Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 177 (588960)
10-29-2010 10:49 AM


The Bible and the Scientific Method
I propose that the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature to generate knowledge about the physical world is not, as many claim, unscientific or (dare I say) 'supernatural', but instead perfectly good science differing only in results (by means of different inputs) from presently accepted knowledge in the overall scientific community. To clarify, I am not addressing specifically the knowledge itself that is so generated, but rather the methodologythat is, the generation of knowledge about the physical world based on the reading of histories.
I also propose that the ramifications from dismissing these methods as unscientific undermine the entire framework of science and the scientific ideals of investigation, skepticism, and minimally assumptive explanations (Occam's Razor). That many in the 'scientific community' are so quick to dismiss these methods as unscientific quackery shows their lack of respect for this framework and these ideals; and these prejudices work hard against the virtues of the scientific method that make it so much a valuable tool of discovery.
To illustrate this point, and justify as properly scientific the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature in generating knowledge about the physical world, allow me to lay out the following example:
     A young man in an early human social group is just beginning to take interest in learning. His young age brings him fascination of all things old, and he wishes to learn the age of the human race. He lacks the aid of modern technological equipment, and so has no way of examining things in the physical world to determine how old the human race might be. He decides to ask his parents, who tell him that the human race is older than they are, and then proceed to tell him a history of his tribe. This history goes back about five generations, before which, his parents tell him, they have no evidence of anything existing at all. "Interesting," he thinks, "the only evidence I have, the story of my people, tells me the human race is at least five generations old. But I wonder what other tribes can tell me; perhaps they have information that goes back further."
     He goes around the valley, asking the elders of the various tribes how many generations their tribes go back. Some tell him four, others five, and a few tell him six. "How interesting! So, my additional evidence tells me that the human race is a little older than five human generations: about six. So, using only the evidence I have at my disposal, and making as few assumptions as possible, I can conclude that humans have been around for about six generations, or 300 years."
     Never one to be satisfied with a single answer, though, he continues to look for more and more information that may help him refine his conclusion, always aware that he may be wrong at the moment, and so can never stop questioning.
This young man, in his search for knowledge, has investigated the only thing he has the means for investigating and has come to a tentative conclusion that is based only on the evidence available and requires as few assumptions as possible. In every shape and form, this is precisely the way the modern scientific method has been designed to function. Anyone who would argue otherwise would have to accept the following as true of the scientific method:
The scientific method requires modern technology;
The scientific method should lead one to conclusions that are in line with the modern scientific consensus;
The scientific method cannot be used with certain evidence.
The result of rejecting these (obviously rejectable) consequences is that we must accept that histories, such as the Bible, constitute evidence and that their use in discovering truths about the world qualifies as scientific. It would be fallacious to fault any application of the scientific method for any of the above-mentioned features (lack of technology, failure to agree with current data, being the 'wrong' evidence). Nevertheless, it is commonly claimed that these methods are not scientific by folk who simply dislike the conclusions that are drawn. Utlimately this is representative of the faulty thinking that science is about particular sources, when in actuality, science is about the method of manipulating and interpreting those sources.
So, for this thread, I would like to discuss the following points (and any of their possible implications):
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies?
How can we address the implications of these two points as they relate to our understanding of the conclusions derived from the different inputs, that is, if use of the Bible is properly scientific, then why is it 'wrong' and what/who is the cause of its 'wrongness'?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : + subtitle
Edited by Jon, : - message to admins

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 11:23 AM Jon has replied
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 11:41 AM Jon has replied
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 1:12 PM Jon has replied
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 10-29-2010 3:59 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:39 PM Jon has replied
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 10-29-2010 5:17 PM Jon has replied
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 5:48 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:03 PM Jon has replied
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 10-29-2010 11:47 PM Jon has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2010 3:36 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 11-01-2010 10:39 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 177 (588984)
10-29-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
10-29-2010 11:23 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
How do you deal with that problem?
I think you hinted on it in your post:
many folks who favor such use won't accept any evidence to the contrary
This represents an issue (I will not call it a 'problem') not in the method, but in certain folk who employ the method. In as much as the methods of someone who disagrees with smaller amounts of evidence to form a dissenting view from the scientific consensus (e.g., in developing various models of human evolution) cannot be unbiasedly labeled 'unscientific', so too can we not label the methods of someone disagreeing with somewhat more evidence to form other dissenting views.
That someone may discount specific sources of evidence in applying the method is their problem, not the method's. So long as the method meets the criteria for being 'scientific', and I believe in many cases it does, we cannot label that method as unscientific merely because we do not like the results of the people who use it. We may attack their inputs; we may attack their prejudices; but attacking their method, when that method meets all the criteria for being 'scientific', is simply irrational and hinders productive debate.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 11:23 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 177 (588986)
10-29-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
10-29-2010 11:41 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Are you suggesting that the sort of methods you describe above give equally accurate answers to questions such as the age of the Earth as more conventionally accepted scientific approaches?
Methods do nothing without inputs.
Or do you accept that some methods give more accurate answers than others?
Methods do nothing without inputs.
An entirely subjective foundation that results in inaccurate conclusions.
Case in point: is this a method or an input that you have described?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 11:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 1:14 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 177 (589003)
10-29-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
10-29-2010 1:12 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
The alteration you've suggested may indeed be appropriate; I even considered using that very wording, but was not convinced that it was much different than the wording I ended up going with. I did indicate further along in the post that his conclusion was admittedly tentative, and that he was always willing to admit more evidence as it became available.
This one change in wording aside, though, I believe the point of the post still standsno matter which wording is chosen. Would you agree?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 1:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 9:37 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 177 (589004)
10-29-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
10-29-2010 1:14 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
So - Do all inputs lead to equally accurate conclusions?
This is not the topic of this thread.

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 1:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 6:25 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 177 (589005)
10-29-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
10-29-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Dr. House-isms
We then find the cultural center of Culture A and start dating charcoal from fires and other artefacts. We find that there is absolutely no interruption of Culture A from the years 1300 to 1700. So what do we go with? The written account or the evidence acquired through modern techniques?
This is an issue of sources, though, not of methods. Discounting certain evidence, as someone who disagrees with the results obtained using modern techniques might do, is an issue of personal bias, not of methods.
Isn't the scientific method a method?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 10-29-2010 11:39 AM Taq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 177 (589007)
10-29-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 4:39 PM


A false equation
I believe you are conflating the epistemological framework known as empiricism with the methodological approach toward rational understanding of the empirical world known as science. There are many empiricists who are not scientists. These two things aren't the same. If you'd like to see why, feel free to check out my thread on the topic of epistemologies; you can find it by clicking on my name.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 5:27 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 177 (589022)
10-29-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2010 7:03 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Because its bad evidence, regardless of the methodology.
Precisely my point: the quality of the evidence is irrelevant to the quality of the methodology.
And even if you do, I think you'll find that craetionist typically are not following a scientific methodology, so it be right to call those unscientific still.
Further my point: the quality of the user is irrelevant to the quality of the methodology.
So here, being "Scientific" is just following a particular methodology.
Sure; do you have another way to define the term that doesn't either destroy the concept or conflate it with something else?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 10:50 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2010 1:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 177 (589023)
10-29-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nwr
10-29-2010 5:17 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Your major mistake, I think, is that you seem to be identifying science with fact finding whereas you should be identifying it with systematization.
I am not sure I understand the specifics of this statement. Would you be able to elaborate?
Jon writes:
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
It's about both.
How do you weigh the appropriateness of an input?
Rather, science is a systematic study of a range of related phenomena.
How much stuff has to be studied before we can say we're doing science? How big of a range must our study cover?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 10-29-2010 5:17 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 10-29-2010 8:35 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 177 (589045)
10-29-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Modulous
10-29-2010 9:37 PM


The Users as Distinct from the Method
It would be unscientific to selectively dismiss evidence, however.
It would also be unscientific to continue to stick to the theory ...
To stick with the age of humans ... would be bordering on unscientific, if not actually.
These, however, seem more problems with the users of the method than with the method itself. By refusing to examine and incorporate other evidence they are, in effect, rejecting the application of the scientific method to this evidence; such a rejection of the method is, I would agree, evidence of unscientific behavior. That is, by rejecting to apply the method that is science, they are behaving unscientificallyby definition. If our tribal lad visited another village and found information pushing the age of the human race back three more generations and rejected it, that would certainly be characteristic of unscientific behavior in as much as he refused the scientific method, but I would not say that any of his methods up till that point were, or had now become, unscientific. Would you say otherwise?
... there are people there that don't just use the Bible as evidence of ideas, they simply believe the contents of the Bible are True. I think it fair to criticize this as unscientific (especially if they attempt to pile up evidence that looks to support their presumed truth, and discard evidence that is problematic).
Agreed. See above for my explanation.
There are others that study the Bible as a means to gain information about the world in a scientific fashion. They try to piece together the early church structures based on the writings of their key eye witness, Paul, as well as archaeology and other contemporary authors. They try to build models of the Tabernacle, and uncover the history of the Israelite people based on the clues in the Bible - and gain a broader understanding of the general Near Eastern cultures during that time period.
I do not believe anyone in their right mind would disagree that such folk are practicing science. But, of course, that is why I made this thread about the more controversial uses of the Bible and other historical literature. It's hard to have a discussion if you pick a topic on which everyone agrees .
Many people would claim that?
My use of 'as many would claim' was not meant to refer to any literal or actual number of individuals. This may seem like an embellishment, but it is merely a structure I used to introduce an opposing viewpoint.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2010 12:06 AM Jon has replied
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2010 12:22 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 177 (589046)
10-29-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
10-29-2010 11:47 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
If it were, we would have to include history, theology, and many other fields as part of science.
I am not sure there is anything inherently unscientific in the study of history or theology. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this?
No, science is not defined only by method, but also by the type of evidence that it appeals to
By virtue of being subjugated as an empirical method of discovery; not by virtue of being science.
Question: Would you say the young lad in the OP example is guilty of bad science, and if so, what should he have done differently?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 10-29-2010 11:47 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 10-30-2010 2:43 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 10-31-2010 7:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 177 (589048)
10-30-2010 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
10-30-2010 12:06 AM


Re: The Users as Distinct from the Method
What "evidence" in the Bible do you feel is being ignored
None. Where did I say otherwise? Be specific.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2010 12:06 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2010 2:20 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 177 (589112)
10-30-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
10-30-2010 12:22 PM


Re: The Users as Distinct from the Method
Out of curiosity then, who were you expecting to find debate with?
Folk who disagreed with me. But, I was hoping for more of a discussion than a debate.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-30-2010 12:22 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 177 (589114)
10-30-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
10-30-2010 1:55 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
If we have some evidence we create a model, we logically extrapolate our conclusions based on that model to form predictions and then see if those predictions match reality. If they do match reality we have good cause to think our evidence is good, our logic sound, our model accurate and our conclusions in accordance with reality.
If not - Then we review the situation.
Are you familiar with this at all?
Yes. Your point?
So if the scientific method is properly applied (i.e. not as you desribe it in your OP) you can start wherever you want (yes even assuming that the bible is true) but you will still ultimately end up in the same place. Falsifying those theories and conclusions which are not in accordance with reality. And verifying those which are.
You didn't read the OP, did you?
If followed you will find that biblical literalism gets found out as being NOT in accordance with reality.
Who said anything about Biblical literalism? You didn't read my other posts, either, did you?
So what exactly is your point in this thread?
I'm just here to piss you off...
Is it working?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2010 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2010 4:42 PM Jon has replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-30-2010 8:20 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 177 (589160)
10-30-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
10-30-2010 4:42 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
But that isn't the "modern scientific method". The "modern scientific method" incorporates various techniques for minimising subjective biases and verifying that conclusions are in accordance with reality.
I am not sure I see how this conflicts with the young man described in the OP, or my comments about him in later posts of this thread. Perhaps you could help me by pointing out where the poor lad failed to do what you say he failed to do.
That the scientific method requires that one constantly compare ones models and conclusions with reality thus meaning that whatever starting point one chooses should be largely irrelevant as to the models and conclusions one ultimately ends up deeming as accurate.
The implications of this statement are heart-stopping. Your talk of an 'ultimate end' makes me strongly suspicious of whether your not you fully understand the scientific method even as you describe it. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase this statement?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2010 4:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2010 6:35 AM Jon has replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2010 9:19 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024