The word "science" actually derives from the latin word scientia, which means knowledge. The study of what passes for true knowledge (versus opinion) is a deep and complex branch of philosophy called epistemology. It would be fair to say that the standards of so-called "scientific knowledge" far exceeds the question of accuracy in measurement. We don't know that science is so much "correct" as you say, as we do that it is consistent with itself and consistent with the epistemological thinking of the times. The more you think about it this way, you realize how little we actually do "know."

Repitition. If you were trying to see the chances of a coin landing heads up then you repeat the experiment as often as possible to see a trend as to what the chances are. Same goes for science. An experiment is run, it is repeated and it is repeated at least another time. This way you get accurate results.

Accuracy is a quality of the measurement system that the method uses, and if we claim the results of our method are accurate we have to have the knowledge that our measurement system is robust. Your question makes more sense if you talk about 'a' scientific method rather than 'the' scientific method, and whether the method is correct, not 'science'. 'A' scientific method of observation-deduction-prediction is only as good as the measurement system one uses to make observations in that specific method but 'The' scientific method itself, with the same qualities, is logically sound.

Where did you get your premise? It makes no sense. Accuracy relates to *measurements*. The scientific method is a system of logical and philosophical *concepts*. You can't measure a concept. Asking "How do we know that science is correct?" betrays a complete innocence of what science is. A first step might be to Google 'science': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science If you want to learn about science and the scientific method, there are countless sources to assist you. Search for them. Start with what you know, and build on it. If that doesn't help, then start with the First Principles of Aristotle, Descartes, Euclid, and others, and build on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

Your comments indicate that you're trying to make science appear as a form of religion. You carefully pick out familiar words and phrases from our replies that you have seen before in religious contexts, This leads me to suspect that you're not really trying to understand science. Instead, you seem to be trying to prove to yourself that science is a form of religion, because they share some things. For example, both scientific papers and religious papers are translated into dozens of languages. Therefore, science is like religion. You might assert that the automobile is a type of camel, since both are used to transport humans over long distances. You could say that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is a matter of faith, since we are told to believe that the digits of pi go on forever, beyond human comprehension- just like a god. Heavy water and holy water both look the same as ordinary tap water. Therefore, any supposed differences are matters of belief-- just like religion. Also, they both start with the letter H. Surely, this is a message from God. If you later decide that you would like to learn the _differences_ between science and religion, you could apply yourself to the task and consult educational, scientific resources. Likewise, if you decide that it's religion you're interested in, you could consult numerous ancient and holy texts from around the world, all purporting to be the words of various gods throughout human history. (As far as we know, no gods existed before humans came along. We can make an educated guess that no gods will exist after we're gone. Hmmm.) Science is about investigating and learning about natural phenomena. Religion is about believing in supernatural phenomena, such as invisible spirits that live forever, doing things we can't see or verify, but which we must believe or they will punish us. Does that help?

science is proven good at the time of the experiment. but that result can change in time . as i know Spengo he goes on to religion , sorry man . religions are myths evolved from some small event on this earth and made big by the sword and by the indoctrination of dogma into the masses . but religions is loosing it's grip as more and more understand science . but science does not stop . and needs to be proven over and over again as many variables change in time . religions failed to change and are dieing

Repetition of the study in question by other sources, with different controls, and different methods to achieve the same results. There is no way to ascertain if science is 100% correct, however, by being able to reproduce the same results via multiple independent studies increases the likelihood of correctness. To me, that is good science.

Let me see if I understand you correctly? You are asking since the accuracy of the scientific method turns out to be true, does that mean it is correct? I can accurately say you are absolutely correct.

IF YOU RUN YOUR EXPERIMENTS LITTERLY, YOUR END RESULTS HAVE PROVEN TRUE. THEN THAT MEANS YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT IF YOUR ONLY RUNNING THEORIES, THEN THERE'S NO ACTUAL PROOF UNTIL ITS DONE LITTERLY.

You dont. Its really just the scientific theory. But its the best our brains can come up with so we choose to believe in it. Kinda like religion huh? Scary!

The science you observe is through your frame of reference. True science is the summation (statistics) or integration (calculus) across all frames of reference and across all dimensions, including time and other dimensions which are postulated but not understood from our frame of reference.

we don't, everything requires faith. logic is just something we created in our minds. everything and anything could be true