Double slit experiment - just bouncing particles?

That is not "debunking science", science a method.
If you want to show some scientific assumption is wrong, you would have to use the same scientific method to do it, otherwise you are just saying shit.

This isn't very clear.

If a "scientific assumption is wrong", then obviously one cannot use that same assumption in any further work. To say "use the same scientific method" is a broad-brush statement. The question is, how to get rid of a wrong assumption if the wrong assumption is the foundation of the method?

That is not "debunking science", science a method.
If you want to show some scientific assumption is wrong, you would have to use the same scientific method to do it, otherwise you are just saying shit.

This comes across more as well swallowed rhetoric and emotional knee-jerking than as intelligent thinking.

This isn't very clear.

If a "scientific assumption is wrong", then obviously one cannot use that same assumption in any further work.

No, again you confuse the method with the conclusion. If new data and/or a new hypothesis sheds new light on an existing theory, the new hypothesis can become the new leading theory. to achieve that the scientific method will also be used.
So when a new hypothesis becomes leading theory, it does not "debunk science", as David says. By "debunking" the old theory through the scientific method, it actually proves science works.

That is not "debunking science", science is a method.
If you want to show some scientific assumption is wrong, you would have to use the same scientific method to do it, otherwise you are just saying shit.

Don't you think you are getting lost in abstraction - not talking about any specific area of science but just talking about hypotheses and data as if any of these exist without a huge amount of human involvement - complete with human flaws and human streaks of genius.

David

Don't you think you are getting lost in abstraction - not talking about any specific area of science but just talking about hypotheses and data as if any of these exist without a huge amount of human involvement - complete with human flaws and human streaks of genius.

David

Yes, as any human endeavor, the execution of the method is going to be flawed.
But since science is the only way to get to some level of objectivity in our knowledge, every other, less appropriate method, is going to suffer orders of magnitude more from human imperfections.

Don't you think you are getting lost in abstraction - not talking about any specific area of science but just talking about hypotheses and data as if any of these exist without a huge amount of human involvement - complete with human flaws and human streaks of genius.

David

Plus so many issues in our legal/societal spheres depend on witness testimony & our sense of morality it's a mistake to claim we need only wait for Science to show us the way. That's how you get people gassed in concentration camps and tested on by governments.

Science is fine for what it does, using Consciousness to make observations of Causality. But of course it cannot then ever be expected to provide reductive explanations for Consciousness or Causation. And one's individual observation should take Science into account - as Bill Hicks once said if you think you can fly try to lift off the ground, not jump off a building - but just because Science hasn't shown something to be true by replication does not make it false.

Yes, as any human endeavour the execution of the method is going to be flawed.
But since science is the only way to get to some level of objectivity in our knowledge, every other, less appropriate method, is going to suffer orders of magnitude more from human imperfections.

That doesn't follow, because science has so much kudos at the moment that wrong doers will gravitate around it far more than around other pursuits, such as this forum for example.

David

This isn't very clear.

If a "scientific assumption is wrong", then obviously one cannot use that same assumption in any further work. To say "use the same scientific method" is a broad-brush statement. The question is, how to get rid of a wrong assumption if the wrong assumption is the foundation of the method?

You test the assumption whether it is deemed wrong or not. Our understanding of how nature works is good enough that assumptions can be tested there are exceptions though.

That doesn't follow, because science has so much kudos at the moment that wrong doers will gravitate around it far more than around other pursuits, such as this forum for example.

David

When you speak of science do you think of the community of scientists, the documented observations, interpretations of those observations, and/or the methodology of making observations of change/stability in order to discover patterns in Nature?

Obviously someone trying to conflate the practice of science with the materialist-atheist faith is in error, and this is an issue with parts of the scientific community. And there are issues with method (peer review, p-hacking, etc).

But not sure how one can gravitate around science rather than the PsienceQuest forum?

That is not "debunking science", science is a method.
If you want to show some scientific assumption is wrong, you would have to use the same scientific method to do it, otherwise you are just saying shit.

Yes, I tend to agree. I doubt that science can be debunked, only scientific theories. Bloodletting and leeches were once considered scientific but only because the practitioners held to the theory that they were effective. It was science that debunked those theories (as ever).