Dredge writes:
Except when it comes to the Darwinian explanation for the history of life, which can't be questioned. Apparently, accepting a flawed theory is better than saying "We don't know."
Actually, all scientific theories are flawed in this manner.
And, yes, it is better to accept the flawed theories, in this manner, then saying "we don't know."
Because it leads to testing.
And the testing leads to better understanding.
This is the crucial point:
The 'better understanding' never, ever gets to "right" or "true" or anything like that.
It is always flawed. It will always be flawed.
It's just less-flawed.
This isn't a weakness in science. It's science's greatest strength - the ability to increasingly become 'less flawed.'
But, yes... no matter how 'less-flawed' it gets... it's always "flawed."
This is a strange concept, and not very intuitive.
It is extremely understandable to not incorporate it into your thinking immediately.
For some, it can take years to fully appreciate how this works - so your mistake is not to be blamed on you.
Here's a quote from an article also attempting to explain this same, strange concept:
quote:
...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov
Science isn't about "being right."
It's about making progress and doing whatever-possible to become "less wrong."
The reason is that we will never, ever know when or if "less wrong" will ever become "right."
There is no answer sheet to reality.
Every idea, every answer anyone ever comes up with - cannot be checked against some answer-sheet to know if it's actually "right" or just "less wrong than before."
Therefore, we are forever stuck in being "less wrong."
We will always be "flawed."