quote:If we’re talking abut the meaning of life then science can be informative but it is just one tool of many, equally valid ones like faith, love and direct experience, but when we’re talking about trying to predict and manipulate the physical world, I think that science is our best bet. It certainly has got by far the best success rate. […Carl Sagan quote…] So I’m not worshiping at the altar of science, I’m just saying, that it has got by far the best track record for figuring out what happened, what is happening and what is going to happen in the physical world.
Do you agree with this? Is science good enough at revealing the physical world, the way it was, is, and will be, or do we need, for that activity in particular, to use more tools? If so, which ones?
quote:It’s a well established psychological phenomenon, and it’s in fact entirely human, to start out with your beliefs and then go looking for the evidence to support them. The problem is, we tend to forget we’re simply not going to hear the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. I mean, who wants to be shown that they’re wrong? Formally that phenomenon is called Confirmation Bias.
How much do you think that scientific activity is affected by this “entirely human” bias? What do you do when you think that some scientific conclusion was affected by it? Is there a feasible way to eliminate that effect entirely (in science)? Do the mechanisms already in place in the scientific community do a reliable job of it, or do we have to just partially trust them and always question the scientific results?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
