science ...is it perfect

[ecookman]

nuff said please state why or why not

[Saad]

What do you mean by perfect?

[DemonWasp]

The knowledge that we've discovered through science is imperfect (incomplete in addition to the fact that our understanding of what we do know is probably flawed).

The scientific process is imperfect, mostly due to human nature - if followed correctly, the scientific process is perfect.

Why do you ask?

[md]

Qui? you mean Oui?

It helps to actually know the language you write the poll in.

[jernst]

No. Nothing we have gained from science is truely a fact. Theories have been verified or proven incorrect after repetition, but all of it is dependent on our current understanding of things. Years from now people could look back with new knowledge and say everything we know is wrong. Not to mention that science is rife with politics and egos and in many cases the work that is submitted isn't judged based on quality but by who you know.

[apomb]

science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect.

that is to say, however, that if science were to be done perfectly, it then would be perfect, but as it stands, no it is not.

[Tony]

Scientific process, as a concept, is perfect. The execution of the process, and the interpretation of the results leave room for error.

Consistent results of an experiment re-enforce the theory, and add more confidence (as in statistical confidence) to the claim, but observational experiments can't prove laws, in a way that Math can establish new truths (based on assumed fundamentals)

[ecookman]

I meant the science on its own..ignoring the human aspect.

[syntax_error]

"science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect. "

@apomb: That is the worst form of logic, I've seen since the blasted ToK class.

Heres something else that follows your fallacy. Musicians are fat. Lennon is a musician, therefore, Lennon is fat.

[ecookman]

wow syntax_error...letting some of that anger out there.

but, alas...i must agree (bad logic)

[syntax_error]

Its not anger?

Furthermore, your question has no basics to answer is, what science are you speaking of , empirical data? Or the scientific process it self?

[ecookman]

science in general >_>

[Dusk Eagle]

apomb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:40 am wrote:

science is performed by humans, humans are imperfect, therefore, science is imperfect.

This could have been better worded as "All our scientific laws are observed by humans; all humans are imperfect; therefore, there is no guarantee that any of our scientific laws are perfect." However, if the universal laws (regardless of our observation of them) are constant, then it stands to reason that the scientific method would return perfect results if humans were to be perfect.

[andrew.]

Science is definitely not perfect. If science were perfect, we would know the answer to everything. There is always some kind of obstacle or human error that prevents us from getting a 100% accurate answer, so we end up making assumptions that may or may not be correct. Hundreds of years in the future, people are going to look back at us and say, "Boy they had it all wrong", just the same as we do with ancient civilizations. If science was perfect, we wouldn't have this, we would have the correct answer each and every time.

[Homer_simpson]

we as humans perceive the world around us by the impulses that our 5 senses send to our brain. the difference between us and other animals is our ability to recognize patterns of repetition, which makes the basis for our logic. Now there is more to this world than our 5 senses can relay, however recognition of patterns is what makes up our understanding of the universe. so is science perfect? no, it is only observations and recognizing patterns and it is the best we got for now. at least that's my opinion.