Insight Regarding The History Of Scientific Discoveries

"Science is a slow, methodical process of testing hypotheses and forming conclusions, but occasionally, a mind comes along that leapfrogs the entire scientific community. And even though they are right, it might take years, decades, or even centuries for their ideas to be accepted. Here are 10 examples of scientists the world wasn’t ready for."

Click on the link below for examples of significant scientific discoveries being initially ignored. If you are tempted to blame the scientific method for these oversights, it's really humanity's weaknesses:

10 Scientists Who Were Too Far Ahead Of Their Time

Only Science (Knowledge) Improves Science (Knowledge)

"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

The Essence Of Science In Less Than 5 Minutes

 "Are UFOs actually alien spacecraft visiting Earth? They might be, says Neil deGrasse Tyson, but if you want to make that claim you better bring the evidence to support it. Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence. To measure what is true or not true in the world, we require data -- and when it comes to alien appearances, it's as astronomer Carl Sagan said: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' So what can you do to prove your alien abduction story? Take selfies, live-stream video to the internet, and if you happen to find yourself in a spacecraft getting your 'gonads poked', then grab an item from the alien lab as evidence before they release you back on Earth."

This applies no matter if the claim involves religion, alternatives to medicine, conspiracy theories, or any other pseudoscience. Click on the link below for the conciseness and wisdom of Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Want to prove aliens exist? Do this

Naturalism, Supernaturalism, And Presuppositions

Theists challenge atheists with the claim that all people have presuppositions, which are assumptions made in advance and taken for granted. Is this true? Let's take a look at the actions of religious apologists: they assume that there is a supernatural, a God, spiritual beings, and miracles. Unfortunately for them, there is no objective evidence for any of it. In comparison, science and its methods make NO assumptions and only accept claims with sufficient supporting objective evidence. Most atheists with whom I have been in contact are science-based thinkers like myself. Click on the link below for clarity regarding how science works:

" - - - Science, at least ideally, is committed to the pursuit of truth about the nature of reality, whatever it may be, and hence cannot exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori, be it on methodological or metaphysical grounds, without artificially limiting its scope and power. Hypotheses referring to the supernatural or paranormal should be rejected not because they violate alleged a priori methodological or metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific enterprise, but rather because they fail to satisfy basic explanatory criteria, such as explanatory power and parsimony, which are routinely considered when evaluating claims in science and everyday life. Implications of our view for science education are discussed."

Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)?

Scientific Activity

I have noticed some confusion regarding the activities within science that can foster doubt in the minds of the public regarding its value. I am going to attempt to clarify these activities to promote a better understanding and appreciation of science and to counter pseudoscience in all of its forms.

Science Is Not Afraid Of Being Wrong, But Some Scientists Are

"Hawking’s humility and graciousness would be rare in any age, but particularly at a time when conceding even the slightest error is viewed as a weakness to be derided and exploited. As key scientific fields like climate change and vaccinations become politicized, this kind of rigidity also infects how we do and don’t discuss them. Public-facing scientists become reluctant to concede uncertainty about data for fear that the admission will undermine funding and support for their research. The result: well-intentioned intellectuals who feel obligated to present science as a series of truths not to be argued or doubted.

"If Hawking’s life can teach anything to scientists, public intellectuals and social media users, it’s that humility and a willingness to change one’s mind are a sign of not weakness but an adventurous and intellectually engaged mind and polity. That’s a legacy as worthy as Hawking’s monumental scientific achievements."

Stephen Hawking taught us it was right to be wrong

An Example Of The Integrity Of Science

“The Nobel Prize is not given to the smartest person or even the one who makes the greatest contribution to science. It’s given to discovery,” said California Institute of Technology physicist Sean Carroll. “Hawking’s best theories have not yet been tested experimentally, which is why he hasn’t won a prize.”

Lack of evidence put Hawking’s Nobel hopes in black hole

The Scientific Method 101

"So what is the scientific method, and why do so many people, sometimes including those trained in science, get it so wrong?

"The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general."

Why People Get the Scientific Method Wrong

Magical thinkers like to challenge the statement that their claims have been "debunked" by science. Even some science-based thinkers challenge it. I say that many claims can be debunked if there is no evidence for such and all parts of it have been shown to be against known science. Yes, science can never “prove” anything but when you get such a low probability for a claim to be true, I think we can easily say it is debunked even though science is based on probability and not a certainty. This YouTube lecture of fewer than 40 minutes discusses this issue both from a scientific as well as a practical standpoint.