Statement of absolute fact? A team of Chinese scientists has made a dating methods but how do they know those methods are correct? By definition, the method extrapolates past history from data but how can it be sure the method has no anomalies? By their own parameters, believing what they believe to be accurate, yes, but in real terms – without having lived back then, how can they tell they’re absolutely in the right? Why not 37 500 000 years ago, because of the Reynolds’ bipolar linear flux effect, discovered in the year 2047?
Science presents itself as infallible, like a computer. But all of us on Windows know it’s anything but an accurate medium. There are serious blips in fact. Science says the biblical account is inaccurate. Firstly, how does it know that, using the word ‘know’ in its purist form? Why does Science refuse to admit the limitations of its method? Secondly, it’s bad science because one is attempting to date and the other is a mere fragment of evidence, along with all the others.
The reader might expostulate: “Stupid man, Higham. It’s been proved, hasn’t it?” Really? By whom? “By scientists, of course.” But it’s those very scientists who are being questioned. I posit that you believe, rather than know. Why do you believe? Because for sociological reasons you are predisposed to believe. It cuts both ways.
To paraphrase the words of Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, Science, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.’
Science journalists frequently state as "fact" what a true scientists states as a possible hypothesis. The journos also frequently ignore the complex bits of the science that justify the headline claim because either they don't understand it or they think their readers won't.
ReplyDeleteSome scientists present themselves as infallible but I don't think "science" as a whole does.
Yes, I hadn't thought about Science journos as such. That puts a different complexion on it.
ReplyDelete