Is science a reliable source for truth?

I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on.

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.

Depends what you mean by 'science'.
The scientific method is as reliable as we can really hope for. Some margin for error, put pretty reliable.

Scientists are human beings and are subject to the same bias as any other human being.
Scientific instutions I would say are unreliable - the people at the top of those can be easily bought to spin narratives and cherry pick whatever they want.

Science is Science.

The scientific method is an empirical method of knowledge acquisition which has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation,which includes rigorous skepticismabout what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how one interprets a percept. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses;and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

en.wikipedia.org...

And it's never settled.

Or modern civilization wouldn't be where it is right now.

Leave the science to the pros.

Leave the politics to hacks.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Depends what you mean by 'science'.
The scientific method is as reliable as we can really hope for. Some margin for error, put pretty reliable.

Scientists are human beings and are subject to the same bias as any other human being.
Scientific instutions I would say are unreliable - the people at the top of those can be easily bought to spin narratives and cherry pick whatever they want.

Or, Ironically, add a "belief" component to science.

It's not science if you believe a certain thing and change the experiment/study to achieve your desired outcome.

a reply to: bogdan9310

Some science is settled. Some is not. Some is used as a political weapon.

Make no mistake, however, science is responsible for virtually every modern comfort humans enjoy today.

Is science perfect? Are individual scientists always right? Obviously no. Who is claiming otherwise?

Best not to get your panties in a bunch over fringe elements that exist in any large circle of ppl.

a reply to: bogdan9310

Yes, it is.

a reply to: bogdan9310

It depends.

Science is a big word.

originally posted by: bogdan9310
I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

Let's say there's a room with 20 people and I see a pink elephant.
The other 19 don't see it.

Should my personal experience trump the observations?

What about beleiving in a invisible old man that made the universe?

a reply to: Specimen

Well, if you are talking about religion, I don't think many believe God is an invisible old man.
What we do know is that science is unable to explain where the universe came from .. in many respects science is like a very young child coming to grips with the world around them.

Faith isn't really about a reliable source - it's a belief system to explain things that we simply do not understand.
Your comparison was way off, really.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: UKTruth
Depends what you mean by 'science'.
The scientific method is as reliable as we can really hope for. Some margin for error, put pretty reliable.

Scientists are human beings and are subject to the same bias as any other human being.
Scientific instutions I would say are unreliable - the people at the top of those can be easily bought to spin narratives and cherry pick whatever they want.

Or, Ironically, add a "belief" component to science.

It's not science if you believe a certain thing and change the experiment/study to achieve your desired outcome.

Indeed - and that seems to happen a lot.

According to 'Science', the Earth is ~4 Billion years old


According to the 'Christian' Religion the Earth is ~ 6 Thousand years old.



One or the Other may be True
Both cannot be correct

Both Can be Wrong however


So, we can conclude an answer -> Is science a reliable source for truth?.... reliable source is 33%

same with religion as a reliable source both Fail as a source of Truth...but because faith & track records create a bias on the part of the outsider we must determine that the question is a Wash...Push or undeterminable

originally posted by: Specimen
What about beleiving in a invisible old man that made the universe?

There's science understanding what is.

There's politics lying about what is.

There's religion understanding ones self.

What do those three all in in common? Belief.

a reply to: bogdan9310

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it.

So we don't observe reality that makes us question

we just make it up ?

Is science a reliable source for truth?

No

truth is relative


Science is a reliable source to explain what we observe and perceive- edit to add: that is measurable

originally posted by: bogdan9310
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.

Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on.

My point is that we mostly make up knowledge, then build it up, rather than discovering it. I think that the scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations and less on personal experience.

And the problem I want to point out, is that a lot of people treat it like religion. They bring up science in conversations to back up their arguments like the science is settled and can never be proven wrong.

Source: snip

G'morning......not quite awake yet, so....a few positives on science, and the 1st things coming to mind

1. Fingerprinting to convict a criminal.
2. Facial recognition to do the same
3. DNA testing in crimes.

As singular sciences...the science of these 3 ex. above ...though they can be wrong....are pretty exact, and one needs to go no farther than the original scientific principles of discovery and conclusion with each.

I've always heard science... is a science in itself!

ETA: Science can always be questioned, tested, studied, analyzed...but (think about this for a moment)...we use science...to determine science, by using a "scientific" protocol....it's endless.

a reply to: Mach2

The problem is not with science itself, it's with how people treat it.

a reply to: hombero

All of it?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The logic for most people, would be that the 19 people who don't see it are right.

a reply to: Specimen

Most people consider that normal, even though is nonsense.

a reply to: St Udio

According to 'Science', the Earth is ~4 Billion years old According to the 'Christian' Religion the Earth is ~ 6 Thousand years old.

Religion and its texts and writing is interpretative so this 6000 year old nonsense is not according to the Christian religion but only certain Christians hold this belief.