The scientific method is reliable in it's appropriate context.

Do I get any royalties on this? :P Not in all things no, in fact it's more fallable than it is reliable.

Yes Science is reliable. Otherwise it's difficult to lead a life nowadays. Science has become a part and parcel of our life.

only as reliable as the people behind it, they will soon prove they don't exsist and we will all be better off without them

It is because it is predictable. This is the essence of scientific theory. It is a logical explanation with a testable model that will predict a particular outcome that will either prove or disprove the theory. It works. We've put men on the moon, cured diseases and done all kinds of incredible things using the scientific method. So if you rely on your car, antibiotics or electricity, you can thank reliable science for it all.

Yeah, but modern scientists aren't. You know it is bad when Newton's law of gravity is debased to a theory.

Science is reliable where its proven to be, as in man using it to further the acquisition of his needs and conveniences which centuries before was a chore, or again the development of technology, but in no way are theories and things still undiscovered but studied by scientists claimed anything more until properly confirmed, or heightened further then its actual disposition. Sure, we have pro science people that say it will solve or explain everything, but they're easily dismissed. Science is indeed not infallible as shown many times, but it is also quite reliable in many cases. People might like to go online and argue with others about how God triumphs over science, but if it wasn't for science, you wouldn't have a computer to do it with. :p

Science is not 100% perfect or even 50% correct. The positions on global warming, physics, life, and other areas are always changing and evolving. At one point in the (circa) 1960's to the early 1990's scientists were certain global cooling was taking place and now people believe the opposite. Though the majority of todays scientists are rather neutral on the issue and do not believe in either extreme. 100 years of data collecting is not enough to make judgments on a 4 billion year old planet.... wait a minute, science once believed the earth was only 4,000-10,000 years old... And yes, there are the "few" who take sides with both extremes.

Depends on the scientist.

it is only as reliable as the human mind. somehow it always finds a way to disprove itself.

Humans are fallible, we all make mistakes. We all get funny ideas about things, strong beliefs and odd habits. Science is not a conclusion, or a set of beliefs. It's a process. The scientific process acknowledges that humans are fallible, and attempts to eliminate errors by peer review, open criticism, evaluation, experimentation, and falsifiable prediction using hypotheses. In short, it's a way of using a group of humans to make the knowledge we gain more reliable and transferrable than knowledge gained through other means. It doesn't mean that knowledge gained by other means is wrong, not at all. But we humans can, and do, make mistakes. Even deeply held beliefs, no matter what 'camp' or 'faction' you're in, can be wrong. Science aims to test the beliefs and hold up the ones that are more reliable. The notion that science is unreliable because the consensus changes is a very odd one. If anything, it's proof the system works, because bad ideas are thrown out and replaced with better ones, as our knowledge and experience grows. If an idea's never changed because it's noone believes it can change, or it's never challenged or thought about, then it's not reliable.

science is a business, last year 90 times as much was spent on new types of breast implants as on cancer research - dead people with great boobs

Of course science is reliable. If you don't believe me, you would never get on a plane, buy something over the internet, drive a car or even wear clothes. Science never has or claims to have the final word, it is always provisional, and yet it has brought us to where we are today. If you don't agree, you certainly shouldn't be reading a website, you should be out in the woods living in a shelter without electricity or modern medicine, and getting wet when it rains.

Any science is a reliable as the information available to the scientists. The information available to the scientists is as reliable as the instruments available. At first the earth was flat because the instruments available (eyes) gave the infomation (Looks flat) to the scientists. There were lots of people who saw the same thing and they all agreed, the earth is flat. Even today some of our oldest and most trusted science is coming under suspect of being wrong as we are building better instruments to get better information. This leads to confusion as science changes what is right or wrong, good or bad as better information becomes available. The health and medical fields seem to be very good at jumping the gun on making decisions with little or poor data. They kinda ruin the reputation of other science with their sloppy approach aimed at profit not real information.

As reliable as the interpretation of repeatable findings and their proper application.

Of course it is, and the more we learn, the more reliable it will become.

I believe it is. Absolutely.

pure science is pretty reliable..unfortunately, science has been kidnapped by folks with agendas nowadays. science is the study of facts and theories with the hope of advancing known thought or theory. its seems that just in the early ages, when churches ruled science and harmed anyone that thought new thoughts different from the then current consensus;... we are now in the throws of atheists and agnostics ruling scientific thought and trying to harm the reputations of those who try to advance scientific free thought into areas that they dont like or approve of.

Are you writing your question on a computer?

Duh! Science is the basically how you live. Without science, you wouldn't eat, drink, wear clothes, drive, or even live. Science is the building block of life!! :]

You are here, isn't that proof enough?

It depends on the assumptions made by the scientists. Most Science makes sense, especially if it is observable. Some opinions are silenced by portions of the scientific community. For example: Do not DARE to speak against manmade global warming. The Bible goes along with science despite what people assume. 93% of scientists from National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God. 60 percent of scientists "in general" believe in God. 95 percent of American believe in God. Depending on the scientist and the segment of science he studies, he will start out with assumptions contrary to what most people believe in, and more importantly it is different from God's Word. It all comes down to, who are you going to believe, God or man?

Not all the time.The world used to be flat,remember?

without science where would you be today?

It is until Stephen Hawking makes a public apology and says he was wrong!

yes as u can verify it

Science is mostly reliable. I am not saying that science is infallible, as new theories refute or modify old ones, but on the other hand this only proves that science is growing in its own understanding of the universe, and will continue to grow.

Not 100%, but it's sure far ahead of whatever's second best.

As far as "predictive capacity" is concerned, science is certainly the more immediate and the more reliable of the two. Given time and random co-incidence religion could conceiveably fulfill its predictions. Which would you like to rely on in a life and death situation?

Oh no...you're only imagining typing on a computer.. You're really carving it in a rock and we all just happened by and carved answers.. duh..

It's reliable when it can be fully tested and verified. For example, we know how RF how signals operate using physics, mathematics, and most importantly because we've tested their use millions of times under a broad range of conditions. That's science we can rely on very well.   However, with things that can't be tested and verified, it's difficult to fully rely on a scientific conclusion.

Not completely reliable because it's conducted by fallible and inperfect human-beings.

Did your computer fire up when you turned it on? +5

Science created the computer you're typing that question on. Yes.

It depends on who's paying for it.

Junk science, such as Al Gore's "global warming", by which all of north america is seeing frost a month early, no. The scientific experimental method, by which specific things are tested against known norms and in ways that rule out researchers' biases, yes. At least more so than wild guesses.

Of course. Science is based on fact. The scientific method leaves no room for guessing.

Yes.

more reliable than that religous bullsh*t

Yes

Certainly Science is reliable. What would you rather speculation?

Reliable enough to invent televisions and space travel... after a few tries of course.

totally

Science is reliable. Humans are not. Tis not the evidence that is in question but always your interpretation of it.

Science is a valuable and necessary resource, as long as we all realize it's still putting the puzzle pieces together, and continues to evolve.

Science is as perfect as mankind. In other words, not very. There are a vast amount of things we think we understand but don't have a clue. Most "scientists" are arrogant in their "knowledge".

YES: its the Biasis and prior beliefs that get in the way.+3

Tested and applied science, such as the science that we use everyday, is eminently reliable. Billions of us stake our lives on its reliability. However, if we can't test and reproduce the same results predictably and repeatedly without surprises, that particular scientific hypothesis or theory is not be reliable. Science is always a work in progress as we continue to peel the onion, so to speak. History has taught us that lots of scientific hypotheses and many theories were not reliable because they have been proven to be false. Is science reliable? Yes it is and no it's not. It depends on what you are specifically referring to.

It's the most reliable way of understanding reality that mankind has developed to date.

This loaded question can spring in the mind of only a religious hypocrite itching to surmon straight people on religious BS! No sale!!

yes it is. Science is always verifying what is in the Bible!

Does your computer work?

Science is incomplete and it can change any time. It is based on observation and have no control over nature.

Most of the times.

All the evidence is supports what is there.

No shit. One of the most basic foundations of science is that it has to reliable. Reliability, validity, credibility and repeatability are the big hitters.

Science is only true for now. We have eternity. We know squat. The only constant is change and what we have proven scientifically has certainly changed even though the centuries up to now.

One word answer, Yes.

not 100%. Science improves and everyday scientists challenge their own discoveries and principles. the best were newtons and even those did not live forever. the scientific methods improve as well. True scientists allways think beyond todays scientific principles.

...As a hypothesis.

Could be mainly just a theory if you ask me.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..no no no

The idiot 'Christian chemist' can't even ask the right question! S/He should have asked, "Are all scientists always reliable"? And then he would have got the obvious answer "no", [they can't be, they are human] even before posting that question on AB! * Science is 100% reliable, because when it isn't sure, a scientist just says so, it's always 'work in progress' as another answer says! * NO 'beating around the burning bush', 'reading between the lines', 'multiple interpretations' or other apologies employed by the 'blind-faithful' frauds & godp imps --or Christian chemists!

It is a stepping stone to the reliable.

NO, JUST EXPERIMENTAL, BUT ALOT OF PEOPLE WITH BIG DEGREES THAT THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING OFTEN GET THE CREDIT, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A FLUKE.

It depends on who paid for it.

Science welcomes skepticism and data has always been subject to scrutiny. This natural process of questioning and seeking truth is subject to change.