13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
13 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Why Is Science Wrong?

by MaskedMarketer
11 replies
In my quest for knowledge, I've run into some people who try to take complex problems and put them into a little scientifical formula to understand it. While I love science and appreciate everything it has to offer, isn't it ignorant to totally ignore the mind/ creative/ imagination side, just because science can't measure it or understand it with there formulas?

If it doesn't fit inside there little box and equation, it is automatically not true, its false. Why is that?

To say something is 100% true or false (in a logic/science sense), we are assuming we know everything already? Isn't that unscientifical? Isn't that contradicting the formulas and what science about? The equation automatically assumeswe know everything there is to know, correct?

How do we know the scienficitcal forumla applies to everything? If we don't know everything, then we assume this formula is for everything? Thats not scientific, or maybe i'm wrong?

Is this the same concept of people thinking the world is still flat?

What were scientists saying before the wright brothers created the flying plane?

Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a highly regarded scientist and president of the Royal Society of London, stated flatly in 1885,

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

A popular phrase of the day went, "If God had meant for man to fly, feathers would be sprouting on his shoulders!"

"The Wright brothers solved a highly complex, technical problem the best and brightest of the day deemed unsolvable. "

What science couldn't understand, deeded impossible, the imagination is where limitless possibility is located. Even Einstein knew this. Thats why most psychologist say EQ more important than IQ. We are actually heading into a "right brain" economy- so EQ is important.

I'm interested to see why people think science is always right or whatever your opinion may be.

While doing a little research I found some decent articles:

"Science has no way to comprehend or to deal with the concept of mind. That which it doesn't understand, science treats as false or non-existent. By treating "mind" and "brain" as equivalents, science remains within its comfort zone. This comfort zone I think of as a box which science has created for itself and defined its own parameters. To science, if it can be explained or studied (preferably proved or potentially proved in the case of theories), a concept is within its comfort zone, thus may be accepted as "real." Why Science is Wrong - beliefs, occult, and science
#science #wrong
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    To say something is 100% true or false (in a logic/science sense), we are assuming we know everything already? Isn't that unscientifical? Isn't that contradicting the formulas and what science about? The equation automatically assumeswe know everything there is to know, correct?
    unscientifical? I like that word!

    I worked with scientists for several years and never heard a single one of them use the word "always" or "never" regarding any experiment or scientific discovery. There is always "margin for error" and "exceptions" as nothing is 100% true or false.

    However, there is also scientific theory which is what kelvin was referring to in 1895. In 1903 (I think it was) the Wright Bros flew for a few seconds - a year later the flight lasted five minutes. Though the general public was astonished, it's very possible kelvin would not have been impressed with those numbers and would stick to his theory that flight of a plane heavier than air was impossible.

    Even a great scientist may not imagine what will be possible in the future because there may be many developments and advances along the way.

    One point is that Kelvin was an accomplished physicist while the Wright brothers (prior to flight) were bicycle mechanics. Different mindset and approach.

    When you think about it, many of the greatest scientific discoveries did not come from scientists wondering "can this be done" but from innovators who focused on "how to get this done".

    kay
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    Live life like someone left the gate open
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[296341].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author James Clark
      I do remember reading somewhere that it was okay to believe in both. It may have been Aristotle. But to be clear, his concept was based on experience. That is, you gain wisdom from experience has been my understanding. At the top of any organization, you find the ones with vision will be in charge. In 21 century accepted knowledge is, you need both.

      My view is this.

      It's a good idea to know what those mechanical folks are thinking. You can see it on the Internet. If you put up a web site, and start telling people how smart you are, and how many Advance Degrees you have, and see how long you last. Not long!

      I worked was a Sales Manager for some 20 plus years, and we use to sell main frames. A company would call up, and say, send a Salesman out here they want to buy $40,000 computer. Now what could be easier than that? We use to call that a "BlueBird"

      Now, as a Manager I received an override on everything that came through the door. I had a wife, a mortgage, dog, two cars, and a cat, plus two children. If I gave that to one of my sales people, and he went out there, and talked the guy out of buying, how long do think he was going to be working for me?

      Usually, it was one of those bright young college graduates, who lacked street smarts.

      Please, don't misunderstand what I'm suggestion here. I come from the same kind of background. But when you need to make money, *Common Sense* is what works best, and most of us are born with that.

      All have to do in a situation like that is, ask the guy what does he want to do? He will tell you. Don't say anything. Just listen.

      In most cases, he will pull out his pen, and sign a contract, but when one these fellows that knows everything, and talk too much. Well you know the rest of the story!

      Lastly, there is an old saying in the business "if you F---up the "Bluebirds" you won't last very long"

      Good luck,



      Jimmy.
      Signature
      Hard Hitting Information for Marketers
      The Art of Marketing Online
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297272].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Phil Weslow
        Everything in science is a theory. Throughout the history of science there have been some "bad theories" which were once widely accepted by the scientific communities of their time. For example there was a period when doctors would bleed patients who were sick because they believed that infections came from "bad blood" and that if most of the patient’s blood was drained the body would quickly make lots of new "good blood" to replace it.

        Turns out that this theory was not 100% on the mark, and more then a few people died from this treatment method. If you look back at science text books that are 100-200 years old, you will see examples of theories which we no longer adhere to. The problem is with every passing year, the publishers of science textbooks drop the bad theories as if they never happened.

        For this reason we get fooled into believing that science is infallible. Don't get me wrong, science can be extremely useful, just not infallible.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297394].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Originally Posted by Phil Weslow View Post

          For example there was a period when doctors would bleed patients who were sick because they believed that infections came from "bad blood" and that if most of the patient's blood was drained the body would quickly make lots of new "good blood" to replace it.
          It looks like there were a lot of happy leeches back in those days.

          "Through the 1830s the French imported about forty million leeches a year for medical purposes, and in the next decade, England imported six million leeches a year from France alone. Through the early decades of the century, hundreds of millions of leeches were used by physicians throughout Europe."(Bloodletting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297466].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      I worked with scientists for several years and never heard a single one of them use the word "always" or "never" regarding any experiment or scientific discovery. There is always "margin for error" and "exceptions" as nothing is 100% true or false.
      Spot on, Kay. There's a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to science. Science is not a big book of 'truths' or 'facts'; it is a process that tries to piece together the most accurate picture of the way that the universe works. This is an ongoing process because science acknowledges the possibility that there's always something more to discover, and these new discoveries might lead to modifications of existing theories.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297405].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      I worked with scientists for several years and never heard a single one of them use the word "always" or "never" regarding any experiment or scientific discovery. There is always "margin for error" and "exceptions" as nothing is 100% true or false.
      Good example. Science is inherently skeptical and nothing is ever written in stone, and forever open to refutation.
      Signature

      :)

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    That which it doesn't understand, science treats as false or non-existent.
    Although I understand the author's sentiment, the quoted statement has nothing to do with science itself, but with popular and inaccurate understandings of it. Science does not presume to be an infallible source of truth.

    This basically sums it up:

    "Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them." (Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    That which it doesn't understand, science treats as false or non-existent.
    Think about the above statement. If that was true - if what science didn't understand was treated as false or non-existent - then wouldn't it be time now to close every research lab across the globe, as there would be no point in studying what is not understood - if what is not understood is presumed false or non-existant?

    It might be more accurate to say, "that which it doesn't understand, science treats as unconfirmed or unsubstantiated, but not false or non-existent."

    Science hasn't much understanding of telepathy, existence of God, out of body experiences, and other paranormal or metaphysical subjects. Nor are those things well suited to being studied in the empirical manner that defines science in the first place. Science doesn't claim these things to be true or false, existent or not. Science just hasn't much to do with them mainly due to barriers in studying them in the scientific way. And that's OK with me.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clbnc
    Anyone else find it somewhat amusing that that article belittling science was written, posted, and read using computers?

    The achievements of science dwarf the alternatives so far. It is no longer even a contest.

    My take on that article is this: Science can't make sense of complete nonsense.

    I agree, but unfortunately I do not think that is what the article creator intended for it to say.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[297471].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rprosser
      I studied Physics and Electronics myself at University but I also knew that I was 'psychic' in various ways, which according to many physicists is impossible. So I have known all along that the predominant scientific mindset is very limited, in particular unwilling to consider phenomena that may be genuine but are untestable in laboratories.

      A good example is consciousness - clearly we (or for all I know just me) are aware but there doesn't appear to be any requirement for this in evolutionary terms; one could envisage a race of Data-like androids which to all intents and purposes are human but lack any real senses whatsoever. In fact consciousness could be an impediment because many people get depressed etc., so how can you explain it from a conventional biological standpoint? Yet it clearly exists!

      I also saw a very large UFO drifting through the night sky when I was 13, I've known the future on a few occasions - particularly 'witnessing' the 9/11 event 4 years before it happened in front of an NLP audience of approx. 150 people and being able to give the precise date, plus experiencing several other 'weird and wonderful' events. Currently I am exploring the Law of Attraction in some depth because I know that there is definitely something to it.

      In fact the LoA is testable on a personal basis and possibly 'en masse' as well. Consider conducting surveys of the population at large with a view to deterimining peoples' beliefs, attitudes etc. and then correlating those with lottery winners. That is an entirely feasible approach but can you imagine any career scientist bothering to go down that route?

      It is also interesting to note that if LoA really is valid then it would throw into question ALL of the 'scientific' evidence ever gathered!!!

      So in summary I acknowledge that Science does have a lot offer but I am not so sure about the scientists themselves, many of whom are biased and emotional just like the rest of us.


      Richard
      Signature

      Richard Prosser

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[299793].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author write-stuff
    Everything in science is NOT theory. The laws of physics started out as theories. But once shown to be reproducible and predictive, theories evolve into facts. Science is one of the few disiplines where beliefs are intensively attacked and tried to be proven false. This is one of the most significant ways that science diverges from religion.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[299824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
    Write-stuff, if I may gently and respectfully correct you, there is nothing "lightweight" about theory.

    I have heard people who are determined to attack the works of Darwin claim that "evolution is just a theory". In this case, the use of the word "just" reveals their misunderstanding of what a theory is. A theory is our best understanding, our most complete picture of how something works. It's the nearest thing to the "truth" that science can offer, but of course, we never declare it to be the truth because it's always subject to modification if/when new evidence is uncovered.

    I suspect that those people who say that "evolution is just a theory" are getting "theory" confused with "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a speculative statement and is often the starting point for an experiment -- for example, "I would like to hypothesise that the moon is made of green cheese...".
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[300322].message }}

Trending Topics