At best, science is nothing more than the closest correlation known between natural phenomenon.
Yet many assume that science is law; that science is without bias or error. They assume this to be so since that is how science is portrayed in most schools and universities. Once scientists speak, alternate theories or ideas are to be cast aside -- they are now archaic and foolish.
But such is not science. Science proves nothing, and so must be always open to retesting of old theories. Science is never settled -- in spite of what Al Gore states.
Consider a tool used in scientific investigations: statistics. There are two layers to statistics, there is probability and there are statistical equations.
The concept of probability is still open to debate -- learned and reasonable minds do not agree on what constitutes a true probabilistic statement. Yet scientists (as well as many others) plug datasets into statistical equations and claim the results to be truth.
However, this is akin to entering an address into the name field of a computer program and claiming that, since the program didn't error, what you entered must be a name.
Just because the equation, program, or model can process the data, does not mean the results are true.
Consider this syllogism: All readers of this blog are Steelers fans. You are a reader of this blog, Therefore, you are a Steelers fan.
The syllogism is correct as far as logic is concerned -- the conclusion follows from the major and minor premises. But the major premise is likely not true -- I'm almost certain that at least one reader of this blog is not a Steelers fan. If the major premise is not true, there is no way to claim that the conclusion is true (based on the major premise, of course).
Logic works, but does not always provide conclusions that are true -- meaningful in a real world sense.
Once you go beyond the trivial, science isn't even close to being settled (true science, that is). And the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
Earlier this year, Jym Ganahl (a trusted, local meteorologist and TV weatherman) spoke at a meeting I attended. He noted that, as a group, meteorologists do not support the supposed science of human-induced global warming. Oh, sure, climate is changing -- it always is. But there is no proof that man is causing that change.
The global warming debate is not settled -- sorry Al. Although the climate change debate is settled -- our climate is changing, it always is.
Finally, a letter in today's edition of The Columbus Dispatch claimed that science is truth -- and this coming from a writer who identified herself as a former scientist. When you read such nonsense, consider Hawking. Science can never define truth. Never.
Note to my Christian brothers and sister: There is only one Truth, and it is found in the Bible. Do not be taken in by the allure of science (or, as FA Hayek termed it, scientism). Science is not truth. And that is a statement that any good scientist (typically defined as a scientist that is not dependent on the state for funding and support -- he who pays the piper ...) would accept.
Note: Read Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, FA Hayek, Richard von Mises, Ludwig von Mises, et al, to enrich your understanding of science. At a later time, I will address the apriori sciences. From these, truth can be ascertained -- truth that is supported by the Bible, of course.
PS: Since I am my own editor, I tend to revise posts after some time and thought. As someone born in Pittsburgh, it is really hard for me to write Steelers fan instead of Steeler fan. If you are from western PA, you would understand.