|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
By refusing to examine and incorporate other evidence they are, in effect, rejecting the application of the scientific method to this evidence What "evidence" in the Bible do you feel is being ignored, and to what field of science would the Bible, in your view, contribute? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
None. Where did I say otherwise? I took it from context. Did I misunderstand? What evidence were you referring to, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon writes:
They may be done using scientific methodology, but they are not science in the normal usage of the term. Their studies are not published in science journals, nor should they be. They deal with different types of data than science does, and they make different sorts of arguments and conclusions than science does.
kbertsche writes:
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? If it were, we would have to include history, theology, and many other fields as part of science. Jon writes:
I don't see how science is "being subjugated" to empiricism?! Modern science requires empiricism! Without this, we would be back in the days of Greek non-empirical, non-observational philosophy; this is not science in the normal sense of the word.
kbertsche writes:
By virtue of being subjugated as an empirical method of discovery; not by virtue of being science. No, science is not defined only by method, but also by the type of evidence that it appeals to Jon writes:
He's doing sociology or anthropology, not physical science. He's doing a study on what people believe about their origins. This does not necessarily have anything to do with their actual origins. 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? Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. But it doesn't require as few assumptions as possible. Because it requires a unknown, hypothetical, unevidenced way for people to come into being apart from having parents in the normal way. A more parsimonious explanation involves the young man having a much longer lineage plus the known fact that people do not preserve and pass on every memory of their ancestors.
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. Sure, every story is evidence for something. But the question is, of what? Are the Sherlock Holmes stories evidence of Sherlock Holmes, or evidence that Arthur Conan Doyle needed the money?
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies? Use how? With every story, whether it be the Sherlock Holmes stories, Aesop's fables, or the Popol Vuh, there are questions we have to ask such as: * Who wrote it?* Why? Did they intend it as fact, fable, fiction, a downright lie? * If they intended it as fact, why did they think so? What were their sources? * Is there any corroborating evidence? * Is the story intrinsically plausible? (e.g. even without being able to check the first four items, I would doubt any story about a man sailing to the edge of the world, because it doesn't have one). These are questions that we have to ask before we can start using the story as evidence for anything except that people tell stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I do not believe anyone in their right mind would disagree that such folk are practicing science. Out of curiosity then, who were you expecting to find debate with? Surely it would only be those debating a slightly different point than the one you seem to be making, and those out of their mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Straggler to Jon writes: 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. Then I guess you missed the Verifying Epistemologies thread in which Jon declared his axionatic approach to these matters.
CS writes: 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. Jon is misunderstanding a lot of things. Not least of all the fact that the aim of the scientific method is to maximise objectivity and make comparison with reality the yardstick by which all conclusions are ultimately measured.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Precisely my point: the quality of the evidence is irrelevant to the quality of the methodology. A good methodology should be able to weed out poor evidence (or poor use of evidence) should it not? Are you familiar with prediction and verification as a key component of 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?
Jon writes: CS writes: 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? Are you taking into account the fact that a key component of the scientific method is the constant checking that ones theories are in accordance with reality (i.e. that they are accurate)? 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. If followed you will find that biblical literalism gets found out as being NOT in accordance with reality. Strangely that is exactly where we find ourselves. Because the scientific method has been applied. So what exactly is your point in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Yes. Your point? 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.
Jon writes: You didn't read the OP, did you? Yes Jon I did. You describe the following: "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." 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.
Jon writes: Who said anything about Biblical literalism? When you talk about using the bible to derive conclusions about the physical world by applying the scientific method creationism immediately springs to mind as that is exactly what creationists claim they are doing. Are they not doing this as far as you are concerned? If not in what way are they failing to meet the criteria you detailed in your OP?
Jon writes: I'm just here to piss you off... You make me feel so special.
Jon writes: Is it working? Not massively at the moment. But I'll keep you posted. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Who said anything about Biblical literalism? Well, if we were going to regard the Bible, or parts of the Bible, as fictions, lies, or spiritual allegories, then what's to become of their evidential value? Those parts of the bible would definitely be evidence of the mind-set of certain Jews rather than of history. It is only those parts that we consider as at least intended to be literal and accurate that we can even begin to consider as potential evidence for what actually happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon it is still very unclear as to whether or not you accept that some conclusions are actually more accurate and in accordance with reality than others.
For example - Is there an actual age of the Earth that is correct regardless of ones epistemology? Or do you think that there are no correct answers to such questions because all knowledge is derived from axioms? Thus making any one logically derived conclusion as good as any other. This is certainly the stance you took in the previous Verifying Epistemologies thread. Are you still wedded to this stance or have you moved on?
Jon writes: Perhaps you could help me by pointing out where the poor lad failed to do what you say he failed to do. Do you think testing ones conclusions against reality through prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Did he do this?
Jon writes: 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. I didn't use the phrase "ultimate end". Western civilisation has largely abandoned biblically derived conclusions in favour of scientifically derived conclusions regarding such things as the age of the Earth. How do you think this came about if not by the application of the scientific method?
Jon writes: Perhaps you'd like to rephrase this statement? Perhaps you would like to reread it?
Jon writes: The implications of this statement are heart-stopping. Well we can only hope.......
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024