If science is so reliable, then why is it always changing?

Question

Suppose I talk to a priest who says X, and I talk to a scientist who says Y. The next week, I talk to the priest again, and he says X again; but when I talk to the scientist again, he says Z. Obviously, the scientist was either wrong the first time, wrong the second time, or wrong both times!

With that in mind, doesn't it make more sense to trust the priest, who is either right 100% of the time or wrong 100% of the time, than to trust the scientist whose ideas are always changing based on the evidence?

In other words, isn't someone's trustworthiness based on how often he changes his mind, rather than how much evidence is on his side?

Amen, Tribble. Religious leaders are inherently more reliable than scientists because (1) they appeal to someone who is the most reliable authority if he exists; and (2) they are either right all the time or wrong all the time, because the word of God is unchanging. Those are the only two things that matter, not the likelihood of being wrong vs. right.

Even if a priest is 10% likely to be right all the time and 90% likely to be wrong all the time, he is still better than a scientist, who is 0% likely to be right all the time, and 100% likely to be right only some of the time! Jesus was not a flip-flopper.

Skeptic, I do not believe that plants evolved from fish. That is called a "strawman fallacy", because I don't actually hold that view, and you are just trying to undermine my actual arguments by claiming that I have such a view. In reality, it's the evolutionists who claim that plants evolved from fish!

Answer 1

That's why science is reliable. The priest is saying what the scientist would have said 2000 years ago.
And science isn't about trusting specific scientists, it's about evaluating which theory best fits the data available. Logically, that theory is the most likely to be correct. Later, if more data become available, another theory may seem to fit better. That's not a flaw.
If you believe something that has no mechanism for change, then your belief can only be based on blind faith.

Answer 2

Why Is Science Always Changing

Answer 3

Hahahahahaha

Keep going, God Not Gravity, these questions are gems! Each new one is another floodlight on your ignorance, but they are entertaining. And as a poster-boy for unreason, you may be helping to *spread* science and critical thinking.

One of my favorite parts: "Religious leaders are inherently more reliable than scientists because ... they are either right all the time or wrong all the time..." In summary, even if they're wrong all the time, they're more "reliable" than scientists. Hahahaha. You're killing me!

{wiping the laughter tears away...} OK... Not that you really *care* (you've already made up your little mind) but the very fact that science has the flexibility to change and re-evaluate is the grand INDICATOR of its reliability. And the fact that much of religion stays stubbornly in the dark ages along with the pseudosciences of the times is one of the best indicators of its USELESSNESS, at least as far as error-correction goes.

Science is, by design, a self-correcting process. That is precisely its strength. Religion, whether by design or not, is more of a self-delusional process. (And I'm not talking about the existence of God; I'm talking about the ridiculous religious spin on well-established science, such as evolution, biology, geology, anthropology and cosmology.)

{whispering in your ear, so as not to cause you any extra humiliation} No evolutionist believes plants evolved from fish... just an example.

Did you ever stop to think that often the reason a person (such as your example priest) says X one day and X another is that he doesn't make the effort to check and see if he's right?? You see this here at Yahoo! Answers all the time. Opinions, beliefs, hearsay and feelings are considered facts to some people. They're so certain (or so mind-numbingly indoctrinated) that they never bother to learn how wrong they are.

Science DOES bother. Nothing is considered fact without the most rigorous examination -- vastly more than *you* require, obviously, to be cocksure of *yourself.* In science nothing is even labeled a theory without its ability to explain a large body of empirical evidence, and to be tested, and to predict future observations.

For your information, what changes all the time (again, by design) are hypotheses -- not theories, and certainly not facts. A hypothesis is, after all, an early part of the scientific method; a tentative explanation for something which is then tested by experimentation and more observation.

If you knew enough about it to give an intelligent criticism, you'd know that science is ACTUALLY interested in the truth the way you arrogantly seem to THINK you are. If you were really interested in the truth, you'd have great *respect* for science.

It's clear that you have your pet beliefs (which is fine) and will go as far as making yourself look ridiculous to defend them (which is really kind of sad).

I don't fault you for letting fear rule your thinking -- fear of no afterlife, fear of hell, or whatever. The fears are understandable. I fault you for your stubborn, pontifical refusal to let *thinking* people think and learn and teach and spread reason.... to let those of us *sincerely* interested in truth live our lives without your insidious dogma buzzing around like a gnat.

The hubris and hypocrisy of people like you amazes me to the point of near speechlessness. You find (or invent) fault in an endeavor which *serves* those who seek the truth -- by the testing and re-testing of ever-changing hypotheses -- and simultaneously throw yourself at the altar of one which does NO such self-examination and says, "just believe." If science *weren't* so careful and rigorous, THAT would be your complaint. The difference is, then you'd *have* something. As it is, I can't tell whether you're an idiot or just a very stubborn, scared, delusional person.

I'm curious, by the way, do you, um, believe in gravity?

Answer 4

The scientist gets closer and closer to the truth, just because he says Z, doesn't mean Y is completely wrong.

Real life example: Newton says F=ma, this is accepted for a few hundred years. Einstein realises that this won't work at light speed and makes the correction F=y^3*ma (where y is the Lorentz factor). At school we still use newton's version as it is an easier approxiamtion at lower speeds.

This process of checking and examination ensures that the right answer is eventually obtained, this is called being skeptical.

Throughout this, there is no way to test X, hence it may be right, it is more likely to be wrong, and even once the scientist has Z, X will still be wrong.

Answer 5

because we discover each day something new if the scientist is right the second time after more research and priest is wrong
he will be rong the second time the third time and so on because he never tries to discover and just says the same thing like a broken record
that's the great thing about science it constantly evolves instead religion is at a stand still for century's

Answer 6

The scientist is right because all the new evidence piling up will eventually lead to a conclusion, and the priest is still 100% wrong.

The scientist will take what he can from modern ages, while the priest is trying to base off of texts too old to even sound logical in the slightest. (Any ship that can carry two of every animal certainly wouldn't be wooden, and any guy who tries to locate two of every animal would be dead before he was finished).

Check this picture out: http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png

Answer 7

Science is based on evidence and data. When better evidence and data becomes available science will adopt it. Compare that to religion. Religion is based on faith and doctrine. Evidence may or may not matter to religion. Data may be ignored by religion. Facts are of secondary importance to religion. An idea can become a religious "truth" simply because the right person says so.

See the difference? Science has to justify itself and is forever subject to scrutiny. Religion makes it's own rules and you can take it or leave it.

Answer 8

Wow. Did you know once they thought the earth was flat? And then they thought it was round? Turns out they were both wrong - it's an oblate spheriodal. But thinking it was round was MUCH closer than thinking it was flat. And what does you bible say? Flat. Yep. Good thing that never changes, huh?

Yeah, evidence is on the side of science. Get it straight - or put down the computer and the cell phone - hey, 50 years ago your priest would have said they don't exist, so he still must be right, huh?

Answer 9

Honey, to be changing in time is a specific trait of science. Science does not produce eternal truths as religion pretends to do, but relative "truths". To be more precise "truth" isn't a scientific category at all. Science produces models of "reality" which can be proven, disproven and/or modified. If new facts arise in the course of time a theory - a model of "reality" - is challenged by them and has to be proven against them. If this challenge has a negative outcome, this theory will be dropped or modified. If the outcome is positive, the theory has been proven again. Theories are characterized by their ability to be checked and thereby to become more and more adaquate models of reality. Truth however never is and never will be an objective of science. Truth is to be left to religions and theologies.

Answer 10

Hypotheses change as the evidence shows results that either prove the hypothesis or disprove it. It's a good thing that it changes. It means it's more reliable because it's not just their best guess; it's their best guess proven out with results that can be duplicated by other scientists.