Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6


You seem less impressed with the scientific method than the rest of us. While I am willing to agree that said methods are not perfect, I have yet to hear of any alternative way to gather useful information about our reality.

Right now people using scientifically sound processes are adding to our knowledge base about the universe and our planet on a daily basis. We can accurately state that we know more this week than we did last week. We can also, with great confidence, say that we know that we will know more next week than we do now. In the meantime, I know of no other way to test theories, confirm or reject hypothesis or otherwise, in a controlled and monitored way, explore and learn. Especially at the rate we are currently making ourselves smarter.

Those that don't like our reliance on such a process should, but the nature of their complaints, have an alternative ready for us to consider. Because simply saying one is not happy with the scientific method doesn't do diddley if alternatives cannot be proffered.

When I was in high school, biologists didn't yet know how photosynthesis worked. Which was great for me because that meant the tests were easier. Now we not only know how it works, but we can artificially induce photosynthesis-like processes in artificial, non-living materials. Can you think of any other way we humans could have gone from straight-up ignorance on a subject to harnessing the method for our own purposes in such a short period of time (in this case less than 50 years). I can't think of one.

If one does not like the scientific method because it keeps coming up with ideas that are contrary to what one wishes were true, then the complaint shouldn't be with science, but with the source of ones wishes. If one doesn't feel like learning what theories, etc. science currently has available on any given subject, and would rather complain that it isn't complete enough, one should find new standards. If one is in incredulous mode, and can't possibly imagine how something so complex ever came into being, one should realize that personal shortcomings are seldom, if ever, the source of great breakthroughs.

We don't know everything. We never will. But we know enough to understand that we have made great progress since the first cavemen looked up and said, "Hey Grog, what are those tiny little lights?" And I have no doubt that 200 years from now people will look back on 20th and 21st century physics and astronomy land laugh at how little we knew. But everything they know in 2213 will be knowledge built upon by the science of previous generations, including our own. And everyone who continues in 2213 to claim that "Something can't come from nothing, so there!" will be stuck in the 10th century AD (or CE if you prefer), just as they are now.
Changed Change Reason Date