Why is the scientific method flawed?

Question

Hint: "Quality"

Answer 1

What is called sicence is limited to one domain, the material which doesn ot explain the foundation of itself which is beyond it.
What is called science is settling for less and yet professing it as all or more than it is, it is not all. We are subjective agents running scared, finding solace in objective things, outside of ourselves, while what rtakes place within us is of infinitely more worth and what the objective exists for the sake of.We exist so that we may think, experience, feel, know, we do not think ,feel ,experience ,know so that we may exist. One is prior top the other and we have it backwards. But there is a reason for that, it is because it is helpful and yields results we can use, that is fine but it has made us to confuse what is prior.
So in one sense the problem is not the method, it works. The problem is our valuation of it and forgetting of oursleves and worshipping that aspect of reality which is but the husk, because of its help to us. If we could balance that problem then we would be in better shape and philosphy would be given its proper due. As for now we are like kids bewitched by magic of the town magician or sorcerer who can dazzle our senses. The body cannot explain existence, it is a result of it.

Answer 2

It is not so much flawed as it is limited. Also, today it is not being used very much which is why our science is so terrible sometimes. Its limitations are in the fact that we cannot empirically test certain phenomena which we must come into contact with. Furthermore, even what we suppose is an empirical test (experiment) is limited by what we assume we know. These facts lead some people to question whether or not certainty or absolutes exist. Of course, they cannot empirically test that either. Oh bother.

Answer 3

Flawed in what way? "Quality" what quality? You need some definitions. The quality of the results? the quality of the scientific approach? the quality of its logic? the quality of its predictability?What?
Flawed; as in unreasonable results? Flawed as in the scientific approach etc. Or is it flawed in its rejection of sky fairy?

Answer 4

Proving things in the spirit, which is invisible and eternal, is beyond the capacity of sceince which can only assess and measure things that are natural, tangible and bound by time.
Science can never prove that God does not exist although it may say it cannot find God which is true as God is in another realm altogether, immeasurable, inaccessable and incomprehensible to it..

Answer 5

I assume you mean relative to truth?

Because science is conditional truth, not truth.

Science is based on the tautology 1=1, yet science cannot prove 1 (humans can only perceive and communicate generalizations).

The limitation is not really with science so much as it is the innate, unavoidable limitation of man.

-Aztec276

Answer 6

Science may be flawed in some manner. But thus far is the best way for us to explain nature.

Answer 7

because most 'scientific' thing are proven by a method that is parallel with religion. islam thought their believers to integrate the teaching in islam with science. other religions do not tell their believers to separate science with religion teachings. so when people dont believe in God or religion, that's when science go wrong...

Answer 8

I think that each person adds their own style to what they do so this causes the changes.

Answer 9

I disagree it's our best test yet. you can flaw anything you wish but some scientists still have integrity to acheive their best.

Answer 10

because generally it requires non-intimate detachment from the 'observed'... but only generally... not explicitly.