Are you 100% sure that science is always right and why?

Posted by: sweetbreeze

Vote
43 Total Votes
1

No because nothing can always be right, but science always will continue to strive to be right. It seeks truth and is willing to compromise when new evidence is presented.

30 votes
6 comments
2

No, because a scientist is not a "Mr Right".

7 votes
1 comment
3

Not 100%, but im with them 95% of the time

4 votes
1 comment
4

Yes, because in 4 years time they'll have changed their minds.

1 vote
0 comments
5

Yes, because there's more evidence.

1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
sweetbreeze says2013-09-13T17:50:12.5339512-05:00
You can't just trust something because there's more evidence. It's your beliefs. And guess what, religion has evidence as well. Quran, Bible, can't those be considered evidence too?
Jingram994 says2013-09-13T22:51:26.5456537-05:00
No, this has been pointed out to you before. In the *real world*, hard evidence is the *only* reason to value one subjective 'belief' over the other. No theistic religion has evidence of any kind, and science is nothing more than a methodology that *requires* evidence to backup claims; one is certainly not equal to the other in any real sense. Trying to state that 'it says so in a book written 2000 years ago' is 'evidence' on the same level as is required in scientific investigation is a fallacy and is incorrect. I'm sorry to have to point this out, but anyone can write a book, and that book can say anything they want it to say; unless it's contents, when claiming to be factual, can be verified by reliable sources, then the book simply isn't credible.
sweetbreeze says2013-09-13T23:53:43.9066808-05:00
Hey, would you call someone uneducated and uninformed if they go for religion? It's THEIR beliefs and they choose what they believe in, not you. They have their own idea about the *real world*.
kigl says2013-09-14T02:15:30.5427454-05:00
Science is the logical process of approaching the best answer for why a phenomena occurs based on the collected evidence. This process cannot be wrong. Only the data collected or the setup to collect the data can be wrong or the subjective interpretation of the data can be wrong. Disagreeing with the scientific method is inherently disagreeing with logic itself. Bad data or poor interpretation of the data leads to inconsistencies. This process of testing and retesting is a core part of the scientific process. This understanding through science will gradually lead to a closer answer of the truth behind phenomena.
Jingram994 says2013-09-14T06:05:22.5977986-05:00
And just as an answer to sweetbreeze, if that is your real name; it's perfectly okay for someone to have their own belief system, their own core values and individual opinions. If they were of the mind that those opinions and beliefs, despite being just their subjective 'take' on reality, were objectively *factual* and more 'correct' than *actual* facts that we *know* about the real world, then yes, I would call them uninformed or uneducated. It's entirely fine to believe in a god or gods; it's not okay, for example, to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago by the direct Hand of God and all evidence to the contrary is just him 'testing us'. There's a point where 'personal belief' crosses over into 'denies reality'. And kigl is correct. Science is nothing more than the application of logic, empirical deduction and human reason to attain knowledge about the world around us; disagreeing with this process in itself is inherently disagreeing with logic.
higa123 says2013-10-23T07:41:45.7213632-05:00
The truths about the universe will always be right, but science is trying to find the truth. Scientific views can be wrong.
Lordgrae says2013-10-23T12:16:20.3550424-05:00
Yes they can be wrong, but science will always strive to be right. When something is wrong, they admit it, and they have a high standard of proof.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.