What is Reddit's opinion of Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (Illini Books)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I also take a kind of middle position between "science is bunkum" and "science is absolute truth".

I am not so sure about the scientific method. Here is a nice book on that: https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Literacy-Method-Illini-Books/dp/0252064364/

There are a lot of problems with the idea of some distinct method that leads us inexorably closer to objective reality. For example, sometimes incorrect theories become accepted. OK, in the end people find the error and fix it. But it seems like science can sort of wander closer then further then closer again to the truth. Is there some guarantee that the wanderings away will always get smaller?

What's the distance metric to be used, anyway?

And suppose we actually got the actual final absolute truth, the final theory, in our hands. Would all scientific activity then cease? There is no more converging or approach to be done. The journey is over. We have arrived! Do we just put the journals on the shelf and go out to play golf or something and give up all our skills because they aren't needed anymore?

The whole idea that any kind of theory could match up with objective reality, that is a monster problem. Godel's incompleteness theorem is probably the most logically exact hole in that notion. It's a bit like trying to reach the moon by sailing around on the earth's oceans.

I think that science is always tied to the interests of some particular society. We're better off acknowledging that link. That encourages a bit of humility so maybe we won't extrapolate our ideas too far. We need to keep checking along the way.

Lack of humility is definitely a problem with a lot of scientific projects, or high tech engineering projects. We really do have the capacity to change the planetary ecology in irrevocable ways, e.g. by hunting a species to extinction. We have surely had huge impact on major systems, as we introduce foreign species into isolated habitats, which then cause native species to go extinct.

There is clearly the potential for new species introduced by genetic engineering to spread around the world and create havoc, driving the extinction of existing species etc. Maybe there is some pretty effective way to limit the degree of novelty introduced by genetic engineering, so this explosion of consequences cannot happen.

Too often it seems that advocates deny the validity of this sort of concern. That does not at all reassure folks that the concern is being adequately addressed!

I'd put nuclear power in a similar category. Advocates claim it is safe, because even Fukushima and/or Chernobyl didn't cause the kind of horrific catastrophe that opponents claim is possible. That is not really very reassuring! A soldier goes into battle thinking, well, I haven't been killed yet, so it seems I won't get killed! That soldier is not likely to be as cautious as would be wise, from my way of thinking!