Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 16 of 177 (589009)
10-29-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
10-29-2010 10:49 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Jon writes:
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
It's about both.
Jon writes:
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies?
That depends on what they are used for.
Jon writes:
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.
Sorry, but what you described does not seem much like science.
Science isn't the answering of isolated questions. Nor is it the acquiring of individual facts. Rather, science is a systematic study of a range of related phenomena.
Jon writes:
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.
Well, I have argued otherwise, but I do not accept any of those three assertions. Perhaps you made a mistake in your reasoning.
Jon writes:
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.
How about a compromise. Those histories constitute evidence - evidence of something, though perhaps not evidence of what those histories assert. But just using them does not qualify as scientific. That would depend on how they are used.
Your major mistake, I think, is that you seem to be identifying science with fact finding whereas you should be identifying it with systematization.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 10:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 7:38 PM nwr has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 177 (589010)
10-29-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jon
10-29-2010 5:07 PM


Re: 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.
And it seems obvious to me that you're setting up a false dichotomy. Science is empiricism. Empiricism done at a sufficient level of rigor is science.
There are many empiricists who are not scientists.
There are no scientists who are not empiricists.
None of this, of course, addresses my actual point. Of course that's true to form for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 5:07 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 177 (589011)
10-29-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
10-29-2010 10:49 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
quote:
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.
History - and that is what you are talking about - is a field with far greater uncertainty than the physical science. And that is with the best methodology for dealing with ancient texts and with the support of archaeology.
The motto of the Royal Society is "Nullus in Verba" - "take nobody's word for it". How does that apply to your methodology ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 10:49 AM Jon has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 177 (589015)
10-29-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
10-29-2010 4:51 PM


Nonsense In Nonsense Out
Jon writes:
This is not the topic of this thread.
Huh!!
So you are just going to assume that all starting points are equally valid and then ask if applying the same logical methods results in equally valid conclusions? But not all starting points are equally valid. And thus not all conclusions are equally valid or accurate as compared to reality.
Are they?
If you don't recognise this the entire question you pose is entirely pointless. Your question amounts to the following:
"If I assume the bible is a valid starting point and apply logical methods to the information in it are the conclusions I derive just as valid as any other assumed starting point to which I apply the same logical methods?"
So once again I put to you the pragrammers maxim of "rubbish in rubbish out". No matter how logically valid ones method in-between may be.
Jon writes:
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'?
You should retitle your topic: "Nonsense In Nonsense Out"
That says it all.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 4:51 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 177 (589018)
10-29-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
10-29-2010 10:49 AM


Re: 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.
So here, being "Scientific" is just following a particular methodology.
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.
When the 'scientific community' dismisses a creationist as unscientific, they are not necessarily just talking about the particular methodology that the creationist is following.
You are correct that it is possible for a creationist to employ the scientific methodology on Biblical evidence, and if someone implied that they weren't, by calling them unscientific, then they would technically be incorrect.
But that's not what what is being meant, and your ramifications require that this charge of 'unscientific' necessarily refers to just the claim that they aren't following the scientific methodology. So no, your wrong.
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
Not necessarily, the term is used broader, but you could define it that narrowly if you want to.
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.
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies?
Using them would be as evidence, not an application of the methodology.
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'?
Because its bad evidence, regardless of the methodology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 10:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 7:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 177 (589019)
10-29-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 5:27 PM


Re: A false equation
And it seems obvious to me that you're setting up a false dichotomy.
I saw it as a false equivalency. He's talking about two different things.
Ah yes, earlier you said:
The flaw I perceive in your OP is that you start out talking about one thing and then try to prove something else.
Exactly.
Although I doubt he'll ever accept it
Of course that's true to form for you.
Heh. Jon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 5:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 177 (589020)
10-29-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
10-29-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Nonsense In Nonsense Out
So you are just going to assume that all starting points are equally valid and then ask if applying the same logical methods results in equally valid conclusions? But not all starting points are equally valid. And thus not all conclusions are equally valid or accurate as compared to reality.
Are they?
I haven't seen him specifically claim that, nor necessarily imply it. It'd be good to know. Ergo, its best for him if he avoids answering it.
If you don't recognise this the entire question you pose is entirely pointless. Your question amounts to the following:
"If I assume the bible is a valid starting point and apply logical methods to the information in it are the conclusions I derive just as valid as any other assumed starting point to which I apply the same logical methods?"
So once again I put to you the pragrammers maxim of "rubbish in rubbish out". No matter how logically valid ones method in-between may be.
If you stick a pH probe in 1N HCl and it reads 10, then you don't go and apply a scientific methodlogy and try to figure out how the solution is that way. You go: "this probe is junk"
You should retitle your topic: "Nonsense In Nonsense Out"
He's misunderstanding what people mean when they call something "unscientific". He's assuming it refers solely to their application of a methodology, like I said in my earlier post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 6:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2010 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye 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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 25 of 177 (589028)
10-29-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jon
10-29-2010 7:38 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Jon writes:
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
nwr writes:
It's about both.
Jon writes:
How do you weigh the appropriateness of an input?
It is really the wrong question. Often a scientific theory defines its input data.
To give an example, Ampere's law defines how to measure electrical current. The law, in effect, gives the operating principles for the galvanometers used to measure electrical data. Likewise, Ohm's law defines how to measure resistance, and is one of the operating principles of the modern volt-ohm meter. So the science is defining the inputs to be used.
Back to your other question, where you wanted me to elaborate on systematization; it was the systematic study of electricity and magnetism that led to Ampere's law and Ohm's law, which in turn define the inputs.
You get something similar if you look at Newtonian mechanics. Newton was systematically studying motion and acceleration. His laws, which emerged from that systematic study, actually defined how to measure some of the core properties.
If you want yet another example, much of the data being used in biology today is as a result of the theory of evolution.
"Fact finding" usually refers to attempting to find specific facts, much as detectives do when trying to solve a crime case. Science, with its systematic study, provides ways of getting a wide range of data (i.e. facts), but if it is unable to resolve a particular question of fact, that is not seen as a problem for science. Rather, it is the general systematic study and the resulting broad understanding of the phenomena involved that is the primary interest of science.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 7:38 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 8:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 177 (589030)
10-29-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
10-29-2010 8:35 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
As usual, we have something from the master to guide us:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 10-29-2010 8:35 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 177 (589038)
10-29-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jon
10-29-2010 4:47 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
This one change in wording aside, though, I believe the point of the post still standsno matter which wording is chosen. Would you agree?
The central premise? Maybe, but I would like to focus on one particular thing you said before being more concrete:
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
Many people would claim that? I'm not so sure they would, under the kinds of contexts you might have in mind. It would be unscientific to selectively dismiss evidence, however. To stick with the age of humans, if we had the Bible that say we used as evidence for "Humans have been around for at least 10,000 years", that would be fine. But to keep the that theory when we learn the book is only 4,000 years old would be bordering on unscientific, if not actually.
Those people that draw age of earth based knowledge from the Bible though, do tend to commit many of the logical errors that we now agreed on. They don't say the supported statement "Human kind is at least 10,000 years old" they tend to say "Human kind is at most 15,000 years old". This might be a fine scientific theory based solely on the evidence of the Bible. Further evidence might support it, or falsify it. Ultimately though, "Because someone said so and wrote it down", should be seen as shaky evidence the moment we discover that some people say and write falsehoods and make mistakes.
I would suggest simply any theory or factual claim based solely on the two pieces of evidence ("An author said so" and "Authors don't always speak the truth") would be seen as much less of a scientific theory than M-Theory is today (arbitrarily picked theory which has sufficient murmurings disputing its scientific status).
It would also be unscientific to continue to stick to the theory after a sequence of ad hoc explanations as to why falsifying evidence is not falsifying have been required. It would be supernatural if those ad hoc explanations involved miracles or other divine intervention (which in the real world, is so very often is the case).
Speaking of the real world (as opposed to hypothetical world), 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).
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.
So in what context are these 'many people' saying that using the Bible as a source of knowledge is unscientific?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 4:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 11:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 177 (589042)
10-29-2010 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Jon
10-29-2010 7:34 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Sure; do you have another way to define the term that doesn't either destroy the concept or conflate it with something else?
We have access to the same dictionaries... Do you really want to argue definitions?
Why don't we look at some examples of the scientific community calling creationinsts "unscientific" and see if we can figure out what they actually meant by that?
Did you have something particular in mind when you wrote the OP, or is this just something that's all in your head?
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.
Oh hell no. The user of the methodology can impact the quality of it. In our lab, the one guy is definately better at science than the other. It'd take you 2 seconds with their lab notebooks to figure out which one I'm calling better.
Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Precisely my point: the quality of the evidence is irrelevant to the quality of the methodology.
But not your only point...
You want to say that calling a creationinst 'unscientific' is wrong because they could be properly employing the scientific method. No?
You're wrong because, well first off let's be honest, they don't really follow the scientific method. But anyway, saying something is 'unscientific' could be saying something other than 'not following the right methodology', so which ever way you're still wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 7:34 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 29 of 177 (589044)
10-29-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
10-29-2010 10:49 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Good, clear statement of your position in the OP. I partly agree and partly disagree.
I strongly agree that the scientific method is used in many fields of endeavor. I have often argued that the theological method and the scientific method are highly analogous. In fact, almost any field of study that wants to derive a solid answer about anything uses a variant of the scientific method.
But I strongly disagree that science is defined simply by method. If it were, we would have to include history, theology, and many other fields as part of science. No, science is not defined only by method, but also by the type of evidence that it appeals to, and the type of claims that it makes based on this evidence. Physical science appeals to physical evidence; repeatable measurements or observations of physical parameters. And it constructs hypotheses and theories which are generalized descriptions of the physical behavior of the universe. These must be generally applicable and testable by other experimenters in other places. These additional caveats are part of "methodological naturalism;" science appeals only to naturalistic evidences and explanations in its application of the "scientific method."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 10:49 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 10-29-2010 11:57 PM kbertsche has 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024