How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:05 (4392 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am going to respond to both your posts in one shot here.
> 
> I do not expect scientist to be more than human. I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't even expect them to give up on an idea without a fight. However, if a policeman(to use one of your examples) fires his weapon and kills a person mistakenly, he is held accountable for that action, so there is a very strong incentive for him to be certain of his actions. If the mistake was made in good faith, his career will continue unabated, otherwise, he is punished. Science, conversely, has no real accountability for its mistakes. A scientist that makes a mistake in good faith, should be able to continue his career unabated with a clean conscience. However, under the current system, as noted in the article that David linked, the scientist were not making mistakes in good faith. They were being sloppy and dishonest, and that dishonesty cost lives. Yet, no one will ever know who made the mistakes, and they will never be held accountable, even by their own community. 
> -This happens all the time in non-scientific areas. Did the fat cats in Wall Street all get hurt by the economic downturn? How about Blackwater? -In every field there will be immoral things done that slip through the cracks. Scientists who lied and will never work again:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk-^^^Just one famous example. -There is also a strong ethic in science TO take down someone else's ideas: The easiest way to get famous is to overturn an old theory. (Einstein & Newton.)-The instance of the Doctor's you're talking about here, says more about an overlooked area in regards to hospital ethics boards than anything else. Contrary to what you seem to think here, there ARE systems in place to handle these kinds of scenarios. Just like how sometimes we need to write a new law to handle a new crime, something similar will need to be done to handle other cases. A good malpractice lawyer should be able to tackle something. -> Secondly, there is a difference between my professional expectations of them and my personal expectations. In their personal lives, I do not care at all what they believe or what they think of any given theory or idea. However, scientist are quick to tout, just as you have done, how they follow the evidence and revise their theories and, yes, I absolutely expect them to live up to that in their professional lives. That is not demanding that they are more than human. That is recognizing that there job has a far reaching impact and that the fulfill the obligation that the job THEY CHOSE places on them. Nearly all other members of the community who impact the lives of the general populace are held accountable to some degree. How am I being untoward to expect that the same standard be applied to them? How much more so should I demand it when they actively and purposefully pursue political financial agendas? (Such as removing all but the theory of evolution from schools, or Dawkins own reason rallies and call to persecute anyone that shows any degree of faith that disagrees with his own.)-You seem to think that most scientists are intrinsically immoral... I just don't buy that. Yes, we should expect them to live up to what they were trained to do, but I'm not going to fault them for it when they fail. We're allowed to make mistakes, as you say, in good faith. -But how many cases of malfeasance actually exist?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"