"The only truth is science"
Oh yeah? Then why is science always being forced to admit that the 'facts' it told last week were lies? For example, one year Pluto is a planet, the next year Pluto is not a planet. One year Brontosaurus is a dinosaur, the next year Brontosaurus is not a dinosaur, and the next year Brontosaurus is a dinosaur again! Those are just two out of countless examples.
The irrefutable fact is that 'science' is constantly changing its malarkey stories, and if those stories were true facts rather than malarkey fabricated stories in the first place, it would be impossible for them to change.
22 comments
Pluto's status has nothing to do with facts, it's question of definitions. if we kept the old definition of planet, not only Pluto be a planet, we would've add dozens more (if not hundreds).
facts doesn't change, improvement in methods and technology allow us to refine measurement or discover new facts. then, we revise the theories so the account for all the facts. that result in much better understanding than any other system.
OK, let’s say you have two pupils, both starting school with the same level of knowledge.
One of these students soon realizes that she doesn’t know everything and that much of what she thinks she knows, is wrong. So she makes an effort to learn as many new things and correct as many of her misconceptions as she can.
The other one starts thinking that he already knows everything and that everything he knows is 100% correct. So he makes no effort whatsoever to learn anything new or to challenge the things he thinks he knows.
What do you think, which one of the two will be more successful?
Another version of Kuno's question:
You're driving in an unfamiliar area. You're following directions you read in a WPA book written in 1937, and realize that you're lost. Do you just continue along the road and hope you'll end up at your destination, ignoring the fact that the book is outdated? Or do you acknowledge that the area has changed, the directions are wrong and try to determine the correct route?
Hint: intelligent people recognize when new information makes it practical to change a theory or procedure. Only an idiot has the same ideas at 60 that they had at 20.
"Then why is science always being forced to admit that the 'facts' it told last week were lies?"
Well, it's because science lets us learn new information, and corrects itself when needed. Your bible, on the other hand, (theoretically) hasn't been updated since the bronze age, even though we've learned how wrong it is.
Then why is science always being forced to admit that the 'facts' it told last week were lies?
It's not a lie if it's not being used to deceive people. Scientific ideas change when new information is found, but that doesn't mean scientists are lying to people.
Pluto is still there, same size, same orbit. What's changed is a WORD DEFINITION, dingbat! That doesn't mean the SCIENCE has changed! (Oh, sorry, but idiots like this make me want to scream.)
They never admitted that they were lies, just that they weren't entirely correct beforehand, so they had to change definitions and discard what was previously thought to be true when new research contradicts it. Science's honesty is emphasised by its ability to root out the frauds and alter its hypotheses and theories when new evidence comes to light; a massive contrast from religion which refuses to buckle from its key tenets when they're shown to be flawed. We have seen the progress from science through this ability, as greater understanding has been made possible because of it. Besides, despite there being the occasional mishap, never has a theory as well supported as evolution had to be overturned in modern times and it is only getting stronger.
"Then why is science always being forced to admit that the 'facts' it told last week were lies?"
When "science" (which is apparently all one entity that also encompasses changes of definitions) admits the facts it stated last week are incorrect, that is not because some unrealistically-bright creationist proved that they were lying to you last week. That is because, as they continued doing their thing and found more evidence for something, a more complete and correct picture is available this week. They do not claim to know everything, if anything they admitted that, yes, whatever they're discovering today might end up being disproven a week from now as more and better evidence is found.
See, there's a difference between making false assumptions based on the current evidence at hand (and being willing to admit you made a false assumption if/when it turns out to be false) and flat-out lying. If scientists were lying to you they would have kept up with discredited notions like the Earth being flat or the center of the universe, ignoring later evidence to the contrary and silencing any and all fringe scientists and critics saying otherwise.
Sounds a little familiar, doesn't it? Replace "discredited notions like the Earth being flat or the center of the universe" with "unprovable theories like a God creating everything in a week" and you've got the average creationist scam artist.
@ Kuno
What do you think, which one of the two will be more successful?
Ray Comfort/Ken Ham. Multimillionaires.
Yes, science does change its theories when new information comes in. That is its strength.
If nothing is capable of changing your mind in the face of new information, then you follow a dogma, not science, and a worthless one at that.
@Philbert McAdamia
@ Kuno
What do you think, which one of the two will be more successful?
Ray Comfort/Ken Ham. Multimillionaires.
- Outliers. Or in at least Ray’s case, outright liars.
- Success in this case was meant to mean “success in school, i.e. grades”
Science doesn't lie. Science reports what is currently known, probable, suspected or possible. When it is found to be wrong, it changes accordingly. It is religion that lies as it is religion that claims to already have all the answers. It is religion that claims its teachings are the divine word of the creator of all things and thus cannot -- will not -- purposefully change them. The words can never be wrong so instead the interpretations must be changed and amended and expanded until every single letter of every single word has its own dictionary of definitions and interpretations. And yet the moment it's convenient, the very people doing these 4D mental gymnastics immediately return to a starkly literal reading.
In short, it's only a lie if you know better as you're speaking it and all of this is just another example of of a zealot accusing others of the sin of being what the zealot, themself is.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.