Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative?

No, it is not the case. For example, the phlogiston theory of fire is objective, but false. The postulates of astrology are objective, yet they are false at best. (I say "at best" because some are so vague they don't even rise to the level of being false.) Creationism and Intelligent-Design theory are objective and false. The examples of objective-but-false theories could be multiplied endlessly. "Objective" and "true" are distinct concepts.

It could over time. We don't know that now, because we haven't had the "time" to study atoms and how they originated.


Found this on the net:

Quote:

Resolved QuestionShow me another »
Can atoms change into other atoms?
how and what does it have to do with fission and fusion and nucluer decay? .... please dumb it down al little. lol
3 years ago Report Abuse

chalis91...
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Yes they can. In fact it is theorized that main two elements to exist after the proposed big-bang were hydrogen and helium. All other elements were then created by fusion products from these two elements.

Now that we have a periodic table's worth of elements, fusion and fission and nuclear decay can occur to change one element into another.

Fusion occurs when two atoms of one or more elements combine to create a new atom. This reaction results in the release of ALOT of heat and energy. This reaction occurs inside the sun and inside hydrogen bombs.

Fission occurs when one atom decays into two or more atoms. This reaction also releases alot of energy (not as much as fusion though). This reaction also can occur in stars. It also occurs inside of atomic bombs (like those used in world war II).

Nuclear decay is when an atom decays to another element or isotope by loss of an energy particle. This is different that fission in that the atom does not split into two or more atoms, but loses energy through a particle. There are different types of particles that can be lost, most commonly referred to as alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This is a very common form of nuclear decay and is what many radioactively elements do spontaneously over time.

Doesn't hydrogen convert into helium?

And the sun, perhaps.

My use of "objective" and "relative" might be confusing. By objective, I mean "free from bias." By relative, I mean "influenced by cultural, political, or financial interests."

science is nothing more than a disguised rligion1 How can it not be?!

Empirical Evidence: A Definition
Kim Ann Zimmerman, LiveScience Contributor | July 07, 2012 10:38am

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data—in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior.

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.