flaws in scientific thinking and traps in today's capatalistic society

anyone ever wonder if the model used to create scientific facts, is completely flawed

i mean u get an idea (theory) and because this idea can not be proved wrong ,it becomes a a fact.

i mean at what time to you declare it can't be proven wrong a year, two years, who determines this, and after it is declared a a scientific fact and can't be disproven later (after it is given fact status even if we learned we misunderstood some things which we used as a basis to determine it was a fact), i mean i think the whole notion that an idea can be turned into a fact is completey flawed.

it seems scientific facts are just thoeries that have yet to be disproven

and after it is considered a fact it can't be disproven again even if there is evidence against it because it couldn't be accurately proven in the first place (that is the best part)

it seems there alot of constructed debates in which only two sides are given and neither has the chance to be able to reach a truthful productive end because the flaw is in the set up that there are only two possible reasons, or theories, or sides which always limits the abilitey to see the big picture. hmm

republicans vs. democrats, creationalism vs. evolution innocent vs. guilt i mean life is not black and white people there are areas of grey and with the exception of the innocnet vs. guilty examples i think people overlook there are many more possibities than the two given, i mean is this done for simplicity?

the bigger picture

it seems to me we are greatly limited by our own language and that the signifigance and importance we given certain words in language is much more limiting than perceived. on the one hand language is needed for communiation on the other we place such a high level of importance and meaning to certain words that our ideas beleifs and even our mental states can be manipulated too easily thru careful use of psychology and marketing coupled with the fact that words and phrases can CREATED INVENTED to carry out this, and in a capatalistic world the occurences of this are everywhere and people accept them, espcially when they are tied to emotions of fear, because of the knowledge that unless we are skilled in better ways of thiking (i.e NLP) than it can be difficult to get out from our bioligically inherited fight or flight system to protect us from perceived attacks when back in the day it would be worth it for us to jump 19 times for no reason when on the 20'th time a Wolly mammoth may be trying to come after us. Thus cylcles of worry are born and people need to learn the mental techniques to give the mind the option of REPRESNTING something in a better way to give your mind the option of acting in a more appropriate desired way ,and breaking the cycle, and by realizing this u are actually able to protect yourself even BETTER from dangers in reality today.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

I'm not sure you fully understand Scientific Laws, Hypotheses and Theories.

u get an idea and because this idea can not be proved wrong ,it becomes a a fact.

That's incorrect, at least as far as scientific language goes. An idea is simply a hypothesis. It's not a fact. Science has it's own language and very specific meanings for the words "theory" and "fact".

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

when I SAID idea i thought u would understand i meant theory yet a theory is basically an educated guess a well thought out idea i will edit my post thanks

but i guess you understood the point i am just hoping for a longer response with some critical thinking

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true

what if the knowlege we have now is more accurate and differs from that at the time the scientific law went into being. wouldn't that mean that the " it doesn't really need real proof its just always been observed to be true" line is almost silly

and the last few words could be better rephrased to say " perceived that way"

because observations are based on perceptons and perceptions change especially with advances in knowledge and also depending on the values of a society and to say somethng came into scientific law because it was always observed to be true or " perceived that way" at a time when the observations were limited by our own limited knowlege at the time seems almost absurd

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by cpdaman]