I agree that the public is largely unaware of what science entails and what it has to offer. I also understand that you cannot prove anything unless it is in a restricted framework (e.g. an axiomatic system of logic like math). However science (as in a rigorous scientific method) is the best tool that we have in providing the most persausive evidence to believe a hypothesis, IMHO. There is of course the danger of bad science, poorly controlled experiments and narrow minded data analysis where an outcome is attributed to one variable when it is really caused by another. Or extending the results of an experiment and its supporting conclusion too far into other systems where it does not apply. This is how many misconceptions originate, sometimes extremely dangerous misconceptions. And then there is the dreaded psuedo-science, where someone (usually woefully underqualified) boldly asserts that one piece of scientific evidence implies something completely different (usually to sell a new product) and never bothers to actually test the new hypothesis. This brings to mind things like colliodal silver and all of the untested miracle cures.
post #91 of 96
12/27/08 at 1:35am