Essay:Science doesn't know everything
|
This essay is an original work by Robdashu. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
Science, as “a body of knowledge”, does not know everything. But everything we know and use in daily life is known because of some variation of the “Scientific Method”. When cavemen we're learning to use fire, they were applying a crude version of the scientific method. Experiment, observe, re-experiment, construct theories, try more experiments,, eventually discover consistent traits and behaviors, and so on.
A key distinction is science as a “body of knowledge” or science as a process.
The phrase is often used to disparage the application of scientific methods to problems under discussion or analysis. The implication is that, because science does not have an answer already, any old thing can be made up as a causal factor, an influence, or the basis of: whatever.
Another implication is that, because science has not plumbed the depths of a subject and can’t explain all of its workings, science is deficient. The speaker often has a misshapen view of science as a fixed body of knowledge that is the “belief system” of scientists and scientific types. In fact science is made up of many theories that can be questioned. Some are not often questioned, but, if new evidence came to view, would be considered for revision, if facts should dictate.
See Scientific Method See Thomas Kuhn See **************