Wrong. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. When contridicted by new information, scientific facts and laws are disproven and (hopefully) replaced by a new fact or law.
:lamo
I said our understanding of the world is constantly changing... The world went from flat to round, spinning on an axis and revolving around the sun. You are using "fact" in general terms, not scientific terms.
For example Galilei suggested the earth was moving, not the sun and the stars... it was controversial. Even though it was true, it wasn't proven indefinitely true until we sent satellites up in space and saw he was right. For that reason, in Galilei's lifetime his suggestion was a theory and not a fact. Other scientists disagreed with him.. There were arguments against his claim coming from every direction.
Science encourages individual thinking and gives individual thinking and theory creditability via the scientific method and a common understanding and agreement of scientific terms. Science doesn't hamper individual thinking, it gives it a voice and respect.
No, the comparison is poor one. "Tests and theories" are a part of science -your claim is akin to me saying "cars don't break down, engines and transmissions do"
That is just stupid. If you want to say science is fallible then go head and argue why.. don't declare it so. Back it up with sources.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
What is Science?
WHAT IS LOGIC
Briefly speaking, we might define logic as the study of the principles of correct reasoning.
One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we want to reason correctly.
There are many principles of logic, but the main (not the only) thing that we study in logic are principles governing the validity of arguments.
A second feature of the principles of logic is that they are non-contingent, in the sense that they do not depend on any particular accidental features of the world. Physics and the other empirical sciences investigate the way the world actually is. Physicists might tell us that no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, but if the laws of physics have been different, then perhaps this would not have been true.
[L01] What is logic?
Science is a form of logic... Science follows the principles of logic, and the scientific method sets up the rules for correct reasoning in the science community. Logic is the foundation of science.
Science doesn't claim to be true or to find the truth as a whole, hence somethings are laws and theory. That is exactly why there is a uniform agreement in science as what constitutes as theory, law, hypothesis, and fact. There are subjective judgement from each scientist, but not a fallible subjective voice coming from the community. Theory is theory, law is law, fact is fact.. Disagree with what the scientific method is and says, then apply you're reasoning to the method and challenge the community again and again.
What is Science?
Science that is flawlessly conducted is still fallible, the same is not true of logic. Science depends on observation. Logic is all in the head.
That is just silly.. Nobody will ever say science is flawlessly conducted, that is where much of the disagreement in science comes from.. the testing. No offense but how long has it been since you read a science book? After every section on a purposed theory, texts usually state the controversy in testing and the areas of disagreement very well.
Even in tests and studies were well thought out, somebody else in the community will always criticize the test.. especially if people know they are being tested. The Milligram experiments tried to remove the influence of knowledge from some of their subjects, but those tests and experiments are still very controversial and disputed.
Spoken like someone who has never actually conducted science. Interpretations are constantly tainted by theoretical dispositions, personal characterisitics, etc. The same data can and will lead "objective" scientists to different conclusions.
LOL.. are you claiming that you have ever conducted a scientific experiential on anything that wasn't guided or prepared by an instructor. DOUBT IT! So don't even try to play like you have leg up on me here.
I have never conducted a respected scientific experiential on my own.. but I have studied scientific experiments and sciences, and it's a hobby for me.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objectivity." A failure to be objective does not mean that you're lying.
There are lots of examples where the consensus view in science was wrong, where a particular theoretical disposition blinded the masses to contradictory evidence. Wegener correctly theorized in 1912 that the continents drifted to their present positions from a single landmass. His ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, which clinged for another 50 years to a very flawed theory that land had once connected the continents and had simply sunk under the ocean.
:lamo
Just because there is a consensus view in science doesn't mean the community was saying that was a fact... Sometimes theories are more popular than others. Plate Tectonics is a popular theory, it doesn't mean it's true or scientists are pushing it as truth. Just because Wegener's theory was rejected, it doesn't mean the scientific community was wrong.. It just means his theory wasn't sound proof, and his theory wasn't accepted util Plate Tectonic Theory became an accepted theory that further explained Wegener's continental drift.
The scientific community is more inclined to challenge new ideas than accepted them.. In science everything begins as an idea or a hypothesis. The more scrutiny it goes under, the stronger it gets or the more it falls apart. If can't be proven or disproven it gets stuck in scientific limbo as a theory for a while or until it's improved or disproved..
Yes, science won't accept facts like the Earth is revolving on an axis immediately.. but it will NEVER accept something wrong like the earth is flat and guarded by dragons either.. which is why you'll never find an example of the community shoving a lie down your throat.
