Is Science ALWAYS Right ... ?

Question

Is Science ALWAYS Right ... ?

Answer 1

Science is the forever-going process of learning. There’ll always be some sort of margin for errors. “Scientific facts” are discoveries that have an infinitesimally tiny probability of being wrong as it has been demonstrated hundreds of times and gives the same results, thus it can be considered to be true. For example, gravity exists. Several humans have observed its existence millions of times and it’s been studied for several decades. Therefore, It is scientifically proven that gravity exists. 

Answer 2

Science is a process of discovery. That process can lead to inaccurate results. Or we may draw incorrect conclusions. Though science if done appropriately should provide a correct and accurate measurement of the natural world.

Answer 3

I would say the "process" is always right or at the minimum, the best we have for understanding how and why things work. The "process" tells on itself if it is not correct. There won't be much argument over tried and true science, it's the leading edge of science that is always open to debate and reasoning, to put the clues together to solve the mystery. Science is like playing detective, where you are attempting to put a jigsaw puzzle together piece by piece, where you might notice the pieces you have put together are looking like the Eiffel Tower and while that conclusion would be warranted by the evidence so far, your assumption could be the one in Paris, but as you put more pieces together, you learn that the surroundings are a better fit for Las Vegas Nevada. Science can and does change with the aid of additional evidence.

Answer 4

Science is not subjective, there will always be a correct answer. 

Answer 5

     Science does not deal in perfection.  It deals in probabilities and the weight of empirical (as distinguished from anecdotal) evidence.  BTW, I am a Ph.D. scientist.



     @Godhatesyou:  Using your logic, we could describe Daniel as a circus performer because he worked with lions.

Answer 6

It is generally right before it publishes anything, because a scientific journal will not accept a scientific work that has not been thoroughly investigated and confirmed by many scientists.

Answer 7

Science may be but the scientists are so obviously not.

Answer 8

Science provides the best models of how the universe works based on the available evidence. As more information is acquired those models are adjusted to incorporate that new knowledge. 



Scientific models may need to be occasionally tweeked or even tossed out when contradicted by new evidence, but that is its advantage over religion. When you have a faith based belief it ignores the evidence that proves religious dogma wrong, like creationism is demonstrably wrong, yet people of faith cannot accept evidence without admitting their beliefs are wrong. 

Answer 9

 In the end yes..... unlike religion

Answer 10

Uh....I have problems with how you formulated the question.  I'll explain.



Science is not a person.  It's a process.  The Scientific Method is the best systematic process for discovering the truth that mankind has ever invented.  The PROCESS is right.  There may be further improvements to it in the future, but it's at least pretty darn good.



We tend to use the term 'science' informally to refer to the body of knowledge that science has produced.  But that's us being imprecise.  That body of knowledge is NOT always right, but the reason is usually because of the fact that imperfect humans using imperfect techniques to implement the scientific method make a mistake.



But that's not really a problem.  The thing that makes the Scientific Method unlike all other systems for acquiring knowledge is that it SEEKS out it's own mistakes.  The idea is that you make an observation, you come up with an idea that explains that observation, then you conceive of a TEST to attempt to prove that observation wrong.  If you (and your peers) fail to prove it wrong and the hypothesis makes predictions that can be observed and tested, then the idea has merit.



But because we're human, scientists make mistakes all the time.  ESPECIALLY in social sciences...which really are more "Science" than Science if you know what I mean.  But even in physics and other hard sciences, mistakes are made.  But the genius of science is that continued effort to falsify what we know means that eventually, those mistakes are usually caught and corrected over time.



So Science (the body of knowledge) is NOT always right.  However it's MORE LIKELY to be right than any other body of knowledge AND is self-correcting when done properly.

Answer 11

Absolutely not, Science is a discipline of thought based on human perception and measure, Faith is the other side of that rainbow, According to Ephesians, Faith is a gift from God that is not of our own doing, its just there as a gift and it is our salvation.... so, faith doesn't mean your all knowing, it simply puts you in a position of neutrality in your own perception, it simply only requires an open mind with no opinions.... many inventors ideas come by meditation, silencing the mind, this leads to theories and experiments and science usually gets the credit before God does.

Answer 12

Weird question. Science is a method (of the study and analysis of natural phenomenon). This method includes, among other things, standardization of expressions, statement of hypothesis, and a blanket request for SUPPORTED contradiction. In short science says, "This is what I think about this event, based upon the data I got from this experiment. Now please tell me how I'm wrong." The contrary only arguments that are ignored are: "Because I said so." or "Because I don't like it." 

Answer 13

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”  Steven Novella

Answer 14

The most important thing about you is invisible to the human eye.

"Science" has no access to it. 





Don't go to the scientists for adivce: go to the Maker of the scientists for advice.



If your brain is just the result of billions of cosmic ‘accidents’ - some bug that crawled up on a beach one day - then how can you trust it for rational thought? 



How could a mindless process make a mind?



How could nature ‘think ahead’ to create perfectly opposite and complimentary sex organs in plants and animals?



If the combined intelligence and technology of the human race can’t produce just one living cell (let alone a self-replicating blade of grass) from scratch, how could a non-intelligent process produce the intricacies and diversity of the interdependant infrastructure of nature?



And how could inanimate material matter self-replicate?



And what caused the natural and moral constants? 



And what is the basis for moral beliefs if there is no ultimate truth? If there is no ultimate truth, all you have left are opinions; and mine would be just as valid as yours.



“I knew you and loved you before I formed you in the womb.” Says the Lord.



These words are from The Life Force that created the galaxies, the heavens, the earth, the seas and all things in them; He made you and wants an intimate relationship with you. He gave you an unspeakable sacrifice: the lifeblood of His Son, as a way to do just that. 



Don’t be a lazy historian. Your very life is at stake.



Go to Jesus and see what it is he wants to teach you. If he is the Lord (as he claims to be) he will reveal that fact to you. He doesn't need me to do it, nor could I.

Answer 15

Apparently only when we need it like for a PANDEMIC, But in the case of Protests, Not Relay

Answer 16

Science is always ongoing. Facts are always right.

Answer 17

Yes, because it leads to faith in God.

Answer 18

No.  Science has been wrong so many times that we could probably write books about how wrong science has been.

Answer 19

There is no doubt that the scientific method is useful in gaining a great deal of knowledge. But, besides the fact that science is practiced by fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, science is indeed limited itself as to what it can observe and test. As it’s been said, “You can’t measure love with a Geiger counter.” Science cannot test all that falls within the realm of truth. For example, science can’t answer questions about subjective values—things like morals, emotions, aesthetics, and love cannot be measured, even though they are very important for human life.   



Also, the scientific method is limited to the present. Unique historical events cannot be observed and tested. We can look for evidence and try to test similar conditions, but not the actual events (you would have to have a time machine for that).



And there are certain things science cannot prove simply because it relies on them as presuppositions. As it has been said, “Try to prove logic to be true without using logic.” The same could be said about math.



The scientific method is limited to that which is measurable and repeatable. And so, the inability of science to examine certain things like a supernatural cause is a limitation on science and not an excuse to reject the supernatural (even though many people on here seem to think so).



==========



You Can Trust Science! (to Reverse Itself)

https://crev.info/2020/01/science-reversals/

Answer 20

"Right" is really a very misleading term.  As far as anyone knows, there is no "right" in science, there's just better and better understanding as ongoing work improves on, refines and if necessary, corrects what we think we know.



Science is nothing more than a tool, developed to help us understand the natural world.  It was invented by humans and is used by humans.  It is not an independent "thing" that exists outside of the humans who use it.  As such, it is subject to the limitations of those humans.  Humans--even scientists--can be flawed, they can make mistakes, they can deliberately lie, and so scientific understanding can sometimes head down a dead-end path.  But as long as there are more honest, bright, hard-working investigators than there are unscrupulous or dumb ones, we can turn away from the dead ends and progress down an open road.



The brilliant, built-in feature of science as an approach to understanding is that the PROCESS can transcend individual human limitations, such that eventually, wrong paths can be corrected-- which means that as time goes on, scientific understanding gets better.  The only thing required for that is that individual scientists must approach the process honestly.  IOW, follow the data, wherever they may lead, even if they contradict one's most cherished personal ideas.  In that way, as long as there are honest scientists working on a problem, the tool they use is self-correcting.  That way, over time, understanding gets better, more detailed, and thus, more useful.

Answer 21

It has made many errors, but continually improves 

Answer 22

 It is  right until  proved wrong by another scientist subsequently.The search for truth continues in the scientific world

Answer 23

Google "failed scientific theories" 

Answer 24

Science has demonstrated that what we CAN know has limits, thus there are true things in this universe that we can know. Of course what we already know to be truth will still be true....

Answer 25

True science is mostly right !

Answer 26

Science is mans opinion and though it serves a useful purpose mans opinion is never always right. One mans opinion.

Answer 27

Science is always right about reality, but it is always wrong about politics.

Answer 28

except when it is wrong, which it often is.

Answer 29

If they're always right why don't they hurry and find a cure for God's "curse" (Malachi 2:2-4) of coronavirus?



"Probably not many Bible scholars or scientists are aware that Daniel—the same Daniel who was cast into the lion's den—was also a scientist. A scientist may be defined as one who utilizes the scientific method as a means of testing hypotheses. Scientists are also trained in research methodology. Daniel, therefore, can be classified as a scientist both by training and practice. In Chapter I of his book, Daniel gives the account of his use of classical experimental design—a technique to control variables that might bias a scientific research project—in order to acquire knowledge and test a hypothesis.And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.... But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.... Then said Daniel, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse [vegetables] to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this manner, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse (Daniel 1:5-16).Daniel's proposed research was set up along what is known as the classical experimental design. According to current methodology, this design is composed of control and experimental groups, with each group being subject to a before-and-after test. The following diagram is the usual visual representation of the design of the experiment:Before AfterControl groupIt is interesting to speculate whether Bacon may have developed the experimental method from reading Scripture. Personally, there is little doubt in my own mind that he really did discover the experimental method from reading Daniel. He was emphatic in his belief that all wisdom comes from God and personally believed that Scripture was a means of increasing faith, not a source for refuting theological arguments. "For all wisdom is from the Lord God, as the authority of the Scripture holds...." he wrote. In other words, God was the source of all knowledge and wisdom, and man obtained his knowledge and wisdom by reading the Bible under the influence of the Holy Spirit who guided human understanding. I believe that God gave Daniel the wisdom and knowledge of science. Daniel, in turn, recorded his Godly wisdom in the book bearing his name. All things considered, Bacon quite possibly conceived the notion of the experimental design from the book of Daniel. Daniel 1:20 indicates that Daniel and the three other men were ten times better in all matters of wisdom and understanding than all the magicians and astrologers who were in the realm. Daniel's God-given wisdom was superior to secular knowledge ten times over. We can wonder if much of this God-given wisdom was gained through similar experiments as the one recorded.Just how good was Daniel's methodology, according to contemporary standards? One of the first considerations of an experimental design is in selecting subjects. The usual method of assigning subjects to the control and experimental groups is by randomization. That is, we place participants into groups by chance, rather than by some method which might bias the results. For example, had Daniel selected the most unhealthy-looking subjects for the control group and the fairer and fatter individuals for the experimental group, the experiment would not have been valid, since a bias would have been introduced. But Daniel bypassed randomization. For the experimental group, he selected Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and himself. This selection process satisfied an important part of experimentation in current vogue, known as ethics.In experiments of this type, when life patterns and habits are at stake, subjects should be allowed to be in either the experimental or control groups so that the researcher is not manipulating his subjects. The four experimental subjects wanted to be on a diet of vegetables and water. The other subjects preferred the king's diet of delicacies and wine. By allowing the choice, the possibility of improper representation on the part of the subjects was minimized. Both groups would present themselves in the best possible mode, in the hope of continuing their preferred diets.Next, equal size of experimental and control groups was ignored by Daniel, with justification. Had the subjects been assigned by a double-blind system (subjects and researchers do not know which subjects receive the experimental variable and the experiment is managed by a disinterested third party until the results have been quantified), it would have ignored ethical considerations and opened up the possibility of cheating. In such a case, some of the experimental subjects objecting to the vegetable-and-water diet probably would have cheated and stolen some of the king's dainties, meat, and wine, adding a bias to the results.Another dimension to the strength of the design, which indicated Godly wisdom, is the time period which Daniel selected to run his experiment. The ten-day period, according to current medical practice, is adequate to detect and determine physiological trends for situations like this. Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author of all knowledge, ten days must be the optimum time period. Additional time would not show any appreciable difference for the response being studied.The validity of the hypothesis is shown by the results. Daniel 1:15 says it all: "And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat."Finally, what about statistical significance—the degree that the findings are not the result of chance? It is often said that statistics are most valuable when there is a small difference between the control and the experimental groups. In this case, the difference was quite obvious to the king's investigators. By any statistical formula, the results of Daniel's experiment are beyond the realm of chance. The four subjects were visibly more healthy than any one of the many control subjects.A concluding observation: Some people have said that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but the book of Daniel brilliantly demonstrates the use of the classical experimental design—the most powerful method of testing in scientific research." 



That scientist currently use TODAY!



"Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author of all knowledge..."



"Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author of all knowledge..."





"Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author of all knowledge..."





"Since Daniel obtained his knowledge through God, the Author of all knowledge..."



"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to refute or contradict" (Luke 21:15).



"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to refute or contradict" (Luke 21:15).



"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to refute or contradict" (Luke 21:15).



"For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to refute or contradict" (Luke 21:15).

Answer 30

No.  But, the difference between science and dogma is that science relies on evidence to draw its conclusions, so as the evidence gets better the conclusions become more accurate.  Whereas, dogma starts with a conclusion, and then looks for evidence to confirm that conclusion, often ignoring evidence that says the dogmatic beliefs are incorrect.

Answer 31

Most of Science is theory.  Right does not mean 'Truth'!  :D

Answer 32

No, but it always approaches a closer and closer approximation of truth.  It isn't rigid and fixed like religion but rather challenges itself and corrects itself when wrong.  The process of science weeds out human biases and bad information testing it in every possible way from various people the world over to try and disprove the proposed theory.  But to explain why it is not always right let me say, we once thought the earth was flat (not right) but science discovered it is round(closer to being right), then science discovered it isn't perfectly round but it is a little fat in the center by about an extra 10 miles (even closer to being right), then we discovered it is also heavier on the bottom making it an oblate spheroid (the closest to right that we currently have).  Science has approached a closer and closer approximation of the truth.  We will doubtless in the future make discoveries that clarify the science even more but it will never be overturned.  We will never wake up one day and discover the earth was a cube all along.  Specific knowledge in the sciences can be wrong but unlike religion, when it is wrong and finds out about it, then it change to fit the data rather than try and make the data fit the preconceived notions.

Answer 33

If that is the case why did Science fail America on 9/11 ?



where was Science when those planes crashed into the twin towers ?



where were 'the brains'  ?  maybe the science behind it all was to ensure these attacks did happen ? maybe ?



bottom line is - science is simply understanding the world and all thats in it and outside of it including ourselves.



its not separate matter to god,  god created everything you perceive as 'reality' and we define 'reality' based on electrical signals interpreted by the brain.  Our senses allow us to perceive and measure reality.



If it cannot be 'sensed' does it mean its real or not real ?



If I cut off the head of an outspoken athiest and stick it on a pole and show it to 99 other atheists is that science ? reality ? or just an ugly Kaffir's head on a pole ?

Answer 34

No, that is why science changes when new facts are discovered. That is completely unlike religions which keep the same old insane beliefs.

Answer 35

Science is NOT always right, but science is the silent partner 

that will weed out all of the mistakes and errors of subjective 

hypotheses so that proof & objective conclusions can prevail. 

Answer 36

Science is ALWAYS ''looking for the right answer'' (but we still don't know everything)

and, as you have asked this in Religion and Spirituality, I feel that it's OK to add ..

Not understanding or being able to explain something does not mean that ''God did it''

Answer 37

Science is NOT a religion nor spirituality, nor A PERSON

category ERROR the Submitter was WRONG

to put the question in the category of RELIGION and SPIRITUALITY

the   question does NOT  ask  for information about  religion or spirituality

Science is a  METHOD used by PEOPLE,

METHOD ( noun ) a particular form of PROCEDURES, for accomplishing , or approaching something , especially a systematic or established one .

SCIENTIFIC MODELS when PREDICTION  and REALITY are CLOSE  CONFIDENCE increases results in VALIDATION

... SCIENCE  is similar   to  DETECTIVE WORK  a lot of investigation

SCIENCE is the term for  HUMANS  use  of  intellectual and physical ACTIVITY encompassing  the systematic    study of the structure and  behavior of the NATURAL world, through observation and experimentation ..



Science   "IS" a method that  deals with the NATURAL WORLD

.. Science does not present " TRUTHS" but rather   collect EVIDENCE  ( data information ), that SUPPORTS  or DOES NOT  support  their predictions ( models)  they preform experiments in different ways  over and over and when  they  get the   same result,  it is HOW  they find things called FACTS  as MORE  information FACTS  are obtained MODELS are updated  improved



  thank you for the question

Answer 38

Science can be thought of as the eternal search for truth. It changes and evolves as new evidence comes to light and new discoveries are made, so no it is not ALWAYS right, but it is always improving and moving closer to truth. In contrast with religion, science does not claim to have all the answers and it does not claim to be always right, and it is humble enough to admit when it is wrong and change in response to new information.

Answer 39

Science is about trying to predict outcomes. As such, it has two primary modes of going forward: 



through paradigm shifts, where a totally new world view becomes available (for example the heliocentric model versus the earth-centric model, or the "invention" of real numbers (and hence complex numbers) to replace integers and whole numbers)



through "falsification", where the idea is that our ability to measure gets better and better, hence our quantitative sciences get closer to the truth, whatever it is.



There's also "Creation" science or "intelligent design"...



So, is science always right? Only when it is in context of the times and paradigms, the Zeitgeist. And even then, only as far as the technology allows measurement.

Answer 40

Science is never right and never wrong. Science is a methodology used by humans  to achieve truth. If the methodology is used correctly by humans it is always right.

Answer 41

Scientists and the Fathers of Astronomy, Galileo and Keplar, said that in total there were between 1800 and 3000 stars.  The bible on the other hand says that the stars are innumerable/infinate.  That the amount of stars are like the grains of sand on a beach.



Genesis 22:17

I will surely bless you, and I will multiply your descendants like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will possess the gates of their enemies.



Genesis 32:12

But You have said, 'I will surely make you prosper, and I will make your offspring like the sand of the sea, too numerous to count.'"



Hebrews 11:12

Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.



Today were know that the universe and the stars are infinate, but the bible proclaimed this fact 3000+ years ago.

Answer 42

No, but science always evolves and corrects itself, differently than religion, which is unchangeable and it thus doesn't evolve at all.

Answer 43

Entropy - if a scientific theorom is not right then explain why scientists continue to advance certain ideas as facts and insert those ideas into university, school etc? 



Take evolution for example. I'm not saying God couldn't use evolution if it was part of His design or plan. I'm also not saying God had to create a world with evolution either! Certainly a world created in an adult state might lead us to believe the world evolved instead of being created ex nihilo especially if all the clues are pointing to such a conclusion.



Problems with macro evolution. Scientists are guessing that mutations are the cause and effect of evolution even though no successful mutation has ever been produced in a lab. Hell, gene splicing DNA leads to cancer unless the DNA code can be cracked and inserted into our computer like genome. We might be able to turn genes on and off but that's a far cry from evolution!



Do you know it takes in the realm of probability about 40 zeros at the end of any single digit figure for mutation to even be possible? How long do you think evolution takes? Billions or Zillions of years? Do you honestly believe single celled organisms like an amoeba created the Cambrian explosion? Created all life on earth?



Apemen just turned into different species over a relatively short time into thinking, speaking, learning creatures and no other creature has come close? Why is that? Scientists try to claim birds are descended from dhinosaurs yet cannot even trace birds to dhinosaurs! Are they follow the scientific method? No. They are making educated guesses based on their own egoism. If the theory doesn't work or can be proven change the theory?



The problem isn't learning. The problem we have is atheism infesting supposedly a neutral field we refer to as science to understand our world through education. Rather than saying this is the most accepted theory, teachers state this is what happened. No one theory should be so dogmatic that is is taught as a fact if the facts don't fully support it. Especially when we aren't being given ALL of the facts about evolution including it's criticisms, flaws etc. Our scientific bodies are kicking out professors who hold any opinion which doesn't conform with the establishment!!! Can't university and school gives students a choice to disagree with evolution and give them a chance to argue against it or bring a different hypothesis following the scientific method in favor of creationism? 



We have to correct false knowledge or else we blindly follow it and believe it!

Answer 44

No, but true science IS always right.



The obvious problem for us imperfect human beings is being able to distinguish between true science and pseudoscience (e.g. evolutionism and the BBT).

Answer 45

If you have faith as small as a mustard seed it shall be done for you. We put our faith in science . 

Answer 46

not always, scientists say Ghosts aren’t real but they are

Answer 47

Science has been rescuing mankind over and over again, and few noticed.  Who invented the automobile?  Who invented the toaster?  There are a host of inventors that never got their name in the public eye.  Yet, the main hope that we have for COVID is that some bio pharma company will invent a cure.  The flu is managed year to year by selecting a new version of vaccine.  Science makes crops better, less water, fewer bugs, and better taste.  This is how the world has managed to eat while the population exploded.  Science allows us to live longer and better.  So, while science is not always right, it is the best idea that we have to date, and nothing seems better.

Answer 48

“Scientists are the easiest people to fool. And there is a very good reason for this. Science is the study of nature, and nature doesn’t cheat. But people do. Some people bend the evidence, and that is something scientists often forget.”



- Arthur C. Clarke; atheist, scientist, and inventor of the communications satellite

Answer 49

Science is a method for cataloguing and testing various phenomena, and attempts to follow the evidence where it leads.



It is not always 'right', but it is constantly improving - and it does so by constantly questioning presuppositions, taking into account new evidence, and trying to eliminate as much bias as possible.



Since you are asking this in R&S, I'm going to assume that you are comparing it to Religion, which thrives on presuppositions, attempts to make new evidence fit a preexisting narrative, and has demonstrable bias.



It's also telling that there has never been a religious explanation to come along and replace a scientific one that does a better job of taking into account all of the available evidence, but the reverse has been true all throughout history.



On the other hand, there are countless people who do not view religious beliefs and science as mutually exclusive concepts - the only ones who seem to have a problem with it (or portions of it) are those who take a narrow, literal interpretation of biblical creation myths.

Answer 50

Science is the method by which we learn if something is "right" or not.

It is a method of determination.

Best we have.

Answer 51

Science is a progression of improvements to the best available theories at the time.

Remember that Newtonian Mechanics was "the gospel" for something like 200 years until it was replaced by quantum mechanics (for the micro world) and relativity (at speeds a significant percentage of the speed of light in a vacuum.) Will quantum mechanics (QM) and relativity last forever? A number of great physicist, Roger Penrose for example, think QM will have to be revised.

Answer 52

Sure. Before Singularity Theory, there was the Steady State Theory. People believed that everything was always the same. They believed & taught that the Milky Way was the Universe. Today, it's popular to believe in a Multiverse. But, there's no evidence & that's a belief, not a theory. But, yeah...Science is always right. Sorta'.

Answer 53

If exception rule survives in scientific methods , then probably Science is not wrong !

Answer 54

The thing about science it is always presumed right until someone else comes along and proves it wrong.

Answer 55

What is right?



This is a top-down term: first you stipulate the framework behind what fits right and wrong, then you compare the victim to that framework.



This is the problem with religious discussions: if you believe that the framework is wrong, and the other believes the framework is right, then the conclusions of logic using those premises will contradictory.



Science isn't concerned with top-down framework at all.



Philosophy is, science isn't. The theory or hypothesis you put forward isn't science. Science is the bit that comes after you've made-up a story about how the world might be. 



First, you have to imagine predictions of a world in which your story is right. Then you have to design experiments which might give weight or take away weight from that made-up story.



The results of science---the data---tend to have a scope. So Newtons story about gravity had a scope which Einstein's general and special relativity went beyond. 



Both theories have applications and make valid predictions, it's just that both only go so far. Einsteins framework doesn't work at the very very small scale. For that, another story was invented and tested to explain observations.



It's a feedback system. Observations modify theory and motivate new experimental ideas to test the modified theory and so on. Thus, a theory can evolve greatly over time.



Sometimes, a theory can evolve so much, that it's origin seems so crude as to be stupid.For instance, early Greek ideas about the atom (their word for a living cell) being the fundamental unit. We now have gone way way deeper.



There you go, hope that answers your question.



BTW, what is interesting about science: if two people (or groups) study the same thing, and if they choose different experiments, sometimes, they come across the same end theory, despite coming to it from a different starting point. What changes things is data: data is the sculptor, and the theory is the block of marble that gets chipped away at to reveal a model of nature.

Answer 56

No, it's not.

Science, like everything else, is imperfect and constantly changes. But guess what; that 



A) does not mean that all science is wrong 

B) does not give you a license to cherry-pick which parts you believe and which you don't

C) does not bring you any closer to proving that your god is real

Answer 57

Science can only be right if they can provide indubitable evidence for their findings, anything beyond that is theory and could be subject to inaccuracies.

Answer 58

NO AND IT IS NOT A PERSON EVEN....GOD MADE EVERYTHING WITHOUT MEN!!!

Answer 59

It varies in the perception of individual minds. But facts are never in dispute. Science is just a pathway to truths.

Answer 60

No, but it has been right more often than all religions and superstitions combined. 

Answer 61

No , proof is the fact that it's forever changing

Answer 62

Science is the study of the physical world around us. Science can prove that many things in the bible are impossible.

Answer 63

Absolutely not.  That is why reputable scientists perform multiple, rather boringly repetitious experiments.  They want to verify that their observations are consistent and correct.  Then they need to run experiments that would test their theories.  When a scientist announces a corroborated and peer-reviewed finding, that finding is almost always correct.

Answer 64

The fact of the matter: No: Science is not always right, that is why you have real science and fake science, real science has formulas and there is always a theory behind the formula, but fake science will have no formulas and no real theories behind their way of thinking, like global warming, the earth being billions of years old and that we evolved from monkeys, that is all fake science, real science is having a formula and being able to calculate the Ma x Time = Mass, that is real science, like Albert Einstein theory on relativity.

Answer 65

Science is a process that is our best chance for getting the true answers to our questions.  Sometimes people draw incorrect conclusions, but the process is self-correcting.

 



Science at its worst is still a thousand times better than superstition/religion.

Answer 66

ฺBut for sure 1+1+1= 3 and not 1+1+1=1

Answer 67

Not always, but it's right far more often than ancient mythology is.

Answer 68

No.

Science does not even claim

to always be right.

Science is a method to discover mistakes.



Scientists are people,

who want to know

where their ideas are mistaken.

People who are religious,

not so much.



This is why religions

tend to guard and protect their errors

from scrutiny,

while scientific understanding

keeps improving.



--

Regards,



John Popelish

Answer 69

Brontosaurus is once again, a dinosaur. It was when I was a kid, it was not when my kids were kids. It is once again, who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Answer 70

No, Science used to be good and reliable but for a long time politics and connections have started to impact what gets published and what doesn't. If the editor of a scientific journal personally dislikes you, your work isn't getting published whether it's right or wrong.



This is why we have all kinds of bunk science now like "dark matter" which is completely undetectable and only exists because our models don't work without it, strange huh

Answer 71

The science is never right .



You reffer to the the theories of denial the Creation of the Univers .



One cannot deny the existence of God by using a theory of the mankind as God is superior that is the Theme of umanist school that is still taking place.

Answer 72

Its hard to fool real science, if theyre wrong they correct it,  Theres a lot of crap out there that some call science thats very intentionally missleading and hang on to unproven theories for decades.  When they do this they cant advance.  

Answer 73

The scientific method is tried and true.  The findings aren't always correct at first, but the method is self-correcting.  Science will never explain everything.  

Answer 74

In contrast to religious, blind belief, science is willing and able to change its views as more is learned.

Science doesn’t seek to keep us in the dark ages as religion does.   

Answer 75

when it comes to evolution, scientists are more like false prophets and false teachers with the practice of their kind of priestcrafts. and NO, science has been getting it wrong repeatedly throughout history.

Answer 76

No, science is not always right. 

It corrects itself when new information is observed.

Can your Bible do that?

Answer 77

No of course not. Within the scientific community experts are constantly challenging themselves, quite right too. Its just a vast conglomeration of ideas and theories some of which cohere and contribute toa universal, workable theory that can be trusted. But scientists themselves will tell you that theories ate being challenged and disagreed with all the time

Answer 78

Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Answer 79

Science, similar to the many fields of professional study has a purpose that must be respected.

When science mocks G-d the return respect is not equal, no different than religion that may occasionally mock science.



Both must respect one another and work with one another for harmony to exist.

When they accept one another, the potential of G-d's universe will grow beyond measure.

Answer 80

Science gives the best answer for the evidence available. Plus the evidence can be viewed with bias and so sometimes the model presented can still be grossly wrong. Thats why we peer review the results.

Answer 81

No, nor does it need to be. Science deals with what is probable and Demonstratable based on the evidence put forth. However in that process the hypothesis can be wrong.   Science has been wrong about things before, but that doesn’t change the fact that the scientific method and understanding what it’s factual based on evidence is the best method for reaching the truth. 

Answer 82

Of course not. Science is unbiased and self-correcting. That is the purpose of the scientific method. When a theory is shown to be wrong by new evidence, it is changed or discarded. And a new theory is presented. 

Answer 83

'Science' is a process.

'Science' does not draw any conclusions ...

scientists do.

And no, scientists are not always right in the conclusions they draw.

Answer 84

Science attempts to explain nature but the fact remains  that our explanations are restricted to and limited by our knowledge..

Answer 85

Why would you post this question in the Religion section if there literally is a category Science?

Seems disingenuous to me.



Science, when properly done, is research and publication of peer-reviewed findings. It's reporting facts. As in every endeavor where humans are involved there are bad actors but science has self-correction mechanisms that work pretty well. Fraudulent research is usually exposed; a scientist trying to cheat risks their reputation - serious cheating is professional suicide.



What is then made of the data is often open to interpretation.

Hypotheses to explain the data might turn out wrong; but that's part of the game. The scientific method leads us ever closer to a full understanding of the world.

Conclusions that are drawn based on data can be right or flawed. Scientists are generally very cautious and are very transparent about the soundness of their conclusions.

They will not claim a suspicion to be "right" or a fact prematurely.



Unfortunately, media often simplifies scientific findings in order to make them more palatable for the public and in some cases the cautious language and caveats expressed by scientists get dropped and a news headline might make a claim that was not made by the scientists.

That's why it is not a bad idea to go to the source and see what the scientists really said. Even a layman might be able to understand a little bit if they read the abstract of a paper, if only to see what language is used (e.g. "data suggests" doesn't mean "it is 100% certain").





-------------



@ Mog: Do you have a source for this quote by Clarke?



-------------



@ Publius: Nebraska Man is an example of data (more specifically a finding) interpreted incorrectly. The scientific process corrected the error with 5 years.

Piltdown Man was an outright fraud. Also eventually exposed by scientists. This certainly isn't an example of science being wrong but human beings trying to con others.

One should also notice that both examples are from roughly 100 years ago. A Piltdown Man fraud wouldn't fly these days, or at least the fraud would have to be done in a much more elaborate way. The Nebraska Man mistake also won't be repeated because technology has advanced enormously since then and offers much better methods of classification.



Phlogiston theory: a hypothesis that turned out to be incorrect when the scientific method was applied. Nothing wrong with science. Nobody can realistically expect that all hypotheses get it right the first time. Hell, Newton was wrong with his theory of gravity. It comes damn close to reality but gets stuff wrong under extreme conditions where Einstein's General Relativity apparently matches reality. But most likely this isn't the end of the story either because GR and quantum mechanics are incompatible. But this is how science works, getting closer to the true nature of things step by step - and sometimes taking a little detour.

Answer 86

Sure, if it works



You're welcome

Answer 87

science is a process

the process is always right

what you make of the results is your own problem

Answer 88

Is the BuyBull EVER right?  No, of course it isn't.  Science proves that.

Does the earth sit upon pillars?  No.  Are stars set into a firmament? No.

Is the earth flat?  No. Does the Sun go around the Earth?  No.

And on and on and on.  Grow a brain and get an education!

Answer 89

No, of course not.

But when it comes to observable phenomena

science tends to provide a correct explanation

eventually

more often than other methods.