Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[Maxwell.]

if I was made of strings then why am I not all tangled up

science has a lot of explaining to do.

[Ad Bot]

[Red Spy]

Depends really on what type of science it is, the only thing I would deem untrustworthy though is all the theories out there about some really stupid stuff.

Like what?
Not to fault you or anything, but "theory"
has a different meaning in science than it does in everyday usage

[Georges]

Excluding simple things that anyone can tell are true (for example, 2x2=4), science cannot truly prove things. Does that mean that what we know about certain things is incorrect? No! But that's exactly what scientists years ago thought on theories which have since been shown to be incorrect.

What I'm saying is that no, its not entirely trustworthy. Any theory or law can theoretically be overturned by new evidence.

[Ipquarx]

Excluding simple things that anyone can tell are true (for example, 2x2=4), science cannot truly prove things. Does that mean that what we know about certain things is incorrect? No! But that's exactly what scientists years ago thought on theories which have since been shown to be incorrect.

What I'm saying is that no, its not entirely trustworthy. Any theory or law can theoretically be overturned by new evidence.

You have to be careful there, because even 2x2 can be something completely different under different mathematical rules.
You're really misunderstanding the point of science as a whole though. The point of science is to find the best explanations we can find for how reality works through an unbiased and impartial scientific process, not to prove something with 100% certainty but with as high probability as we as fallible humans can manage.

[Georges]

You have to be careful there, because even 2x2 can be something completely different under different mathematical rules.
You're really misunderstanding the point of science as a whole though. The point of science is to find the best explanations we can find for how reality works through an unbiased and impartial scientific process, not to prove something with 100% certainty but with as high probability as we as fallible humans can manage.

well if that's the case, it's still untrustworthy, because we don't know what we don't know.

Also 2x2 was just an example.

[Maxwell.]

2x2 is 2.

[Darryl McKoy]

well if that's the case, it's still untrustworthy, because we don't know what we don't know.

Trust is a completely subjective measure anyway, this is a bit of a silly question.

[pch]

Trust is a completely subjective measure anyway, this is a bit of a silly question.

But we debate things like the legality of abortion and same love marriage, and those are both subjective as well

[Darryl McKoy]

But we debate things like the legality of abortion and same love marriage, and those are both subjective as well

That's a lot more specific than asking if science is trustworthy. Science is not something you can treat as a single thing that either should or should not be 'trusted'

[Plethora]

Science should not be trusted implicitly, but scrutinized carefully.  How many times has it been, "We have it 100% right this time for sure." only to have that new fact be overturned in the presence of new evidence or data.  Take cholesterol for example; dietary bad cholesterol is supposed to be the big factor in heart disease, but now it turns out that a big majority of bad cholesterol is produced by your body based on your genetics (not to say that diet doesn't play into heart disease) so eat all the egg yolks you want.  That's not to say what science tells us can simply be discarded altogether, but you should be very guarded against founding beliefs on science that isn't extremely well established.

[Darryl McKoy]

How many times has it been, "We have it 100% right this time for sure."

Since the establishment of modern scientific standards, never

[Ipquarx]

well if that's the case, it's still untrustworthy, because we don't know what we don't know.

Also 2x2 was just an example.

We actually do know what we don't know. For example, what is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe? We don't know. Is gravitational forces delivered via particle or some other means? We don't know. Is there a better set of laws for reality than the ones we currently have? We don't know. The thing about the scientific method that makes it trustworthy in the first place is its unbiased and impartial nature. If you honestly can't trust science then you can't trust anything, because everyone could be wrong about everything all at the same time. It's possible!

[AutoBahn]

personally, science has gone too far,,,,,,

[Maxwell.]

personally, science has gone too far,,,,,,

wtf? we have not even been to mars yet, it has not been that far.

[Plethora]

unbiased and impartial nature

Done by humans?  Bah!