As a professional scientist and volunteer science educator, I can attest to the validity of Kelric's concise, cogent remarks.
As others have already observed, science is fallible precisely because it is conducted by people, who are fallible and imperfect. When someone says he is being skeptical of science, though, what exactly is he skeptical of? Scientific conclusions? Collected data? The scientific method itself? The people who conduct it? Skepticism is inherent in the scientific method. Assertions must be supported by evidence, and the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence is usually required.
Peer review is generally conducted by people in the author's field but not in their institution. I have reviewed scientific papers for journals, and hold them to the same standards to which I hold my own work, and that of my students. When I submit papers for publication, I expect (and generally receive) the same in return. Occasionally I see a bit of "field bias", when my paper is reviewed by someone outside my field who misunderstands my methods or even goals, but this has been readily resolved by my supplying additional explanations.
Yeah, I meant to post here at some point today at least a comment of similar content: That while science might be falsifiable and contains within it a self-checking mechanism, the problem (to borrow a line from The Matrix) is people. We're the weakest link in the chain.
For an example, consider the whole concept of getting one's scientific discoveries out there. Typically you have to get published (and, before that, funding); and those gateways are controlled by people who might have a vested interest in the status quo, or who have strong opinions without wanting to entertain others, or do not have the knowledge/truth properly 'framed/contextualized", etc.
The problem here is that funding decisions are frequently made by people who are not scientists and have neither understanding of nor respect for scientific integrity and methodology. They fund what will get them reelected, or promoted; the politically correct approach, or what they think will make them money, or at least run the least risk of leaving them looking like an idiot should it fail (or perhaps succeed).
Inherent assumptions made:
1) There is an objective truth out there
2) "science" seeks and "finds" them
Are 5 apples and 5 apples irrefutably 10 apples? Doesn't the result inherently depend on the counting process? How does one separate the counting from the result? You have to have rules, like "the five apples in one set have to be different from the five apples on the other set" and so on.
I would say "the scientific process comes up with concepts and those concepts can be very reliable" rather than "science is infallible".
There are at least some objective truths out there, and discovering them is the goal of science. Subjective truths are left to other disciplines. As for measurement, like your counting example, there are rules for this. One is to control all variables other than that whose effect you are measuring. If unintentional double-counting is a possibility, the experiment must be (re)designed to exclude that, or the analysis must somehow account for it. This is a real issue in some experiments. Finally, the scientific process comes up with theories (concepts) that are very predictive of reality. When reality shows us something outside the prediction, or theory, it is time to expand or revise the theory. Often, the old theory still has much utility. Quantum mechanics built upon classical mechanics to provide a more complete description of the world, but classical mechanics is still all we need to send a spacecraft to Mars.
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...eutrinos-traveling-faster-than-light-not.html
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php
I think this sort of things happens with relatively somewhat often. I remember there was something a few years ago that was similar, but I don't remember the details.
The example described in these articles is a good illustration of what happens when results contradict an accepted theory. We check results, repeat the experiment, then reexamine the theory. In this case, this analysis revealed a flaw in the experiment. This doesn't prove the speed of light is an absolute limit, it just means the present experiment did not demonstrate otherwise.
Its my impression as an onlooker and I dont want to sound anti-american that religion and science and some sort of egoistical proft-oriented pragmatism are kinda mixed up here. I myself always had America as a sort of rolemodel for me, but when I heard that americans think nuclear power is the best energy source we have, that climate change has become a nagging feeling that one has to ignore so it doesnt bug, because it cant be proven and that creationism is an equally valid theory like darwinism, I dunno: my scientific respect began to stumble.
Then again maybe I am wrong and exactly the basic openess to even the most unrealistic theories is what the real scientific method is about.
You are, unfortunately, quite correct in your assessment. It is one thing to be open to even the most unrealistic theories, and quite another to fail to subject them to critical analysis. If Americans are good at the former, we are poor at the latter. I am not sure Americans overall think nuclear power is the best energy source we have. A more common attitude seems to be to cling to fossil fuels for as long as we can, because developing renewable resources will cost money, and no one wants higher energy prices or taxes. The oil companies, of course, encourage that thinking, since renewable energy would be a serious long-term competitor, never mind that their current business model is ultimately doomed by the finiteness of the global oil supply. As for the creationists, they still have surprising sway in the technology-ridden 21st century. I could carry on for paragraphs about this, that is almost another thread (think there may be one already).
As others have said, science is founded on the idea of falsifying. Not declaring any truth. It has no viewpoint to even question. One can only question it's findings.. and any scientist would tell you that's fair game. They even welcome it. It makes science, and the world even, better when you do. But if you don't, and simply criticize, then that's the only reason why you might make enemies in those communities. And it's not because of opposing ideology. It's because you're being stupid.
This is correct. We welcome questioning and even criticism, when it has some facts and logic behind it. But if all you say is "you're wrong", with no evidence or explanation of how and why, you look stupid and are not being constructive. If your reasoning is based on something like the Bible or a tarot reading, well -- you look willfully ignorant.
For instance, the science of archeology has questioned the Old Testament, and Israeli archeologists have found the Exodus never occured. And if the Exodus, a foundation story of the Old Testament, never occured, then Moses never occured. And so most of the Old Testament never occured. And as Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ never occured. And this is not only true for Christianity, it is true for the Book of Mormon and many other religions.
So no wonder the believers want to question science. Science has successfully questioned their beliefs and they want to turn the tables.
There still might have been a historical Moses, and Jesus, and all the others, who perhaps didn't do all the great deeds described in the Bible. It doesn't matter, though. The truth in those stories lies not in their historical veracity, but in their lessons, much like Aesop's fables. Unfortunately this is not enough -- or perhaps too much -- for many believers to appreciate.