In what way your place to discuss it, relate your knowledge of it and then like I did, come to the conclusion humanity is flawed what the hell did you expect.
Needless to say let’s bitch about the human race, we deserve it we are after all hobbled by our own hubris.
Everything is flawed is that philosophy or is that just petty back biting?
One rule I must impose is if James is going to post he steer clear of his pet hypothetical nonsense, just address the topic James, the universe is not revolving around you.
The reason, at least often, that people say things that are similar to ‘science is flawed’ is because for some it is immaculate, even in practice. So this creates a reaction.
Also a lot of science groupies tend not to be able to distinguish between results of research and models and theories. They also tend not to realize that science has a history in which models surpass each other - and not because new results cancel out previous ones. And this issue of ‘in practice’. You will find people saying moronic things like ‘if some kind of alternative medicine worked, it would be mainstream medicine’. You know, people thinking that the perfection of scientific epistemology MUST translate perfectly into day to day lives and is not affected by industry, government, bias, Culture and so on. So occasionally people will make ‘science if flawed’ type remarks, Though I noticed that in response to one of my posts - perhaps it was even you - a critique of science in practice or perhaps even science groupie Culture misconceptions was taken as saying science is flawed, which was not the Point. I’ve noticed on some philosophical forums if you are critical of some aspect of science culture or practice, you are immediately referred to as a theist, generally specifically as a Christian. Or if you question a model, also. So there can be a kind of holy science must not be touched by the lowest caste type Cultures on the internet, even in philosophy forums where you would Think the mere fact of having an epistemological discussion would not be treated like heresy would be a in a modern Church.
and then there is the whole…we can speculate from current scientific theory about things that as yet have no empirical support science groupie crowd, who react to critique or, dare I say it, disobediance, as if it meant the other person should live in a Cave and only use stone age Tools if they Think that way.
What does it mean to be “flawed”? If the state of being flawed is an absence of perfection, Uccisore is entirely correct. But so what? The only way that concept has any meaning is if we posit a flawless being. That’s cool, but then shouldn’t this thread be moved to religion/spirituality?
Does this Count for Everything we do?
Like logic is flaws humans do it.
Hammers are flawed, humans use them.
I don’t disagree with what you said, at least with some definitions of science, but I Think it can also make sense to say science is not flawed. Which is not saying that scientists are right about Everything, etc.
There is a difference between saying “Science is flawed” and saying “Science is corrupt”. The fact that people “do it” means that it will of course be corrupt. The statement concerning its flaw indicates that there is something wrong with the essential design. And there is.
The intention of Science was to investigate the truth in an open altruistic manner so as to gain legitimate confidence. And to a large degree, that is exactly what it did. But its specified method never protected it against foreboding complexity such that only a very few people got to ever really see the experiments involved and the others had to just take their word for it, the exact opposite of Science’s intent. The Royal Society’s motto is “Take no one’s word”, “Nullius in Verba”.
That “flaw” could have been corrected, but now that it is the new age religion, “Secular Scientism”, Science is used for egocentric public persuasion and thus the flaw cannot be corrected because that would indicate that there was a flaw to be corrected, as well as expose the numerous errors in Science theories that are still being taught.
Science will come to an end in 21., 22. or 23. century. Then it will no longer exist or have got a different character, for example a complete religious system, which will have had its reason / cause in corruption and / or something similar.
To me, the word science means something like divine revelation, the word scientist means something like divine revelator, and natural law isn’t all that different from divine law. Don’t question x because the elect, the elite wrote it, and they’re beyond scrutiny. It’s just a word arrogant people toss around to intimidate others and discourage dissention, it has little meaning beyond that.
