is a bit of a blurry line between content, intent, prejudice, and science. This is probably where you have the best argument for a flawed process since there is no prescribed way of setting up an experiment. There are only standards. However, if the standards are met, the process continues. Has science failed us here? I would say not so much. Human prejudice and pride may fail us here. The intentional misuse of a process doesn't constitute a flaw though.

The results
This is the meat of science. This is the raw data. That way we can replicate the experiments described above and see if we get the same results. This is pure science, content is irrelevant here since data is the only thing that is at stake. If there is a flaw with science, this is where you would see it. However, I don't think you're making the argument that science gives us false results.

Conclusion
This is where we draw parallels between the content of the hypothesis and what the scientific process says about the correlation of certain events. Is there or isn't there a correlation? That's it. Science can't tell us any more than this. It can't give us more than correlation. This is where the limitations of science become apparent. It would be nice if it gave us a definitive cause and effect correlation. However, the way science is set up, it can never give us this definitive knowledge here. This is a limitation, not a flaw.

Discussion
This is the section driven by content again rather than actual science. Given the data from the results and the correlation drawn in the conclusion, scientists discuss potential impact, potential testing going forward, and possible connections. This is really more hypothesis than science. This is where we can make type 1 errors again and often do. This is where the human imagination and excitement often draws far-fetched conclusions that still need testing.

So where in that process would science fail? Where is the inherent flaw that science has? To me it seems that the only thing we are correcting for in science is human error, or content error.

Now, let's talk about limitations. This is, I think, what you're getting at with science being flawed after reading some of your posts again.

Science can't account for type 2 errors. It can't answer questions that aren't being tested. It also can't address metaphysical questions. Why are we here? is a good example of this. It's just a type of question that doesn't fit the scientific model.

If your criticism of science is then that it has limitations in the types of questions it can answer, I would agree. It has very strict limitations. However, that doesn't make if flawed. It's flawless in the types of questions it can answer. You wouldn't call an Ipod flawed because it can't play vinyl records would you? Hopefully that clears up my argument a little as it seems like things got a little convoluted along the way.

By the way I spent 4 years in academic research, 6 years in clinical research, and now I'm in medicine. So I've done this process too often.....

I have a problem here, at the very beginning:
"This is where we look at previous knowledge and hypothesize on possible connections. This is content, obviously, not process. "

As I pointed out previously, Science has a criteria for 'knowledge'.
This is a requirement, not something to be avoided.
Knowledge is 'justified true belief'.
Before Science can look at knowledge, information must be put through the process of Science to determine if it is up to standards.
Science rejects fallacious evidence. Fallacious evidence is not false, it is suspect.
Science will try to raise the level of fallacious evidence to 'scientific knowledge', but if that is not possible, it is disregarded, with good reason - part of the process.

In some cases it will not only fail to raise fallacious evidence to scientific knowledge, it will actually show Scientifically that the fallacious evidence is false, by scientific standards., aka the Scientific Method.

When the bar for acceptance is high, we might expect that some valid information is lost, not accepted.
When the bar for acceptance is low, we might expect that some erroneous information is accepted.
There is no perfect place for the bar. There is no way know that Scientific knowledge is perfect, always accurate.

The evidence that the individual willingly accepts in their daily life is fallacious.
What routinely convinces the mind of an individual or group, fails to convince the Scientific process.
I am describing, not suggesting.

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.

I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here.....
Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief.

So science eliminates mistaken beliefs and this is somehow a bad thing?

Perhaps you can give me an example of the kind of fallacious evidence that would be required to accept a falsifiable statement that science would otherwise dismiss.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 8:32:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 6:32:11 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.


I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here.....
Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief.

So science eliminates mistaken beliefs and this is somehow a bad thing?

Perhaps you can give me an example of the kind of fallacious evidence that would be required to accept a falsifiable statement that science would otherwise dismiss.

No, fallacious does not mean to be based on a mistaken belief.
That, ( Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief. ) is a mistaken belief.
Something is 'fallacious' if it does not conform to the rules of logic.
In logic, if I want to convince someone that 'Agent A' ate a cherry pie, and I say 'My best friend told me Agent A ate a cherry pie.', the rebuttal is, 'That is hearsay, fallacious, I am not convinced.' and they would be correct.
Science has stricter rules than logic.
Some things that are logically true, are not scientifically true.
Science uses the rules of logic, will not violate them, but is not required to accept them as final authority. It is its own final authority.
If I say I have ten notarized documents, one of them from a supreme court judge, and all of the notarized statements say Agent A ate a cherry pie, logically I may accept this as true (Agent A ate a cherry pie.). I might not, depending on other factors, but I could.
This is still not up to the standards of Science, it would be considered anecdotal, and/or hearsay, both fallacious.

People make all kinds of statements, that absolutely conform to reality, and are not mistaken in the slightest, but the evidence is all circumstantial, fallacious.
It is worth nothing that individuals are sent to their death based on circumstantial evidence, so it is no small thing. Still, it does not meet Scientific criteria.

As I saId, in general, when serious claims are made that are fallacious, the agents of Science will try to raise the level of evidence from fallacious to Scientific, or at least logical.
This is not always possible, even when the fallacious evidence is congruent with reality.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 10:37:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 6:07:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:47:33 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

I would like to continue this discussion with you, but a clarification is needed. Would you please point out where I stated that a scientific process, or any process, was perfect.

"Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless."

Science is a process.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

It is not a container filled with data. that is the product of Science.
Giving your statement the benefit of the doubt, I will insert thus:
"When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; the product of science remains flawless."


In order for the product to remain flawless, the process must be flawless.
How can a flawed process always yield a flawless product?

Additionally, you pick up the argument of sosoconfused, who did say the process is flawless.
So on two points, by inference, I read you to say the process of science is flawless.

If you agree with me that the process of Science is flawed, and that a flawed process will yield flawed results, we are in agreement.

Please note that by 'flawed' I do not mean it needs to be changed.
As I have stated, and as you inferred, any process will be flawed. It is up to the craftsmen to recognize these flaws, and do the best they can.
There are others who say the flawed process needs changed, and I may agree with them but not on his issue.
There may be room for improvement in the process of Science, but none of them will cure this issue.
It will always be a process, there are no perfect processes, flawed processes will from time to time yield flawed products. It is the nature of the beast.

You use semantics and a straw man argument to insinuate that I agree with you, when I do not. Then you end your post by essentially agreeing with me. I have made it very clear that the word "process" as we are discussing it, requires a "processor", or human intervention. I should not have to detail my questions for clarity. I stated "scientific process"; the act of "human processing." You changed it to "science is a process." To say "science is a process" is like saying that a river flowing to the sea is a process, or a seed becoming a tree is a process. Processes that do not require human intervention. Are those processes flawed?

The origin of the word "science" derives from scire (know). The Latin scientia means "knowledge". Knowledge is also a process. Is knowledge flawed before humans get their hands on it? If humans were perfect, would knowledge still be flawed? Same with science; if humans were perfect, would science be flawed? Of course not, because imperfect humans are flawed, not science.

In several posts, you have been asked for examples to support your argument. You have refused to present those examples, with the general excuse that if we don't know better, then it won't do any good to show us. I believe the excuse is to cover the fact that you are unable to find those examples. But to avoid being a hypocrite, here is an example that supports my argument:

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

And finally, a quote that beautifully explains one reason for flaws in scientific processes.

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:14:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 8:32:10 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/11/2015 6:32:11 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.


I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here.....
Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief.

So science eliminates mistaken beliefs and this is somehow a bad thing?

Perhaps you can give me an example of the kind of fallacious evidence that would be required to accept a falsifiable statement that science would otherwise dismiss.

No, fallacious does not mean to be based on a mistaken belief.
That, ( Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief. ) is a mistaken belief.
Something is 'fallacious' if it does not conform to the rules of logic.
In logic, if I want to convince someone that 'Agent A' ate a cherry pie, and I say 'My best friend told me Agent A ate a cherry pie.', the rebuttal is, 'That is hearsay, fallacious, I am not convinced.' and they would be correct.
Science has stricter rules than logic.
Some things that are logically true, are not scientifically true.
Science uses the rules of logic, will not violate them, but is not required to accept them as final authority. It is its own final authority.
If I say I have ten notarized documents, one of them from a supreme court judge, and all of the notarized statements say Agent A ate a cherry pie, logically I may accept this as true (Agent A ate a cherry pie.). I might not, depending on other factors, but I could.
This is still not up to the standards of Science, it would be considered anecdotal, and/or hearsay, both fallacious.

People make all kinds of statements, that absolutely conform to reality, and are not mistaken in the slightest, but the evidence is all circumstantial, fallacious.
It is worth nothing that individuals are sent to their death based on circumstantial evidence, so it is no small thing. Still, it does not meet Scientific criteria.

As I saId, in general, when serious claims are made that are fallacious, the agents of Science will try to raise the level of evidence from fallacious to Scientific, or at least logical.
This is not always possible, even when the fallacious evidence is congruent with reality.

I think get what you're saying. You would like to charge science with not being able to evaluate non-falsifiable statements and evidence.

The example of cherry pie that you gave, could technically be resolved with higher certainty through science. You could test the person's stool and figure out if they ate cherry pie with a much higher degree of certainty than hearsay. Also, science allows for hearsay fallacies all the time.....it's called direct observation. It's a standard of evidence. if it is non-repeatable however, we can't claim scientific truth. This isn't the same as dismissing this type of knowledge. We simply label it as non-scientific evidence and knowledge. If we can't conceive of a way to falsify a claim it is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. So if the person ate the cherry pie 10 days ago, then it's impossible to conceive of a way to prove that the person didn't eat the cherry pie. Therefore the question is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.

However, I won't dwell on this example since the legal one you gave is a much more interesting one.

Legal guilt
Questions of legal guilt are non-falsifiable statements. We can use scientific evidence to further a legal claim, but legal claims work within a system on their own that have their own rules of evidence. They are also much more complex statements than what science can answer. Asking for to prove guilt often rests on proving intent, etc.... These kinds of question can't be answered by science because the questions themselves are outside the boundaries that science sets for itself.

We say that the kind of knowledge you are asking science to accept is non-scientific. When we say non-scientific, we simply mean that the question is one that science can't speak to. Other examples would be questions of morality and other philosophical claims. We can use science to inform our reasoning (the gay gene informing us whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral for example....it's a piece, but it doesn't give us knowledge on morality).

Arguing that science is flawed because the claims that it can evaluate you would like it to answer is a bit like criticizing an MP3 player for not play Vinyl records though. We have other systems to deal with those kinds of questions. You're criticizing a system designed to evaluate falsifiable statements with falsifiable evidence to account for the kinds of questions that don't fall within it's purpose. That doesn't mean science is flawed, it means you're using it wrong.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 10:37:44 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/11/2015 6:07:24 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:47:33 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:

I would like to continue this discussion with you, but a clarification is needed. Would you please point out where I stated that a scientific process, or any process, was perfect.

"Science is like a box filled with data; neither the box nor the data is flawed. When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; science remains flawless."

Science is a process.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

It is not a container filled with data. that is the product of Science.
Giving your statement the benefit of the doubt, I will insert thus:
"When flaws occur, it is due to human intervention; the product of science remains flawless."


In order for the product to remain flawless, the process must be flawless.
How can a flawed process always yield a flawless product?

Additionally, you pick up the argument of sosoconfused, who did say the process is flawless.
So on two points, by inference, I read you to say the process of science is flawless.

If you agree with me that the process of Science is flawed, and that a flawed process will yield flawed results, we are in agreement.

Please note that by 'flawed' I do not mean it needs to be changed.
As I have stated, and as you inferred, any process will be flawed. It is up to the craftsmen to recognize these flaws, and do the best they can.
There are others who say the flawed process needs changed, and I may agree with them but not on his issue.
There may be room for improvement in the process of Science, but none of them will cure this issue.
It will always be a process, there are no perfect processes, flawed processes will from time to time yield flawed products. It is the nature of the beast.

You use semantics and a straw man argument to insinuate that I agree with you, when I do not. Then you end your post by essentially agreeing with me. I have made it very clear that the word "process" as we are discussing it, requires a "processor", or human intervention. I should not have to detail my questions for clarity. I stated "scientific process"; the act of "human processing." You changed it to "science is a process." Processes that do not require human intervention. Are those processes flawed?
To say "science is a process" is like saying that a river flowing to the sea is a process, or a seed becoming a tree is a process.
The origin of the word "science" derives from scire (know). The Latin scientia means "knowledge". Knowledge is also a process. Is knowledge flawed before humans get their hands on it? If humans were perfect, would knowledge still be flawed? Same with science; if humans were perfect, would science be flawed? Of course not, because imperfect humans are flawed, not science.

In several posts, you have been asked for examples to support your argument. You have refused to present those examples, with the general excuse that if we don't know better, then it won't do any good to show us. I believe the excuse is to cover the fact that you are unable to find those examples. But to avoid being a hypocrite, here is an example that supports my argument:

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

And finally, a quote that beautifully explains one reason for flaws in scientific processes.

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

To say "science is a process" is like saying that a river flowing to the sea is a process, or a seed becoming a tree is a process. "

Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Click it and weep.
https://www.google.com...+

"Knowledge is also a process. "

Knowledge is 'justified true belief'.
No process in knowledge, only in acquiring it.
Knowledge is data.
Knowledge is a product.

You have danced around issues without answering my concerns about your beliefs.
I feel no obligation to move forward.

Here is something, NOT particularly support for my argument, but something you failed to address:
This wonderful Science of yours proclaimed the Sun was the center of the universe.
What's the problem?
Oh, right, not the fault of Science, just the agents who administer it.
Science is like the Bible - never gets it wrong. The agents, different story, they may go astray.
Yes, you make a case for those who say Science is a Religion. I am not one of them, but I am starting to see their point.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:47:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:14:41 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/11/2015 8:32:10 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/11/2015 6:32:11 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.


I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here.....
Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief.

So science eliminates mistaken beliefs and this is somehow a bad thing?

Perhaps you can give me an example of the kind of fallacious evidence that would be required to accept a falsifiable statement that science would otherwise dismiss.

No, fallacious does not mean to be based on a mistaken belief.
That, ( Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief. ) is a mistaken belief.
Something is 'fallacious' if it does not conform to the rules of logic.
In logic, if I want to convince someone that 'Agent A' ate a cherry pie, and I say 'My best friend told me Agent A ate a cherry pie.', the rebuttal is, 'That is hearsay, fallacious, I am not convinced.' and they would be correct.
Science has stricter rules than logic.
Some things that are logically true, are not scientifically true.
Science uses the rules of logic, will not violate them, but is not required to accept them as final authority. It is its own final authority.
If I say I have ten notarized documents, one of them from a supreme court judge, and all of the notarized statements say Agent A ate a cherry pie, logically I may accept this as true (Agent A ate a cherry pie.). I might not, depending on other factors, but I could.
This is still not up to the standards of Science, it would be considered anecdotal, and/or hearsay, both fallacious.

People make all kinds of statements, that absolutely conform to reality, and are not mistaken in the slightest, but the evidence is all circumstantial, fallacious.
It is worth nothing that individuals are sent to their death based on circumstantial evidence, so it is no small thing. Still, it does not meet Scientific criteria.

As I saId, in general, when serious claims are made that are fallacious, the agents of Science will try to raise the level of evidence from fallacious to Scientific, or at least logical.
This is not always possible, even when the fallacious evidence is congruent with reality.

I think get what you're saying. You would like to charge science with not being able to evaluate non-falsifiable statements and evidence.

Absolutely not.
Not even close.
Statements are falsifiable within the discipline of Science as it exists today, ad it does it.
it applies the Scientific Method, and says - through its agents - 'This fallacious evidence can not have a reasonable possibility of being true.
We have examined the fallacious evidence, we have applied the Scientific Method, we are satisfied with our results.
This fallacious evidence has not swayed our position.
The evidence must be erroneous.'
And then, years later decades later, new and non-fallacious evidence, and the position is reversed.

This should be no surprise.
it is part of the Scientific process, as I have explained.
It should be expected - it is one weakness, of a process, that should not be expected to be perfect.
You are totally in denial.

The example of cherry pie that you gave, could technically be resolved with higher certainty through science. You could test the person's stool and figure out if they ate cherry pie with a much higher degree of certainty than hearsay. Also, science allows for hearsay fallacies all the time.....it's called direct observation. It's a standard of evidence. if it is non-repeatable however, we can't claim scientific truth. This isn't the same as dismissing this type of knowledge. We simply label it as non-scientific evidence and knowledge. If we can't conceive of a way to falsify a claim it is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. So if the person ate the cherry pie 10 days ago, then it's impossible to conceive of a way to prove that the person didn't eat the cherry pie. Therefore the question is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.

However, I won't dwell on this example since the legal one you gave is a much more interesting one.

Legal guilt
Questions of legal guilt are non-falsifiable statements. We can use scientific evidence to further a legal claim, but legal claims work within a system on their own that have their own rules of evidence. They are also much more complex statements than what science can answer. Asking for to prove guilt often rests on proving intent, etc.... These kinds of question can't be answered by science because the questions themselves are outside the boundaries that science sets for itself.

We say that the kind of knowledge you are asking science to accept is non-scientific. When we say non-scientific, we simply mean that the question is one that science can't speak to.
Absolutely not.
Science can, and does speak to it, and says 'not reasonably possible.'

Other examples would be questions of morality and other philosophical claims. We :can use science to inform our reasoning (the gay gene informing us whether or :not homosexuality is moral or immoral for example....it's a piece, but it doesn't :give us knowledge on morality).

Arguing that science is flawed because the claims that it can evaluate you would like it to answer is a bit like criticizing an MP3 player for not play Vinyl records though. We have other systems to deal with those kinds of questions. You're criticizing a system designed to evaluate falsifiable statements with falsifiable evidence to account for the kinds of questions that don't fall within it's purpose. That doesn't mean science is flawed, it means you're using it wrong.

You are completely in denial.

Science has a standard for what is acceptable evidence.
The standard will eliminate some evidence as being unacceptable.
Wherever the bar is set, it will be forced to ignore truthful evidence OR, it will be forced to accept erroneous information.
it can be no other way.
In the past it accepted erroneous information because it was so lenient.
Now it is much stricter, so it will rule out some information, that is truthful.
It will deny factual models of reality, and say they are false.
It will fail at its intended purpose - not universally, but occasionally.

Your lack of understanding the significance of fallacious arguments and evidence certainly weakens your credibility.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:15:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:47:05 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:14:41 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/11/2015 8:32:10 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/11/2015 6:32:11 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:

Sometimes the fallacious evidence of the individual or group is correct - it does represent reality - but is rejected by the Scientific process.


I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here.....
Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief.

So science eliminates mistaken beliefs and this is somehow a bad thing?

Perhaps you can give me an example of the kind of fallacious evidence that would be required to accept a falsifiable statement that science would otherwise dismiss.

No, fallacious does not mean to be based on a mistaken belief.
That, ( Fallacious means to be based on a mistaken belief. ) is a mistaken belief.
Something is 'fallacious' if it does not conform to the rules of logic.
In logic, if I want to convince someone that 'Agent A' ate a cherry pie, and I say 'My best friend told me Agent A ate a cherry pie.', the rebuttal is, 'That is hearsay, fallacious, I am not convinced.' and they would be correct.
Science has stricter rules than logic.
Some things that are logically true, are not scientifically true.
Science uses the rules of logic, will not violate them, but is not required to accept them as final authority. It is its own final authority.
If I say I have ten notarized documents, one of them from a supreme court judge, and all of the notarized statements say Agent A ate a cherry pie, logically I may accept this as true (Agent A ate a cherry pie.). I might not, depending on other factors, but I could.
This is still not up to the standards of Science, it would be considered anecdotal, and/or hearsay, both fallacious.

People make all kinds of statements, that absolutely conform to reality, and are not mistaken in the slightest, but the evidence is all circumstantial, fallacious.
It is worth nothing that individuals are sent to their death based on circumstantial evidence, so it is no small thing. Still, it does not meet Scientific criteria.

As I saId, in general, when serious claims are made that are fallacious, the agents of Science will try to raise the level of evidence from fallacious to Scientific, or at least logical.
This is not always possible, even when the fallacious evidence is congruent with reality.

I think get what you're saying. You would like to charge science with not being able to evaluate non-falsifiable statements and evidence.

Absolutely not.
Not even close.
Statements are falsifiable within the discipline of Science as it exists today, ad it does it.
it applies the Scientific Method, and says - through its agents - 'This fallacious evidence can not have a reasonable possibility of being true.
We have examined the fallacious evidence, we have applied the Scientific Method, we are satisfied with our results.
This fallacious evidence has not swayed our position.
The evidence must be erroneous.'
And then, years later decades later, new and non-fallacious evidence, and the position is reversed.

This should be no surprise.
it is part of the Scientific process, as I have explained.
It should be expected - it is one weakness, of a process, that should not be expected to be perfect.
You are totally in denial.

The example of cherry pie that you gave, could technically be resolved with higher certainty through science. You could test the person's stool and figure out if they ate cherry pie with a much higher degree of certainty than hearsay. Also, science allows for hearsay fallacies all the time.....it's called direct observation. It's a standard of evidence. if it is non-repeatable however, we can't claim scientific truth. This isn't the same as dismissing this type of knowledge. We simply label it as non-scientific evidence and knowledge. If we can't conceive of a way to falsify a claim it is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. So if the person ate the cherry pie 10 days ago, then it's impossible to conceive of a way to prove that the person didn't eat the cherry pie. Therefore the question is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.

However, I won't dwell on this example since the legal one you gave is a much more interesting one.

Legal guilt
Questions of legal guilt are non-falsifiable statements. We can use scientific evidence to further a legal claim, but legal claims work within a system on their own that have their own rules of evidence. They are also much more complex statements than what science can answer. Asking for to prove guilt often rests on proving intent, etc.... These kinds of question can't be answered by science because the questions themselves are outside the boundaries that science sets for itself.

We say that the kind of knowledge you are asking science to accept is non-scientific. When we say non-scientific, we simply mean that the question is one that science can't speak to.
Absolutely not.
Science can, and does speak to it, and says 'not reasonably possible.'

Other examples would be questions of morality and other philosophical claims. We :can use science to inform our reasoning (the gay gene informing us whether or :not homosexuality is moral or immoral for example....it's a piece, but it doesn't :give us knowledge on morality).

Arguing that science is flawed because the claims that it can evaluate you would like it to answer is a bit like criticizing an MP3 player for not play Vinyl records though. We have other systems to deal with those kinds of questions. You're criticizing a system designed to evaluate falsifiable statements with falsifiable evidence to account for the kinds of questions that don't fall within it's purpose. That doesn't mean science is flawed, it means you're using it wrong.

You are completely in denial.

Science has a standard for what is acceptable evidence.
The standard will eliminate some evidence as being unacceptable.
Wherever the bar is set, it will be forced to ignore truthful evidence OR, it will be forced to accept erroneous information.
it can be no other way.
In the past it accepted erroneous information because it was so lenient.
Now it is much stricter, so it will rule out some information, that is truthful.
It will deny factual models of reality, and say they are false.
It will fail at its intended purpose - not universally, but occasionally.

Your lack of understanding the significance of fallacious arguments and evidence certainly weakens your credibility.

You're missing the point. Science can't speak to non-falsifiable statements like the ones you want it to speak to. Like I said, you're basically saying this MP3 player is flawed because it can't play vinyl records.

Science doesn't make judgement statements or evaluative statements on things like art and philosophy because they are based on non-falsifiable claims.

Here is what you have so far failed to show and why I can't accept your claim:

Show me a falsifiable statement which science won't accept but can be shown to be universally true in some other way. However, that's the only way your argument can stand. You're speaking in abstract accusations but haven't shown a single example of a systematic failure attributed to science....