2 ms·
Just as importantly, science is always open to revision. You have to be careful how you use science in informing your morals for that reason. If in ten years,
by saalweachter 8y ago
Just as importantly, science is always open to revision. You have to be careful how you use science in informing your morals for that reason.
If in ten years, this research into animal sexuality was show to be falsified, misinterpreted, or just not representative of a wide range of nature, would you then decide human homosexuality is morally wrong?
That's the real risk of taking something which should be more of a moral axiom and claiming it derives from science and nature; you risk having it overturned in the future.
- d0mine 8y ago> "science open to revision" It doesn't mean that you can't make statements that are always true (today, tomorrow, in a hundred years, etc). Once something is discovered and we understand the limits of the model, it is true forever e.g., Newton's laws under appropriate assumptions (not too fast, not much mass).
- majewsky 8y agoYeah, but most social sciences are nowhere near the standards that physics imposes on what it holds to be true. That's not a flack. It's inherent to the nature of the social sciences. Since every individual is part of a complex social system, it's incredibly hard to make repeatable experiments to test assumptions in the same way that physicists do every day for breakfast.
- d0mine 8y agoIt doesn't matter how complex a studied phenomenon; if proper methods are not used, it is not science. Both astrology and astronomy can study the same stars -- the difference is in methods they use (and only one is science).