The fundamental flaw of Science

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the ethos, "If it cannot be proven, it must be disregarded", seems to flow with great force through the veins of scientific theory. Are you not disturbed that scientific theories are generated within the confines of this notion? If so, are you not disturbed that so much reliance is placed on the accuracy and integrity of such fundamentally flawed scientific theories? I know I am!

There are fundamentally legitimate reasons to demand data/recearch, repeatability in controlled lab conditions to establish scientific proof. Grants are limited. And every psyche wad out there could just declare the earth is flat again.
Science is hard work, cosuming much time and energy in data gathering and getting published. Or we would have a whole bunch of garage scientists with shoe boxes, a pipe, and dribble.

reply to post by speaker

---

Science does not completely disregard unproven factual propositions, it just holds a higher regard for factual propositions that have been rigorously tested under controlled conditions.

Let us look at theoretical physics for example. Highly regarded theoretical physicists have hypothesized that things like worm holes and strings exist. These things have not been expermientally proven, yet this has not deterred the physics community from investigating these ideas and taking them seriously. (I am not a physicist, so pardon me if I am incorrect about worm holes or strings not being experimentally proven. If I am incorrect, perhaps you can give us a better example.)

Good point pink, mathematics is one field that can attempt to "prove" hypothesis without hands on lab analysis.

Well actually, the fundamental flaw of science is that it is truth based upon repeated observable experimentation. Philosophy is a much better way of determining truth in that it can determine truths in both the physical and metaphysical realms. Theoretical physics is more philosophy than science, though science in itself is a philosophy. Science is only capable of determining truth about a part of the world that we live in: the physical part. I mean it's true that Science is a pretty good method, but it is not the end-all of determining truth. That's the problem with society today, as the general population seem to divide ways of determining truth into Science and Theology, not realizing that both are part of the same: Philosophy. You can reason with both the physical (facts and such) and the metaphysical (concepts outside of the observable), but science is only confined to the former, and theology to the latter.

--edit--
Mathematics is a form of logic (philosophy); it is not science. It is a logical process that involves the manipulation of values, and the ancients valued it as the most exact of the "sciences" (note: by "science" I do not mean the modern concept of science AKA baconian philosophy, but rather a craft that can determine truth), and believed Mathematics to be the logic of Existence. However, it is not science in the modern sense of the word in that it is not truth based upon repeated experimentation but rather truth based upon logical processes.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by italkyoulisten]

well, if you remove that constraint, or worse, take its opposite, that if you can't disprove it then it must be true, then you start with every other crackpot out there showing horridly flawed logic that god scientifically exists, then attempt to push rubbish like creationism and intelligent design.

I would much rather support the scientific method, then the alternative.

There are plenty out there who still attribute themselves to quackery and charlatanism. You are not alone.....lol.

You should be thanking your diety for providing us with it.

I don't think that statement is really accurate. The scientific method is: if it is proven, it is regarded as fact. That is quite different than what you are saying.

If you can't prove something, you have to keep trying. Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it cannot be fact.

#

I like the post by "Italkyoulisten" -- it says it all (but I am compelled to add my own comment here, since I think Epistemology is the root subject of everything, as dry and boring as that may sound.)

"(but I am compelled to add my own comment here, since I think Epistemology is the root subject of everything, as dry and boring as that may sound.)"

Post it!

Sounds like I'm saying the same thing as you, Buck Division. If it cannot be proven, it will not be used to construct a more complicated theory. Similar to drawing your conclusion after piecing together a jigsaw puzzle with only half of the pieces. The other half may exist but we can't use them if we don't have them.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by speaker]