If Phrenology isn't true, how can science be true?

Question

Didn't "scientists" used to think phrenology was based on scientific evidence? So why is it some people won't allow Christianity to still affirm the sacred nature and authority of scripture, without accepting all the same assumptions as people who lived 2000 years ago?

People used to believe it was "real science." So even scientific views change, and what is considered empirical evidence can be subjective.

Answer 1

Ah, the flip-flop argument! Science invents the science of humours, then switches to the germ theory of disease. It creates alchemy, then transforms it into chemistry. It converts astrology to astronomy. And it's always fiddling with the "laws" of physics.

Look at it another way. Science learns from its mistakes and changes to improve its understanding. Scripture never changes so it never learns from mistakes.

Answer 2

Whats next, you're going to bring up alchemy as an example also. Someone already pointed it out but here it goes: It was a bloody pseudo-science.

And even if some people believed it to be 'real' science you do know that in the scientific world when something is found to be wrong it's discarded unlike religion where it clings on to every last bit of scripture.

Answer 3

Science is a self-correcting system - pseudosciences or scientific errors are soon pointed out as wrong, sometimes by the same scienists who came up with the idea.

Religion, OTOH, has no such mechanism; regardless of facts, it insists on sticking to errors until even the most idiotic cannot deny them - though there are still fundamentalists who do. Scripture had no testing, and was simply a bunch of mystic claims mixed in with absurd stories - there is nothing sacred or deserving of respect about it.

Answer 4

merely claiming that something is scientific does not make it so. some people today claim that there is scientific support for psychics and telepaths - but the evidence is far from unambiguous and leaves plenty of room for doubt. in any case, scientists care little for absolute truth - theories are held to be "true" to the extent that they describe and explain physical evidence, and no more. it is always possible in principle for new experiments to show that theories are wrong, or at least, scientists should hope so. but when certain theories (for instance, evolution) have been tested for many decades and passed every test, it is just not useful to be too skeptical. it is often the case that mature theories are used to build further theories. the scientific process works imperfectly and ponderously because its practitioners are human, but it does work - get over it.

Answer 5

Yes, they mistakenly asserted that phrenology was a science- much like people have mistakenly asserted for centuries that there's a sky daddy paying attention to everything they do. Live outside the box! Your parents would be proud to know how well they indoctrinated you with their passed on, picked-over belief system.

Answer 6

Because...phrenology is an example of pseudoscience mixed with philosophy, and is more representative of the essential failings of human belief than of the scientific method...

Answer 7

The Christians called. They said they won't be answering your questions anymore if you keep using such big words.

The difference between science and religion:

When science changes, it's correcting itself.
When religion changes, it's succumbing to truth after a long refusal to accept it.

Answer 8

That ought to make 'em scratch their heads a bit!!

Answer 9

Keri , that is a ridiculous correlation and you know it.

Answer 10

People like you make me very sad.