They seem to change their minds a lot. Does this make them hypocritical?
2007-03-08 16:15:08 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hardly! What it means is that they are open to change and admitting when a previously held theory was wrong. That's not hypocritical, that's the only way possible to learn. Instead of looking for new evidence to support old ideas, such as religion tends to do, science creates new ideas to match new evidence, refines the theory to explain the observations. Hypocrisy is clinging to old notions that contradict the evidence - the attitude that religion takes.
I find it quite amusing that Gary above has described the scientific method fairly well, changing theories and explanations to match the evidence but sees it as a weakness. Science has never claimed to have the ultimate explanation of the universe as religion does. Everything that science says is stated with the implicit preface "To the best of our knowledge at the present time..." That is humility, not hypocrisy! The religious attitude of "this is the way it is, no ifs , ands or buts..." is pure arrogance.
2007-03-08 16:28:26 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It just depends on what part of the scientific community or who in the community. I believe that just like in any group there are hypocritical people. It doesn't make everyone in that group that way. A stereotype of a scientist is that they all agree with liberal ideas. In the science community they are in the buisness of proving things, and sometimes they disprove things in the process.
2007-03-09 00:22:31 · answer #2 · answered by steffiegirl815 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's a difference between being hypocritical and changing one's mind. If someone is hypocritical they do something that they teach to be wrong. Changing your mind about what is right and wrong isn't the same thing.
2007-03-09 00:26:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anotherme 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hypocritical? No. As knowledge increases, science changes. But that's what makes science great: you always know that you're getting the best possible interpretation based on everything we know right now.
Besides, which would you rather? Something that will make a claim, have it proven wrong, and then admit its mistake and correct the error (science); or something that will make a claim, have it proven wrong, but NEVER admit its error and continue to use that incorrect explanation even hundreds of years later (religion)?
2007-03-09 00:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by . 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Scientific theory is based on the best evidence that has been found to date. Science changes as new discoveries are made. One thing for sure the scientific community is only interested in the truth. They can admit when wrong.
2007-03-09 00:20:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
If by "hypo-critical", you mean overly critical, then yes. The scientific community, unlike the religious community, is trying to describe the fine details of reality. Because the community is always learning new things about reality, sometimes assumptions or conclusions that were drawn have to be re-evaluated and re-stated based on new information. It's much easier for the religious community, who can just shout "YOU BURN IN HELL, SINNER!" every time their baseless assumptions are questioned.
2007-03-09 00:23:16 · answer #6 · answered by godlessinaz 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You say all apples are purple, because that's what someone tells you. Then you see a red apple, and you change your mind about the colors of all apples, and say some apples may not be purple, some may be red.
Does this make you hypocritical?
Now, imagine if you continued to say that all apples are purple after seeing a bunch of red ones, what words would you use to describe yourself, and how could you justify your statements?
2007-03-09 00:19:41 · answer #7 · answered by 006 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, they change as the evidence they observe changes. Creationists ignore evidence. The scientific community is full of all different kinds of scientists experimenting with different things. When one scientist finds evidence which a previous hypothesis or theory does not agree with, they will publish it in a scientific journal so that other scientists can conduct the same experiments. If it is obvious that the hypothesis does not agree with the evidence, they will discard it.
2007-03-09 00:17:56 · answer #8 · answered by funaholic 5 · 7⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between modifying a theory and "changing one's mind". A change of mind happens on a whim. The modification of a theory is exactly what I and other science-savvy people have been trying to teach you: All theories are subject to change pending new information.
It's religion that is set in stone. And therefore wrong.
2007-03-09 00:20:07 · answer #9 · answered by Scott M 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, if they did not change their minds a lot and claimed to be scientist, that would make them hypocritical.
2007-03-09 00:18:17 · answer #10 · answered by Radictis 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋