NationStates Jolt Archive

If science was always right, there would be no need for it. For science to exist and continue to exist and progress to the next level of existence, it must constantly be wrong for 'better' but not necessarily right answers to come along.

sort of. what you are saying seems to be a garbled version of Popper's idea on falsification. it's not that science must be wrong, the idea is that it must be possible to prove scientific theories wrong for them to be useful and for scientific thought to progress.

You are aware of the scientific method, right?

A real scientist is not someone who puts on a lab coat, does a little research and then "Eureka!" he's made a scientific fact.

A real scientist is someone who follows the scientific method, where he bends over backwards to prove himself wrong. Then when he's found absolutely no flaw in his theory, he allows peers to review it. If they find nothing wrong with it, then it becomes published and is accepted as a scientific fact - until someone else comes later who proves it wrong.

I generally don't think it's a good idea to go around saying "Oh, it's a scientific fact." Unless it was peer-reviewed, and I do extensive research myself, I'm not going to take it as a fact.

A good example is that people thought Earth revolved around the sun. It was widely accepted as a fact, until it was later proven wrong.

science is an ever growing web of knowledge thats why its needed because its always growing...duh....

Science never reaches truth it approximates it. Just as you can always approximate π and never reach the last digit, you can always approximate a certain scientific subject (like 'light' or 'the eye of an octopus' or 'hashing') and never rach the complete and utter truth but only come nearer and nearer.

sort of. what you are saying seems to be a garbled version of Popper's idea on falsification. it's not that science must be wrong, the idea is that it must be possible to prove scientific theories wrong for them to be useful and for scientific thought to progress.
I do agree with that interpretation.

A good example is that people thought Earth revolved around the sun. It was widely accepted as a fact, until it was later proven wrong.
Uhm... I thought the sun used to revolve around the earth until it was disproven...

You are aware of the scientific method, right?

A real scientist is not someone who puts on a lab coat, does a little research and then "Eureka!" he's made a scientific fact.

A real scientist is someone who follows the scientific method, where he bends over backwards to prove himself wrong. Then when he's found absolutely no flaw in his theory, he allows peers to review it. If they find nothing wrong with it, then it becomes published and is accepted as a scientific fact - until someone else comes later who proves it wrong.

I generally don't think it's a good idea to go around saying "Oh, it's a scientific fact." Unless it was peer-reviewed, and I do extensive research myself, I'm not going to take it as a fact.

A good example is that people thought Earth revolved around the sun. It was widely accepted as a fact, until it was later proven wrong.

One of my favorite Isaac Asimov quotes:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

One of my favorite Isaac Asimov quotes:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

You pwn this thread! :fluffle:

You pwn this thread! :fluffle:

TYVM. But the credit mostly goes to Isaac Asimov, may he rest in peace.

TYVM. But the credit mostly goes to Isaac Asimov, may he rest in peace.

I know that, but it's a good quote to pull up in any case.

If science was always right, there would be no need for it. For science to exist and continue to exist and progress to the next level of existence, it must constantly be wrong for 'better' but not necessarily right answers to come along.

Uh. Yeah. "Once we no longer need science, there will be no need for science." Strikes me as obvious.

If science was always right, there would be no need for it. For science to exist and continue to exist and progress to the next level of existence, it must constantly be wrong for 'better' but not necessarily right answers to come along.

Inebriated indeed...

Science is a method, not the results of the method. What science does is give us increasingly precise models of the universe (in the form of models of parts of the universe, which sometimes don't quite match up). These models are never perfect, but they are useful. The more precise, the more useful.

For example, Newton's physics is less precise than Einsteins, but Newton's physics is still useful for simple every day stuff.

Science never reaches truth it approximates it. Just as you can always approximate π and never reach the last digit, you can always approximate a certain scientific subject (like 'light' or 'the eye of an octopus' or 'hashing') and never rach the complete and utter truth but only come nearer and nearer.


That's the best explanation I've heard in a while... I will steal that for next time I'm in a debate. Thanks :D

Science never reaches truth it approximates it. Just as you can always approximate π and never reach the last digit, you can always approximate a certain scientific subject (like 'light' or 'the eye of an octopus' or 'hashing') and never rach the complete and utter truth but only come nearer and nearer.

Yeah, that's the essence of it. I had the details, but you gave the basic essence. Together they could form the uber-argument... or something...

Actually, judging by the articles in science magazines, scientists develop hypotheses based on evidence, look for obvious holes, look for more evidence, develop a theory, then publish them, and expect others to find the problems. It probably involves less work, and it gets similar results.

If science was always right, there would be no need for it. For science to exist and continue to exist and progress to the next level of existence, it must constantly be wrong for 'better' but not necessarily right answers to come along.

Will science cease to exist once it has everything right?

When politicians (and even some educators) say "we must improve the teaching of science in our schools to create a high-tech workforce" they aren't talking about science in the sense a researcher means. They're talking about a grasp of the accepted 'facts,' an understanding of terms and concepts which underpin skilled work.

So when making a sweeping statement like "if science was entirely correct, there would be no need for it" it's important to make clear that you mean science in the researcher's sense. Even if all research were to cease, and all the knowledge we have from science to be no longer critically examined, that knowledge would still have many applications.

In fact, actual discovery could cease, and we'd continue to find applications of existing theory for decades. To not learn 'accepted' scientific fact would be to give up on those applications as well as the further refinement of theory.

Will science cease to exist once it has everything right?

But because we evolve with time, science will never beat itself out of existence until we transcend to the next level of conscious existence, in which we become less human and more like pure energy.

And to Nobel Hobos, yes I am talking about it in the researcher's sense and not the academic sense. I figured it was implied given the nature of the query but oh well. I tried to keep my OP shorter since I had recently received complaints when my OP was more than 1 paragraph and 2 lines...

Uhm... I thought the sun used to revolve around the earth until it was disproven...

IIRC, they both revolve around a common centre of gravity, which happens to be located within the space that the sun occupies.

Yes, if you believe that the absolute truth about an issue has already been discovered then you obviously won't progress any further on that issue.

There is no absolute truth. There are opinions such as 1+1=2 which you can agree or disagree with, for example a computer would disagree and say that 1+1=10 in binary. And there are claims which have not yet been proven wrong such as that it's impossible to travel faster then the speed of light but who knows maybe one day we'll find a way.

Yes, if you believe that the absolute truth about an issue has already been discovered then you obviously won't progress any further on that issue.

There is no absolute truth. There are opinions such as 1+1=2 which you can agree or disagree with, for example a computer would disagree and say that 1+1=10 in binary. And there are claims which have not yet been proven wrong such as that it's impossible to travel faster then the speed of light but who knows maybe one day we'll find a way.

01 = 1
10 = 2

So the computer is saying the same thing, just using a different language.

It would be like saying "merci" instead of "thanks". On the surface they look different, but when translated one way or the other, it's the same thing.

There are opinions such as 1+1=2 which you can agree or disagree with, for example a computer would disagree and say that 1+1=10 in binary.

'1+1=2' is not an opinion - it is an axiomatic truth.