"So today we're going to look at examples of this in action: cases where sound science had been accepted, and then new data and new discoveries upended work that had been considered solid yesterday, and thus improved our knowledge of the world. Some look at this constant improvement as proof that the very scientific method itself is hopelessly flawed, with the view that if science was wrong yesterday then it's wrong today, therefore anything coming from the scientific method is by definition untrustworthy, and that we should turn instead to intuition, to the metaphysical, to the spiritual. Well, that perspective is half right. They are right in observing that much of what we know now is likely to be improved, but they are wrong in believing that it's best to leave that path and go instead in the opposite direction."
Anti-Science/Magical Thinkers like to point to science's "mistakes" to discredit it. First of all, most of such are not really "mistakes" but additions to prior knowledge. Second, what other epistemology is more likely to determine what is true? Click on the link below for examples of these "mistakes:"
The Day Science Was Overthrown
No comments:
Post a Comment