Additionally, "science" doesn't care if it gets proven wrong. (Well, "science" doesn't care about anything, it's an inanimate concept, but you know what I meant.) Being proven wrong and accepting that just means that the system is working.
Wrong. Science is the system you use to disprove or support a testable idea. If I tell you that my new drug can cause you to loose weight without exercise or dieting you can test it. Throw together a little double blind test and you'll come with evidence that supports or disproves my claim. If I say that 10% of all M&Ms are blue, you can test that with a little statistical analysis. If I claim I can speak in tongues, that is testable. You can record my utterances and then see if it conforms to the structure of some sort of language or if i am just randomly stringing together sounds.
Now if I claim that there exists a deity then you can't test it. Sure you can judge it by it's merits and internal consistency. Like how the FSM is a terrible deity because it's nothing more than a broken form of shamanism.
Science in its purest form, is the explanation for everything from how was the universe created? to why do people sleep? Human's have a quite good idea of how to test if something is science or not like the double blind trails you mentioned above. The invention of a new drug is not science it simply improves our scientific understanding
Science cannot be "proven wrong" because there is nothing to prove or disprove, it is a method of problem solving. However the ability to disprove individual scientific theories is a key part of the basic scientific reasoning.
Yes, ultimately the goal of science is to understand life, the universe, and everything but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the scientific process works. Science can only advance as far as we have the tools to measure the world around us.
Scientific theory is proven through processes that can be tested, measured, and, this is really important, are falsifiable. I don't mean falsifiable in the sense that they are "fake" I mean it in the sense that any theory of science can be disproven when provided with sufficient evidence. While theory has to be disproven through quantifiable evidence it also has to be proven through quantifiable evidence as well. "God made the earth" isn't a theory based on quantifiable evidence, it's an assumption.
I'll give a better example. Until the past few years, Science couldn't tell us exactly how a flea could jump so high. While the general mechanism behind it was understood, we didn't know how the flea implemented it. Did the flea jump from the tip of his back leg or from his 'knee'? It's not that we were too stupid to understand it, we just lacked a method of testing it. With the advent of better high speed cameras that could capture such small images, we learned that the flea jumps from the tip of it's legs and not from it's 'knees.'
I dunno about that. When Newton wasn't working on inventing calculus he was busy writing about the 'evils' of trinitarian thought and how his unitarian beliefs were were the way to go.
he spent most of his life working on the philosophers stone and turning lead into gold. No however he was living in a new Protestant Britain which allowed theories like this to be suggested and published
I remember when scientists could not understand how kangaroos could actually move. Something about the amount of energy they required coupled with their weight.
Basically they, at the time, said it was impossible for a kangaroo to jump.
At a basic level humanity has discovered that there are several laws that everything follows, we might not have discovered all these laws or how everything relates to them, but everything follows those rules
I picked up a book, Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku. I have yet to read it but I skimmed it a bit and he did make the point that if there are alternate universes and we dscover how to travel to them, then when this universe is dying we can just take a trip over and start up again. I don't know if he brings up the point that an alternate universe may have completely different laws of physics. Just how much worth would all our scientific understanding be in that case?
If alternate/parallel universes exist, almost everything goes out the window. God, Scientific method, even history to a point are all done away with. Parallel universes would be about as helpful as the Hawking's Black Hole Paradox.
As for history, I would argue that that is one subject that would remain intact. You would have to view it in '3D' rather than the 2D we look back on living in a single universe.
Stephen Hawking's Black Hole Paradox [which he has retracted] stated that black holes are constantly taking in any and all things that comes near them. BUT, he also stated that the black holes are emitting radiant heat. This, as Hawking agreed, would mean that at some point the black holes could deplete their energy (by releasing heat) and ultimately disappear with the information that they have consumed. Thus, if this were true, information would be constantly lost. We could never believe what we know, for we would never have all of the pieces to show our proof. This lack of certainty and stability would happen with Parallel Universes. There would be so many unknowns that it would be impossible to account for anything well enough to call it fact.
