Errr, actually “Yes”. We should stop automatically giving “science” a bye; it is not the world of rational observation, truth and logic it is purported to be.
“Science”, or merely an old language word meaning nothing more than “knowledge, as in a body of knowledge, a topic” has been inserted into our vocabulary as a false and misleading synonym for “scientific method” which is a rather rigorously tested method devised to prove or disprove things.
So, yes, science of today, a religious conviction held by untold million around the world to be the “be all and end all’ of knowledge or truth ( can you spell “god” ?) is a mislabeled perversion of the once honorable profession of a high and lofty manner of describing what one rationally, intentionally and critically observes, not what one feels or is persuaded.
Once, there used to be an argument regarding whether the “social sciences” were even qualified to be considered as “science” since the could not use the scientific method in most cases, but rather subjective responses from subject. Now, all we see is a subjective manner of “proving” whether a topic or premise is actually “true”- based on consensus or agreeable outcomes. Most scientists of today would be in the “flat world” camp compared to those who by repeatable observation based on a validated test method would conclude
the world is actually not flat; the political powers of the day notwithstanding.
Science is not rational nor logical as long as someone demands a certain outcome. Certainly, like statistics, one can manipulate the observed data and or devise a test methodology that proves a desired outcome. But that is not true science, “scientific method”, it is a manner of religion- an intentionally devised manner of putting certain things together to prove a point- not “analysis”, a manner of taking things apart to see the whole.
In real”science”, your results may not vary if the theorem is true. If the results vary based on the same test methodology, then the theorem is false- not true. You cannot change the test method nor the data and still call it “science”. It then becomes an “art” form- purely subjective and no longer deserving to be called science whatsoever.
Nice analysis there, Warrior. I enjoyed reading it.
I think it would be helpful for scientists to fess up to the statistically shaky ground of their predictions and “laws”.
Engineering, an applied science, is far more solid. Astronomy, anthropology, and long range climate prediction are far more prone to error and black swans — by untold orders of magnitude. Yet the people in those scientific pursuits do not acknowledge the leaps of faith made in these fields. Instead they hide the dirty truth from the public to keep their departments funded.
Weather forecasting is important, but prediction is very poor today. I did a little ad hoc study of predictions of North American hurricanes made by the NOAA and the University of Colorado. I discovered that 2 months before the start of the season, the scientists cannot reliably tell you how many hurricanes will occur. The average error rate is plus or minus 20%. And some years in the past 30, they were off by more than 100%.
Then there are the out and out charlatans. Stephen Hawking is the perfect example of a fraud posing as a scientist, though he’s clearly an expert at “hawking” his books and making people believe he’s a genius.
When I picked up a book he wrote for the layman, it was totally unintelligible. But how can you criticize him? He’s been given all sorts of awards. And he’s totally crippled. Don’t you know that blind and crippled people are savants?
Bottom line. The scientific professions need to totally flush out their charlatans. Some professions need to pack their bag and honestly admit they are occult sciences.
What can the public do to restore science to its proper, non-political role? Removing government subsidies and more privatization, I think.
Weather forecasting should be totally privatized. Let the insurance companies pay top dollar for breakthroughs in weather prediction. Probably some breakthroughs would be made. Competition brings out true innovation.