It is my humble opinion that science does not prove anything. To explain my point. Science is merely the human observation of what we know as of right now. When we 'discover' a new concept. We didn't really discover in the sense that it wasn't there before, we are just now gaining knowledge of something new. More often then not, when a new discovery is made several key concepts are re-thought to fit this new concept. With this new pattern, it is safe to assume that as humans we are not correct and are prone to errors. For example, back in the 1950's, plate tectonics was not taught, as it was believed that it didn't exist. So the true question is, how do we know that we aren't those scientists back in the 1950's, who believe something, and are absolutely convinced they are right. Furthermore, what if we were to discover that they were right, and we in fact are wrong? Food for the thought.
plate tectonics was suspected for over a hundred years, it wasn't accepted as fact not because it wasn't believed but because the technology wasn't available to verify it...you can have a popular hypothesis but it needs verification to pass to accepted theory...
Discovery is learning something whose existence we heretofore had not known. Invention is creating something that did not previously exist. You have actually described the beauty of science. As our abilities are enhanced through knowledge, technology and experience science is constantly challenging its own status quo. If science disproves some accepted perspective, then that perspective is discarded. Science is mutable. Religion on the other hand is immutable, which explains why a theist's faith ALWAYS trumps fact when in opposition.
Yes but if we are constantly changing those views, how are we sure that anything is correct, if it may be disproved tomorrow? The uncertainty is what makes science not reliable.
That last sentence is a whopper. Faith trumps fact when in opposition may be one of the funniest things I have read in a long, long time. I have a faith test for you. Have faith that you can fly. Believe it, see it, feel it, pray for it. Then jump off a cliff and fly. See you at the bottom.
Science has never claimed to "prove" anything. You are mistaking science for a belief system. It is not.
No we are not constantly changing views. We are updating views where discovery/invention demands. If science was as unreliable as you seem to think, you wouldn't be sitting at your computer today, nor enjoying the lifestyle you do. We would not be able to explore human inimical environments like space and the deep sea. We could not transport necessary resources from one place on the planet to another. In short if science was so unreliable, we would not the civilization (for good or bad) that we do today.
your command of English seems to be lacking or you are being disingenuous or your sense of humor is a bit bizarre. I said RELIGION.... is immutable, which explains why a THEIST'S FAITH ... I don't know of many religions that claim their adherents can fly, at least in this life.
If your sentence was meant in sarcasm against faith, then I misread it. My apologies but after careful reading, your last sentence could be interpreted in several different ways.
While it is true that scientific knowledge will always be limited, and that in the history of science facts have always been tentative, that doesn't take away from the hard fact that science is the greatest achievement of humanity, and has solved so many of age old problems. And it has the potential of solving many more age old problems, like the paradigm of the rich and the poor. But science cannot meet the existential needs of the human being, and we should not expect it to do so. Science can only deal with the measurable, but not the immeasurable. And for humanity, the immeasurable has great importance too. Science tries hard to stay away from what it cannot measure, and rightfully so. Yet as the implications of quantum mechanics, become more main stream, there is a possibility of the reconciliation of science and religion, but of course not fundamentalist religion, but a more sophisticated belief system.
It was not sarcasm it was a statement of my personal opinion. it has been my experience and my observation over the years that when in opposition a true theist's faith will trump fact every time. My last sentence was in response to your jump off a cliff analogy. I know of no faith that preaches that a human can fly (unaided of course). OTOH, I do know of some religions where those rewarded in the after life can have wings.
It was not sarcasm it was a statement of my personal opinion. it has been my experience and my observation over the years that when in opposition a true theist's faith will trump scientific fact every time. I do not mean that scientific fact and religion are incompatible. Many devout theists believe in evolution and/or the big bang for example. OTOH, there are those of faith who refuse to believe that the earth is 4.5 billion and the universe 14.5 billion years old, that a global flood that drowned the tallest mountains is not possible, that the tower of babel is not how different languages evolved, that a person cannot live in the belly of a whale for a month, etc. etc. etc. IMHO the sooner scriptural literalists (of all denominations) catch up to the 21st century the better. My last sentence was in response to your jump off a cliff analogy. I know of no faith that preaches that a human can fly (unaided of course). OTOH, I do know of some religions where those rewarded in the after life can have wings.[/QUOTE]
Science provides the best explanation available with the measurement tools of the time. As measurement tools get better, science changes. It's not a big deal.
Ask any scientist and they will tell you that nothing in science is ever proven. If you want certainly, go to church. Science is always open to new data. Having said that, there are some concepts that are so well supported by observation that it would be perverse to withhold one's tentative agreement.