Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
If you hinge the quality of scientific thought on the conclusions (that they believe in some fundamental way the answers to questions about "scientific facts" as understood in a contemporary manner), then you've reduced science to something different than what it is often described to be.
This is troubling. I understand the distinction between science as a process or methodology versus conclusions. However, I would maintain that there are certain "facts" that if a person has failed to ascertain then we can conclude that they have failed in the use of the scientific method. Or, if a person holds a position which they claim is scientifically verified, and is obviously not true, we can conclude that they have failed to understand science.
For instance, a person holds some irrational belief as true even though some trivially easy test empirically disproves.
Say they believe that a tennis ball will never fall to the ground if thrown more than 5m directly upwards. We can be sure (by our own empiricism) that this claim can only come from a scientific failure.
Evolution is no doubt far more complex an issue but I think we can still conclude that if a person doesn't consider it to be the best/most likely truth of the process behind the diversity of life on Earth that at some point they have failed to grasp the evidence, methodology, or theory.
We can judge the quality of the science based on a conclusion insofar as that conclusion is demonstrably weak.