Here’s an example of being fooled by science. I remember this story from last year.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/scientists-deep-space-image-distant-27668854
yes I remember
history of science is full with these
medical doctors defended horrible treatments for centuries in the past too.
a classic mainstream text about how history of science is not linear progression but rather a chaotic clusterfuck is the book "structure of scientific revolutions"
it's not the best theories that win in the end.
personally I think the scientific method is a tool that you can use but it rests on so much Philosophical baggage that it does not work as a Worldview.
a good example would be the catholic church. look up the peripatetic axiom and Thomas aquinas.
the catholic based it's Apologetic on science and empiricism for centuries. However since this doesn't work, it eventually lead to atheists in the enlightenment attacking this very approach.
Davis Hume was one of them.
the easiest example would be how ppl tried to ground morality in nature or observational data. It simply does not work. Hume called it the is/Ought distinction.
going from what is, what you observe, to a moral law is a non sequitur.
for example going from "pain exists" to "therefore we should avoid pain."
one of the most common forms of this we see is appealing to nature fallacy. "its natural dude."
thatz not an argument.
based on the same logic you could also say gay sex is natural because bonobos blow each other.
or humans. Humans = part of nature = humans have gay sex = gay sex is normal.
This is retarded of course. Yet people constantly sat shit like "gay sex is wrong because it's unnatural"
this does not work. It presupposes that humans are special and not part of nature first off, then it presumes that there is a moral law about homosexuality being wrong which is of course a non sequitur.
Ironically the only way to argue against homosexuality would be to make a case for objective, human independent morality, aka some form of Theism.
you need
1. personal accountability
2. an objective standard outside human opinion
3. explain how humans are special and not just part of the causal chain of natural processes
if you don't do point 3, you end up destroying the possibility of free will. If everything is just cause and effect then we are not making choices anymore.
you and me talking is would be like comparing smoke from 2 fires and asking which smoke plume is true.
these are the types of inquiries the scientific method has no access to whatsoever.
