26 3

I am curious of people's thoughts of science here. Are you confident in science? Are there sciences that you feel are not as valid?

Fulishsage 6 July 28

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Your question shows you don't understand the nature of science. Science is NOT a belief system. Science exists whether or not you believe in it. Science is fact. Science is testing. Science is learning through making mistakes. Science is proven to the best of our ability. Science is everything. Science doesnt care about your confidence level. Science doesnt change because you are more or less confident in it.

I understand that it is not a belief system but there are those who do not believe it. The question comes from being in an area where I am constantly bombarded with people not understanding or "believing" in science.


Science, more specifically the scientific method, is great.. It's only flaw, humanity.


I am very confident in the scientific method. When there are unanswered questions, science isn't afraid to say, we just don't know. Sometimes something is not completely validated and scientists say that current evidence points us toward this conclusion and folks jump on it because it's still under question. So what? They're working on it.

gearl Level 7 July 28, 2018

Science comes from Latin meaning knowledge. Science is basically humanities accumulation of knowledge. Verifiable facts. Theorem that is applicable, practical.
But there is much science does not know and it is not the be and end all. We still need philosophers to tell and advise us on how this knowledge should be used.
There is something else eg the arts have no logical or practical purpose, are non essential to our survival so why do we do it? Science cannot explain this, or measure, test, predict or replicate it. But it exists.

powder Level 8 July 29, 2018

It is reasonable to have a high degree of confidence in science, particularly the hard sciences. The soft sciences not so much, though even there, when proper methodology is applied, the results are basically reliable. So, plain straight answer: Yes.


Science is one tool in a tool belt. When used appropriately it is invaluable. However, it is not, as some people may claim, a naturally progressing unbiased thing. People's perspectives and money are unfortunate realities even in science.


There is only one science but it has many branches: biology, chemistry, physics, geology, etc. Science is both a process for investigating nature and all the knowledge that has accumulated through the exercise of that process over the last 400-odd years. We have a lot of confidence in the validity of the information that has been gathered because the process requires that it all be supported by independently-verifiable evidence, and both the process and its products are constantly subjected to peer review. The process has a built-in self-correction mechanism. Mistakes are made, but rarely do they go very long without being detected and set right. Science is not ideological, nor are its conclusions based on personal desire, caprice, or religious dogma. Belief is right out. Wars are fought over political ideologies and religious dogmas, but no war has ever been fought over scientific findings. The reason for the difference is that religious believers have only ancient texts in which many wild, half-baked, ambiguous and conflicting claims are made. Since the ancient texts are up for interpretation, and there is no way to substantiate any particular opinion, religious believers have no final arbiter that can peacefully settle disputes. Hence the long and bloody history of religious warfare. Meanwhile science, like the ugly duckling that grew into a beautiful swann, serenely glides on down the lake.

Well said


Science is science. This is absolute. If something less than a valid wants to pose as a science, well, it isn't a science. Certainly, there are some sciences we understand better than others, but remember that science is a process of coming to better understand where we are coming up short.

godef Level 7 July 29, 2018

Did you mean to say the "scientific method?"

Science information itself is constantly changing; what is a universally accepted "fact" one year might be obsolete the next. Remember when medical doctors endorsed "healthy cigarettes?"

Right now Big Pharm and Big Oil are desperately trying to discredit any renewable health and energy sources, trying to keep cannabis and hemp off the market, but next year they'll be trying to sell their own toxic, synthetic versions of natural cannabis.


Love it! Always questions to gain better understanding. What's not to like?


Science is a method, a way of finding truth, and it's the best one we have, so yeah, I kinda like it.


My favorite quote.

“… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.”
― Ricky Gervais

Betty Level 7 July 29, 2018

That quote is a bit chilling, knowing that societies have actually destroyed knowledge that we are starting to reaquire now. Hopefully this time it will be different.


Wealth, power, and dominance serve greed. Greed corrupts and if it serves those in power to destroy access to knowledge to maintain or gain more power then it will happen. It has happened in the past and I suspect it will happen in the future. Such is the human condition, as much as we may like to we cannot escape.


Scientific theory is at its best when it is open to changing its conclusions upon the discovery of new evidence. Problems arise in situations where certain matters are considered settled or established. Even Einstein's theories while they work well and are or have been considered established are open to amendment. New discoveries are often being made that experts say should be "impossible" because they are not accounted for by established theory. In most cases this inconsistency leads to new theories and new areas of study. Some more quickly than others.

One theory that is currently considered established is Continental Plate Tectonics that I find woefully incomplete. I'm no geologist but I believe that one day Expanding Earth Theory will one day not only be taken seriously but be shown to contain many truths about the evolution of our planet and lead to further amendment of several of our established laws.

Bjy001 Level 7 July 29, 2018

There is actually a lot we do not know about plate tectonics. It is a very active area of research and a very young area of research that hopefully will lead to some amazing discoveries. I am a geologist and trust me we're working on it.


I appreciate the fact that we live in a modern world mostly created by science.


Science is my faith.

Wahker Level 6 July 29, 2018

I'm glad to hear that


Science is great. Always learning, always growing.


Very confident but as with anything, I like to read in depth about the evidence supporting whatever is being offered . Also, peer review is Paramount to acceptance.

I am a huge fan of peer review, even with one's own work peer review can uncover mistakes.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by your question. I am an engineer. If I ignore principles designed using science, my stuff doesn't work. Do I think this means science knows all? Of course not, science says we always keep testing, but that doesn't mean we accept things we already know to be false because "It is just a theory".

There is a large section of society that dismisses science. I'm a Geologist and have to deal with the dismissal of certain well understood concepts on, if not daily then weekly basis. Anthropogenic climate change is the probably the most common. I was curious how people perceive science here. I was also wondering if there is sciences that people completely dismiss.
I'm not sure how your using "theory", it takes a lot of evidence to be a theory.

A co-worker tried to tell me that scientists said the pyramids were a form of Tesla coil. When I said "bullshit" he said "It's just a theory".


This person is posting all over this site in a feeble effort to sow doubt about science, yet his very questions show a complete lack of understanding of how science works....methinks I smell Troll?!

Are you talking about me? I'm sorry if that's how I came off if you are. I would appreciate if you would tell me why you think I'm trolling. I definitely don't want to sow doubt about science, I get enough of that where I live. I'm actually a scientist in climate, so you can probably imagine how much I get questioned.

Give him this..and send him on his way...?

@Fulishsage Could you recommend any texts on climate science because I would like to learn more about it. I have a background in physics so I could start with good introductory textbooks on the subject. I’m not too sure if I’d be able to adequately review the advanced literature on the subject though eventually I’d love to be able to read it. I’m asking because I’d like to be able to understand climate change better beyond the basic greenhouse gas absorption positive feed back loop with CO2. Thanks!

@Wavefunction $20 says he sends you a tract on how the dinosaurs your ancestors rode to hunt other dinosaurs are the cause

After looking through the other posts I understand your skepticism of this post. I did not make the other posts. I am genuinely interested in people's view point about science.

@Wavefunction if you have access to scientific database then you can check out information on Milankovitch Cycles. It is how we know we should be moving into a cooling phase and not the warming phase we're in. I am away from my home but will post a text book when I get home and see what I have on the subject. Dr. David Montgomery comes to mind for authors to read, he is out of University of Washington. I will also post a lecture, that I believe was from Virginia Tech but don't quote me on it, that is about how the greenhouse effect works. There is so much good information. I'll be home tomorrow and have a folder that has links for people who want to know more about climate change, if you like lectures.

@Fulishsage sounds wonderful, thanks for the reply!

@Wavefunction so one of my colleagues made me feel stupid while talking to him about texts on climate science. Check out the ICPP report, it is the single best source on the subject. You can get the report for policy makers, just Google ICPP report for policy makers and you can download the PDF. If you want more information you can go into the full report.
Another source is a pod cast called Science Vs. and go to the climate change pod cast. It is about an hour I believe but the host covers the information very well and in a way that easy to understand. She also has an Australian accent which makes it even better in my opinion.
I hope this helps, if you still want more information you can contact me and I'd be happy to send links.

@AnneWimsey so does he get the $20 ?

@Fulishsage I think I have the ICPP report but it is an older one from 2014 because I had to do a report on climate change for an undergrad course: I had a engineering prof who wasn’t a fan of climate change so I tried my best to convince him. I think lectures would probably be awesome as well. I’ll look back through the ICPP report as well since it will likely contain the methodology involved in the model as well if I recall correctly.



This has some decent information including the physics of climate change lecture which I guess was U of Virginia. The other video with Andrew Dessler is also good. It's about satellite data with the actual scientist.

@Fulishsage Nice, Inwill have to check these out, thanks!


The so-called 'soft sciences' concern me, as they sometimes appear to resort to methodologies that skirt the edges of objectivity. These sciences include behavioral psychology, anthropology and sociology.

These are merely sciences that we have yet to understand as well. Purely speaking, science is an application of observation to better understand. If there are "methodologies that skirt the edges of objectivity", then by definition, it isn't science.

That is not a flaw that could be remedied somehow. Every science that deals with human beings - well, not with human bodies but with human minds or societies - has to deal with what one could call "imagined orders".
Homo sapiens is a cultural animal who lives in the intersubjective (!) ideosphere just like fish live in water. All those ideas and ideologies and belief systems influence individual or social human behavior, that is why it is simply impossible to study homo sapiens in the same way and the same objectivity as you study a bird species ...

You might add economics to that list.

@Flyingsaucesir Never thought of economics as a science. Statistics, yes, but Econ? Seems 'squishier' than psych.


Cryptozoology is my favorite but I think it’s kinda farcical.

PaulD Level 5 July 28, 2018

Until they find Bigfoot lol

@Fulishsage Or Nessi lol


I don't believe in the metaphysics

I have to admit, I know very little about metaphysics. I guess I have some reading to do.


To a point. I like to know who is funding the research if possible...

I think true scientist appreciate that.


Christian Science.


Properly called Christian religion.

Lies for the sake of furthering an agenda. Sorry, a sore subject with me.


Science is da debil.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:142259
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.