• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

Re: Oh no you just didn'!

This is a cute little representation of "The Scientific Method," SheWolf. It says it was created for an earth science class. Unfortunately, whoever created it doesn't understand how science works and is only perpetuating misinformation to her unsuspecting students.

a1%20sci.method.jpg

Here's a model that does a better job of describing how science actually works. I like it because it makes clear the importance of theory, and doesn't encourage the misconceptions that science is a just a series of experiments, and that "hypotheses become theories become laws":

z-ism.gif
 
Last edited:
Gravity started out as a hypothesis.. We know "what goes up must come down" and about falling apples, but the concept that it is gravity doing it and what gravity actually is- is a theory. Newton's hypothesis of gravity involved three laws of movement, which he tested with observation and demonstrated to others to support his hypothesis.. After that testing and additional testing, his hypothesis became known as the "Newton's law of universal gravitation."
Nope, that's a bunch of crap. As I said earlier, laws are descriptive generalizations of observations, and this is true of the Law of Gravity. A Theory of Gravity would attempt to explain what we observe.

Newton discusses this difference in Principia:
"Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
Newton: Principia mathematica
 
Flow charts, LOL.

Processes and procedures, procedural processes, processed procedures........

These are for those in the cubicles.
 
Nope, that's a bunch of crap. As I said earlier, laws are descriptive generalizations of observations, and this is true of the Law of Gravity. A Theory of Gravity would attempt to explain what we observe.

Newton discusses this difference in Principia:
"Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
Newton: Principia mathematica

I knew I shouldn't have thrown you another bone, but I did.. :doh

You are not arguing with me about the fallibility of science anymore, now it's Netwon's hypothesis... distraction as usual. You wouldn't be so annoying if you were not so wrong and condescending "bunch of crap"... No, what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.

Hitherto, we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power.

The first part says what he had already explained, the second part says what he will not offer to explain.. therefore he offers no hypothesis on the cause of gravity

That is all your quote is showing. His opinion is that science shouldn't be tasked with answering that question, and that gravity exists and acts according to the laws which he previously explained.

Newton's hypothesis was that forces between heavenly bodies were the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.

According to Newton's hypothesis, the weight of a body on Earth is the resultant of the attraction of each mass point on Earth of each mass point of the body. The magnitude of the force, by which Earth attracts a body, that is, its weight, must therefore be proportional to its mass, as is indeed the case.

Newton'

Newton's Hypothesis: The forces between heavenly bodies are the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.

What kind of force was it? It probably wasn't magnetic, since magnetic forces have nothing to do with mass.

Then came Newton's great insight. Lying under an apple tree and looking up at the moon in the sky, he saw an apple fall. Might not the earth also attract the moon with the same kind of gravitational force? The moon orbits the earth in the same way that the planets orbit the sun, so maybe the earth's force on the falling apple, the earth's force on the moon, and the sun's force on a planet were all the same type of force.

There was an easy way to test this hypothesis numerically. If it was true, then we would expect the gravitational forces exerted by the earth to follow the same F m/r2 rule as the forces exerted by the sun, but with a different constant of proportionality appropriate to the earth's gravitational strength. The issue arises now of how to define the distance, r, between the earth and the apple.

An apple in England is closer to some parts of the earth than to others, but suppose we take r to be the distance from the center of the earth to the apple, i.e., the radius of the earth. (The issue of how to measure r did not arise in the analysis of the planets' motions because the sun and planets are so small compared to the distances separating them.) Calling the proportionality constant k, we have

Fearth on apple = k mapple/r2 earth

Fearth on moon = k mmoon/d2 earth-moon .

Newton's second law says a = F/m, so

aapple = k / r2 earth

amoon = k / d2 earth-moon .

The Greek astronomer Hipparchus had already found 2000 years before that the distance from the earth to the moon was about 60 times the radius of the earth, so if Newton's hypothesis was right, the acceleration of the moon would have to be 602 = 3600 times less than the acceleration of the falling apple.


g / The moon's acceleration is 602 = 3600 times smaller than the apple's.
Applying a = v2/r to the acceleration of the moon yielded an acceleration that was indeed 3600 times smaller than 9.8 m/s2, and Newton was convinced he had unlocked the secret of the mysterious force that kept the moon and planets in their orbits.

Newton's Law of Gravity (F) = Gm1 - m(sq) / r(sq)

That equation exists because of his hypothesis..

So gravity is both a law and theory like Critical Thinking already said. Scientific concepts are not strictly one thing or the other, which is why evolution is both theory and fact.

Newton's research better defined the Law of Gravity, which gave credence to this hypothesis. He didn't change the law, he better defined the law. The laws of motion and Newton's research came to be known as the Newtonian Law of Gravity, which is indicative of greater understanding of gravity in the scientific community.

Newton’s Law of Gravity


I am done with this debate now. Reading your statements actually causes my blood pressure to rise, because you are spouting off a "bunch of crap." You came into the debate foolishly trying to teach me something and acting superior in knowledge and understanding.

You tried to argue that science is fallible by saying the community didn't take Wegner's "theory" as fact immediately, so the community was wrong. Then you thought I embarrassed myself by knowing Plate Tectonics is a theory and not a fact.. You haven't proven yourself intellectually superior to me in anyway as far as I am concerned, and I am not gloating. I am just really frustrated that you have attempted to diminished science and the method, then started playing semantics with it, and then started acting as if you know more about it.

I won't claim to be a big expert in science.. lots of people know more than me, and a lot more people know more than you. But to act like you have something to teach me, and pretending to not be subjectively judging the practice and turning everything into semantics whilst insulting me- is just absurd. I can't continue this debate. You have nothing to offer, except heart palpitations.
 
I'm wondering...

How did this thread go from discussing the constitutionality of Separation of Church and State to discussing the laws of gravity and the solar system?

You guys must be extremely bored.
 
I'm wondering...

How did this thread go from discussing the constitutionality of Separation of Church and State to discussing the laws of gravity and the solar system?

You guys must be extremely bored.


Isn't everybody on teh internets bored?
 
I knew I shouldn't have thrown you another bone, but I did.. :doh

You are not arguing with me about the fallibility of science anymore, now it's Netwon's hypothesis... distraction as usual. You wouldn't be so annoying if you were not so wrong and condescending "bunch of crap"... No, what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.
Oh, it's all in good fun... I kinda like you! :nahnah:

If your last post was in reference to fallibility, then I guess I didn't understand where you were going with it.

The first part says what he had already explained, the second part says what he will not offer to explain.. therefore he offers no hypothesis on the cause of gravity. That is all your quote is showing.
Yes, exactly. That was the point being made in reference to my earlier claim - laws describe and theories explain - I made this in reference to CT's post and the version of the scientific method you posted. Newton is providing a descriptive law based on observation. When he says, "I will frame no hypothesis" he is indeed referencing cause which is what is addressed in a scientific theory. His use of "hypothesis" in this context refers to a nascent theory.

what I said wasn't a bunch of crap. Newton did have a hypothesis.
....
Newton's hypothesis was that forces between heavenly bodies were the same type of force as terrestrial gravity.
I wasn't arguing that Newton didn't hypothesize. I believe I said earlier in reference to CT's post that repeated testing of a hypothesis was actually something better associated with a law than a theory. The "crap" comment stemmed from trying to follow your chain of logic. You mention hypothesis, theory and law but didn't tie them all together. I assumed you were trying to link that somehow to the diagram.

So gravity is both a law and theory like Critical Thinking already said. Scientific concepts are not strictly one thing or the other, which is why evolution is both theory and fact.
I don't understand how you are arriving at this conclusion, but yes - we certainly can have a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. Or two competing theories. In the part of the principia I quoted, Newton is saying that he is presenting a law, not a theory. If I remember correctly, he was working on a theory but knew it had some issues. I'm not sure we've ever had a generally-accepted theory of gravity. It's one of the fundamental forces. Wikipedia says it's covered by the relativity, but I'm not sure, and am not a physicist.

I am done with this debate now. Reading your statements actually causes my blood pressure to rise, because you are spouting off a "bunch of crap." You came into the debate foolishly trying to teach me something and acting superior in knowledge and understanding.
Really? Really? :poke
 
she's an idiot. most of us know that.
Another bit of brilliant political analysis from an Obamatron.
Many also knew back in 2008 that Obama was a brilliant man... because the Journolists told them so... ROTFLOL

Let's do a short scorecard:

Shes for lower taxes. Coons wants to raise taxes.
When Mr. Blitzer asked Mr. Coons, "Did you increase taxes as the county executive?" Mr. Coons ducked the question. But he did in fact increase property taxes in New Castle County, by 48%.

She's against Cap and Trade. Coon is for nationwide Cap 'N Tax.
Mr. Coons also favors "a nationwide cap-and-trade program" so that government would regulate and tax our energy consumption and use.

She's ready to repeal ObiKare. Coons believes in ObiKare.
But he insisted it "was a critical piece of legislation" that should not be repealed.

She's for securing the border. Coons is for legalizing illegals.
Mr. Coons favors a "path towards legal residence" for those here illegally

Coons is a tax and spend Marxist... he's another Kenyan & Marxist influenced piece of political mess. Seems like Delaware might step in it again... after all, they have a long record of such feats, sending us the Great Joe Biden... one of the Senate's great idiots.

So... Who's Stupid?

Delaware's Decision - WSJ.com

.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
Give an example of where science fails to be objective.. Do you have any example of science cramming a lie down our throats?

Man caused Global warming.


j-mac
 
And while your brain continues to operate at a level just unconceivable to some, you still haven't the slightest of clues as to where evolution began. You conveniently ignore the single most important aspect of the discussion, and discount a higher being as impossible. Evolution to some degree is obvious, but the levels you want to take it to are still vastly unproven and not understood at all. Anybody's guess.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I discount the possibility of a higher being, because I emphatically do not. I just don't see any empirical evidence that He somehow intelligently guided the evolution of life in a way that chance could not do equally well.

You're wrong about evolution not being proven. The theory of evolution has been borne by observation as well as the theory of gravity has. And so far there is no sign that ID is in any way necessary to make evolution work as a theory. So until we find some extraordinary evidence, Occam's razor will prevail.
 
Last edited:
The reason I found your statements to be so infuriating is because you are using academic terms like logic, and subjective and objective and applying them inappropriately.

For example: science is subject

To say science is subjective is a generalization of science. Science has objective and subjective areas, but to say science as a whole is subjective is intellectually dishonest.. that is, if you even intellectually understand those concepts (ie understand those terms beyond a layperson's comprehension, and don't think subjectivity is ground for dismissal). You had the tone of somebody trying to dismiss science IMHO..

Why should we call something that has both elements of objectivity and subjectivity as subjective, and then by default fallible? I don't think I ever said science was infallible, and even if I did I would have caught up in the commenting, and would have been wrong. My point is, that diagnosing science as completely fallible or infallible is subjective, and saying that science is completely subjective is inaccurate.

I found that to be very infuriating.. especially statements like this:

Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.

Diagnosing science as being fallible at any angle and for any reason is a subjective critique. I would never say science is fallible. Why would I want to discredit a field of study that I respect? The method is designed to prevent a theory or idea in the scientific community (no matter how widely held or respected) as either being taught as true or false if it can't be proven either way, which is why things like Plate Tectonics are theories.. even though it makes sense, and it seems so logical that lay people and high schoolers easy confuse it as fact. Until it's proven as being true, it's a theory, same as the Big Bang Theory. And more than likely they are both going to remain theories, because I don't see any way of proving either of them. So on those grounds, I don't think science if fallible.

So when you are telling me that "science is subjective" you sound as intelligent to me as somebody who says "psychology is subjective," which isn't very intelligent. Psychology has theories, and psychologists make subjective judgments like the rest of scientists.. but I wouldn't say as a whole the practice of psychology is subjective or fallible. That is disingenuous and frankly ignorant.

The only people who would generalize psychology as subjective and fallible are Scientologist and a few others, because they don't believe in taking drugs for mental health reasons.. they don't agree that PTSD is really a diagnosis or should be a diagnosis. As I understand it, Scientologist view PSTD and postpartum depression as subjectively described aliments and diseases, that need to be treated and "cured" by a practice that is flawed and dismal. They have their own reasons to explain those things away, and their own cures.. which really are not cures, but removing what they believe to be the real culprit.

And when you said the solar system was subjective. That really ticked me off too. Combined with your comment about philosophers rolling over in their graves for me saying "logic is the foundation of science" or something like that. I knew you wouldn't be able to name philosophers, because it's my view you would find them.

The fact is philosophers like Hegel, would more in fact be rolling over in the graves about your comment. His philosophical meaning of being, the perpetual existence of the present and the human spirit (zeitgeist and weltzeist) to progress and become.. coincides with the theory of science IMO. His logic of being and existence is in disagreement with a statement such as "the solar system is subjective."

The solar system exists, it's in the state of being.. therefor it isn't subjective. You are not subjective, you exist. It sort of goes along with the famous statement "I think, therefore I am." Hegel's perception is that existence is not subjective. Being = objective. Existence = objective

So there was a long list of exchanges that honestly made me think you were in over you head with this discussion, and not able to appropriately use big words. That might sound rough, but this 100% honesty.

Now if you think I am some god hating future scientist who thinks Darwin's theory is going to be proven as truth someday, and therefore I am your enemy; you would have me wrong. I don't really care enough about his theory to study it for myself.. so I don't know the specifications. It wasn't spoon fed to me in college or anywhere else. I have no personal opinion on his theory, nor do I care to form one. His theory doesn't impact the way I think about the world or my faith.

I am done with this conversation. I am not willing to debate or throw anymore bones. I just wanted to make my final statement on why I was getting so personally angry and impatient. I was letting things slide through for believing you were honestly incapable of comprehending..
 
Last edited:
Fallibility
I found that to be very infuriating.. especially statements like this:
Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
It wasn't meant to be infuriating - (and I'm not trying to be infuriating now), but it's a true statement. You keep providing examples for why science is considered fallible, but cannot seem to label it as such. Here are definitions of fallible:

  • Capable of making mistakes or being wrong - wiktionary
  • Capable of making a mistake - merriam-webster
  • Capable of being mistaken - freedictionry
  • Liable to make a mistake - dictionary.com
  • Capable of making an error - yourdictionary.com
Something is either fallible or it is infallible. Either capable of making mistakes or incapable of making mistakes.

Is science capable of making mistakes? Yes. Science has made a lot of mistakes. It doesn't mean science is worthless or always makes mistakes. It means it can make mistakes. Science is not perfect.

Now to address your related points:
I would never say science is fallible. Why would I want to discredit a field of study that I respect? The method is designed to prevent a theory or idea in the scientific community (no matter how widely held or respected) as either being taught as true or false if it can't be proven either way, which is why things like Plate Tectonics are theories.. even though it makes sense, and it seems so logical that lay people and high schoolers easy confuse it as fact. Until it's proven as being true, it's a theory, same as the Big Bang Theory. And more than likely they are both going to remain theories, because I don't see any way of proving either of them. So on those grounds, I don't think science if fallible.
Science is fallible. To say it is fallible does not discredit the field. It merely recognizes limitations. I made no claims as to likihood or probability, only that it is capable of erring.

And yes, it has a self correcting mechanism; it's one of its strengths and something that is only necessary because science is fallible.

As to the last part... there is nothing science produces that is not "capable of being wrong" - i.e. fallible. When you say "proven" - i'm assuming you're talking about a scientific fact. Even an objective, scientific fact can be fallible and shown to be incorrect or incomplete. Alhough unlikely, it is possible for something to qualify as a fact in every possible way known to man - only to be shown incorrect or incomplete in light of new knowledge or new technology.

In sum, even the best science is fallible - even in an imagined situation of flawless execution and complete objectivity - science will always be capable of making an error. You never know when something may come and turn everything on its head.

That ends my discussion of fallibility!! Will have to address the rest of the post later, need to get some sleep!
 
Last edited:
You keep providing examples for why science is considered fallible, but cannot seem to label it as such.
Meant to say "You keep providing examples that could be used to illustrate why science is considered fallible.." but it won't let me change.
 
Soooooo....

Separation of Church and State.

Not in the constitution, specifically, but interpreted (or something like that) by a SCOTUS ruling at some point or another (late 1800's?)

Related to 1st amendment statement (in part) of "congress shall make no law..."

IMO, total separation of religion and state impossible, obviously, due to inability to regulate/control human thought. Would prefer no one ever try.

IMO, separation of CHURCH and state desired, obviously.

See difference?

I love teh internetz, such boredom it relieves while doing nothing here at work.
 
And yet you still don't understand that saying something is fallible, is subjective.. You can try debating this with me forever, and I'll never agree because I already have my own opinion. It's a very strong and justified opinion.

I won't say it's either fallible or infallible to avoid this silly debate, because it's a debate that means nothing about how science really works. Why argue about something subjective? It's not important.

The only mechanism that has folly in science is human judgement, and that is well understand in all sciences... even computer sciences. Math, equations, measurements, chemical reactions etc. etc., are not falliable. It's not fallible that 1+1 = 2, nor is it subjective. It may be preceived fallible if a human says, "2 is a number high in value," or "2 is a number low in value."

It depends on what is being valued.. and human subjectivity is also a factor. Not all humans place the same amount of value on things, very rarely do.

Even an objective, scientific fact can be fallible and shown to be incorrect or incomplete.

Incomplete is one thing... wrong is another. When has science ever had a fact wrong? Objective facts cannot be wrong.

1 + 1 = 100 is objectively wrong.. it can be proven wrong.

When has science ever had an objectionable fact wrong? When was science ever PROVEN wrong?

I already tried explaining this with Galileo.. it's always a theory until proven it's fact. The planet does revolve around the sun.. even though he was right, and almost died for saying it, it wasn't scientific fact until human technology advanced to prove he was right.

That was his theory during his life.. it was a theory because it had criticism, and there was debate. The only thing that ended the debate was advancing our technology. Now if anybody challenges the idea that the planet revolves around the sun, we can send them satellite imagines as proof of their ignorance.

Science figures things out for itself. You can't expect science to know everything before we have the technology to prove it right or wrong.. that is a unrealistic expectation to have of science. And knowledge is always incomplete.. big deal. People in the sciences have a natural instinct to ask questions.

Ask people like Stephen Hawking if he will always want to know more. He is a great scientists.. because he makes others think and question. There is always going to be more to challenge, to learn, and explain.. not having all the answers, doesn't make it a fallibility. Science is always progressing and new theories are always being written.. that is how it works
 
Last edited:
And yet you still don't understand that saying something is fallible, is subjective.. You can try debating this with me forever, and I'll never agree because I already have my own opinion. It's a very strong and justified opinion.

I won't say it's either fallible or infallible to avoid this silly debate, because it's a debate that means nothing about how science really works. Why argue about something subjective? It's not important.
I'm not going to let you off that easily :D

Yes of course there is subjectivity, but it’s easily isolated and addressed through logic. I’m making a very simple deductive argument with two premises. The premises are subjective, but the argument itself is not (if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow).
P1: To be capable of error is to be fallible
P2: Science is capable of error
C: Therefore, science is fallible.​
Given that P1 is the standard definition of fallible, the only part of the argument you can really challenge is P2. Logically and objectively, the only way you can prove that science is not fallible is to show that science is incapable of error. Science is either capable of error or it is incapable of error.

Granted there are lots of errors that occur in science – we both agree there – you nonetheless hold the belief that science itself is not fallible. So the question really is – how do you define science? It will be easy to compare that definition with accepted definitions of science to see how far out your view is from the mainstream. It will also be interesting to consider the logical implications.

For example, you have conceded that theories are prone to error “until proven it’s fact” so logically and objectively, Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Evolution, the Big Bang, Chaos Theory, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Climate Change – none of that – is science by your definition (ostensibly because they haven’t been “proven as facts”) – and few will ever likely be “science” since few are likely to become a “scientific fact.”

Once you’ve defined science in a way to show it is incapable of error, I’m confident I can show that science, no matter how it is defined, is fallible.
 
I'm not going to let you off that easily :D

Yes of course there is subjectivity, but it’s easily isolated and addressed through logic. I’m making a very simple deductive argument with two premises. The premises are subjective, but the argument itself is not (if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow).
P1: To be capable of error is to be fallible
P2: Science is capable of error
C: Therefore, science is fallible.​
Given that P1 is the standard definition of fallible, the only part of the argument you can really challenge is P2. Logically and objectively, the only way you can prove that science is not fallible is to show that science is incapable of error. Science is either capable of error or it is incapable of error.

Granted there are lots of errors that occur in science – we both agree there – you nonetheless hold the belief that science itself is not fallible. So the question really is – how do you define science? It will be easy to compare that definition with accepted definitions of science to see how far out your view is from the mainstream. It will also be interesting to consider the logical implications.

For example, you have conceded that theories are prone to error “until proven it’s fact” so logically and objectively, Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Evolution, the Big Bang, Chaos Theory, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Climate Change – none of that – is science by your definition (ostensibly because they haven’t been “proven as facts”) – and few will ever likely be “science” since few are likely to become a “scientific fact.”

Once you’ve defined science in a way to show it is incapable of error, I’m confident I can show that science, no matter how it is defined, is fallible.


I am not making the argument that science is fallible or not fallible. In some cases, we will never know the correct or incorrect areas of a theory... so you're just appealing to ignorance. Since we don't know the correct or incorrect areas of a theory, then it is a subjective disagreement and not an objective disagreement. If all you are doing is speaking about subjective or possible errors in theory, then you or nobody else can fairly judge a theory as being fallible or objectively wrong, or science as a whole as being wrong. It's just appeal to ignorance, because you are guessing something is wrong somewhere.. but you can't prove it is wrong or right, nobody can. Appealing to ignorance is a logical fallacy.

The goal of science isn't to find objective truth, so science isn't failing itself.. science isn't being illogical in the sense that it is collapsing on top of itself because it's not meeting it's own goals or objectives.

Somebody else can make an equally simple deductive argument.

P1: To be trustworthy and objectively accurate is to be infallible
P2: Science is trustworthy and objectively accurate
C: Therefore, science is infallible.

So you tell me... WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE ERROR? What error has science made before in terms of OBJECTIVE FACT? If you try to claim that there is objective error in theory, then please read about appealing to ignorance.

If you know of science being objectively fallible, in terms of getting objective fact wrong.. then show me, because I have honestly never seen an example of it..
 
Last edited:
Or this is you prefer a negative deduction

P1: To be capable of objective error is to be fallible
P2: Science is incapable of objective error
C: Therefore, science is infallible.
 
Or this is you prefer a negative deduction

P1: To be capable of objective error is to be fallible
P2: Science is incapable of objective error
C: Therefore, science is infallible.

I think one issue may be that there is sometimes a somewhat blurred line between actual science and what is claimed to be science.

Those (probably including myself) who cannot easily separate the two may connect some (subject to interpretation) provably wrong (with actual science) non-science claims with actual science, and vice-versa.

One of the reasons for this, IMO, is that science can be both politically and financially advantageous – and disadvantageous.
 
The Mark,

You probably have a good point.

The Taylor,

Just to clarify... I don't really expect you try and find where science had an objective fact wrong- as I don't think that is possible. I am trying to make a point that is probably going to get lost in my posts, and that is that you can say science is fallible and somebody else can say science is infallible, and both feel saying it is logical, reasonable, and correct. I am not trying to argue one is right or wrong.. (neither one is accurate imo - subjective opinion) but my point is that both can be argued because it's subjective. It can argued to no end.

Philosophical Dictionary: Fallibilism

Fallibilism*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 
Last edited:
And yet you still don't understand that saying something is fallible, is subjective.. You can try debating this with me forever, and I'll never agree because I already have my own opinion. It's a very strong and justified opinion.

I won't say it's either fallible or infallible to avoid this silly debate, because it's a debate that means nothing about how science really works. Why argue about something subjective? It's not important.

The only mechanism that has folly in science is human judgement, and that is well understand in all sciences... even computer sciences. Math, equations, measurements, chemical reactions etc. etc., are not falliable. It's not fallible that 1+1 = 2, nor is it subjective. It may be preceived fallible if a human says, "2 is a number high in value," or "2 is a number low in value."

It depends on what is being valued.. and human subjectivity is also a factor. Not all humans place the same amount of value on things, very rarely do.

Even an objective, scientific fact can be fallible and shown to be incorrect or incomplete.

Incomplete is one thing... wrong is another. When has science ever had a fact wrong? Objective facts cannot be wrong.

1 + 1 = 100 is objectively wrong.. it can be proven wrong.

When has science ever had an objectionable fact wrong? When was science ever PROVEN wrong?

I already tried explaining this with Galileo.. it's always a theory until proven it's fact. The planet does revolve around the sun.. even though he was right, and almost died for saying it, it wasn't scientific fact until human technology advanced to prove he was right.

That was his theory during his life.. it was a theory because it had criticism, and there was debate. The only thing that ended the debate was advancing our technology. Now if anybody challenges the idea that the planet revolves around the sun, we can send them satellite imagines as proof of their ignorance.

Science figures things out for itself. You can't expect science to know everything before we have the technology to prove it right or wrong.. that is a unrealistic expectation to have of science. And knowledge is always incomplete.. big deal. People in the sciences have a natural instinct to ask questions.

Ask people like Stephen Hawking if he will always want to know more. He is a great scientists.. because he makes others think and question. There is always going to be more to challenge, to learn, and explain.. not having all the answers, doesn't make it a fallibility. Science is always progressing and new theories are always being written.. that is how it works

So As I read this, you would also have to agree that religion is infallible. Correct?
 
Somebody else can make an equally simple deductive argument.
Yes, but neither of your logical arguments are sound and can be easily dismissed.

P1: To be trustworthy and objectively accurate is to be infallible
P2: Science is trustworthy and objectively accurate
C: Therefore, science is infallible.
Logic is valid but unsound because your first premise is false. To be infallible means to be incapable of error. A stopped clock is "trustworthy and objectively accurate" twice a day, but is hardly infallible.

Or this is you prefer a negative deduction

P1: To be capable of objective error is to be fallible
P2: Science is incapable of objective error
C: Therefore, science is infallible.
Again, logic is valid but unsound because your first premise is false - to be fallible requires only that you are capable of error, whether it is objective or not is irrelevant, it's fallible either way.
 
I am not making the argument that science is fallible or not fallible. In some cases, we will never know the correct or incorrect areas of a theory... so you're just appealing to ignorance. Since we don't know the correct or incorrect areas of a theory, then it is a subjective disagreement and not an objective disagreement. If all you are doing is speaking about subjective or possible errors in theory, then you or nobody else can fairly judge a theory as being fallible or objectively wrong, or science as a whole as being wrong. It's just appeal to ignorance, because you are guessing something is wrong somewhere.. but you can't prove it is wrong or right, nobody can. Appealing to ignorance is a logical fallacy.
No, that's precisely where you're wrong. By definition there need only be the possibility of errors for something to be fallible. To be fallible means to be capable of error. There is no need to "guess that something is wrong" -there is only the need to recognize the possibility of being wrong.

So you tell me... WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE ERROR? What error has science made before in terms of OBJECTIVE FACT? If you try to claim that there is objective error in theory, then please read about appealing to ignorance.
Following from above, this is again not relevant to the issue of fallibility as one need only prove that error is a possibility to show something is capable of being wrong. But there are of course examples, here's a couple from a book I was reading: "Consevation of Mass" was an accepted, scientific fact that was refuted by Einstein. The "inert gases" had to be renamed to the "noble gases" after it was discovered they could form compounds - until then they were considerd practically devoid of chemical properties.
 
Last edited:
Science and Truth?
Science, as a human activity, is done precisely because we don't know the truth, or even if such a thing exists for that mater. This ever expanding frontier of ignorance is a wonderful place for any curious mind.
The Theory of Evolution is, like other theories, so far a working explanation for observed phenomena. If it is to be replaced, it will be done by people know the difference between the scientific method and "truths" handed down from some Bronze Age herdsmen. Science class is no place for "Some spook must have done it!"
A mind is a terrible thing to cripple.
Bumpy
 
Back
Top Bottom