08 May '14 17:52>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn science, the goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the natural world.
This may come as a total shocker (just kidding, I already know it will), but science has a built-in obsolescence factor: it enters every study knowing what it 'proves' today will be rejected as false tomorrow.
So by your measure, science is horribly wrong on a consistent basis.
This means that assumptions about the natural world that can be
demonstrated to be false must be discarded. So, yes, theories are often
revised, updated and sometimes discarded, but to say that whatever is
proven today is rejected as false tomorrow, surely is a monstrous
exaggeration?
I have a feeling that between the two of you, googlefudge holds the
deeper understanding of what science is all about.