Science is not like a religion but surely acts like it sometimes. For example the tradition of tenured professors is much like religion since nobody can dethrone them unless they die. Another example is that academic institutions and academic circles are sometimes so closed, reinforcing peer review on each other than nothing can shake their foundations.
Also religion does evolve. This is how you get heresies.
That is an issue with people, not with science. There are scientific heretics too, but they have to produce proof to get recognised. The scientific world has issues, but it's given us the world we have now. Politics and entrenched ideas can hold up progress. Nobody is perfect
Doesn't science consist of people, though? It's a man made concept.
Of course it is, but the whole peer review system is intended to remove personal bias. Nothing is perfect, but I think most scientists are driven by a desire to understand how things work. They have to be prepared to be wrong.
What if all the peer reviewers have the same bias?
Science = the scientific method. The scientific community = people. Those two things are not remotely the same thing.
Νο, science has not given us the world we have now. That is an overgeneralisation. Much like you don't credit Science with Hiroshima and Nagasaki your should be similarly careful when crediting only the "wins".
Science and Religion and.... are tools used by people. Some use them good some not so good.
Well we wouldn't have the technology, food, healthcare, atchitecture... without science. It's not all good as it created weapons too. It's up to people to decide how to use them.
Sorry, not looking to argue. It's just that science seems to get dismissed by people who should know better
Yes but this science was also developed in monasteries from people who also believed in God. Most importantly they didn't only use the scientific method to produce what you see.
Most medicine and even chemical discoveries happened by accident, not because of planned scientific methods. Science should be addressed only when it is "scientific" not when people try to create something.
Indeed the term has been misused a lot and this is exactly why we see so many people confused. Debates are good. they help us learn.
My pet example is how the field of economics, which could be studied in a scientific way, has turned into a set of belief systems which are adhered to in a religious way; no amount of failed predictions is allowed to impact the entrenched theories, and other theories are seen as "evil". Reviews are done only within the specific economic church, because outsiders aren't considered "peers" but "lost sheep". I'm not just talking about main-stream economics here, it applies first and foremost to the economic theories defended religiously on Steemit.
yes. spot on @orcdu
I read an article that said a serious problem with peer review is that so few people do it, as it is basically volunteer basis. just another reason 'peer reviewed' study doesn't mean anything's been rigorously proven.
exactly. The circles they maintain is also worrying since a few people usually end up peer-reviewing each other