Science: A Method not a Source

So, you're unable to point out the instances in which the lad failed to do what you say he failed to do? I do not accept that some conclusions are more accurate; no honest scientist would. What I accept is that some conclusions are less false than others when compared to available empirical data. But, how does this relate specifically to the topic of this thread? My stance in that thread is irrelevant here; if you wish to discuss it, go to that thread. Huh? Who are you arguing against with this? Perhaps you could explain what you meant, then, when you said:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 42:

​

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.

---

Without a stopping point, how do we 'ultimately end up deeming [a conclusion] as accurate'?Jon[ABE]
To clarify some things that Percy pointed out as unclear:I have asked you to point to specific instances of the young lad's process that you feel fail to meet the criteria for being scientific (Message 44). You answered by posting (rhetorical?) questions related to my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology, none of which I felt addressed the matter you were asked to address, thus prompting me to inquire as to how they were related, or more precisely, as to how you felt these questions about my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology were an answer to the questions asked of your position.So, if you could point out where you feel the young lad failed to behave scientifically and why you believe him to have failed so, it would do much in accelerating my understanding of your position. It is not easy to have a discussion without first understanding one's position, and I cannot understand your position if you don't tell me. And asking me my position repeatedly goes not very far toward telling me yours. In your next reply to me, would you be able to address these matters, and bring any issues you have regarding my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology to their related threads? (You can click my name to find the threads I started on Evidence, and Epistemology, and you can find my viewpoint on the accuracy of conclusions addressed above in this very post.)Thank you.
[/ABE]Edited by Jon, : ABE to clarify; I hope this can help get the discussion moving productively again!

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

So testing your conclusions against reality is off-topic in this thread? Do I have that right? If so, that seems like leaving scoring out of a discussion about what makes a good football team, which would make no sense.--Percy

Not at all. I was just asking Straggler if he could explain how he sees it as being related, so as to better understand his position.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. When Straggler says that conclusions need to be tested against reality it seems unambiguously related to the topic. Did you maybe mean to say that you'd like Straggler to tell you what specific things he thinks need to be tested against reality?--Percy

Yes, it is related, but in many ways. I would like Straggler to explain the ways he sees it as related; he makes this statement, but fails to show to which parts of the OP it applies, and so I am unsure which aspect of my argument he believes this fact to refute. As far as I can tell, I see this fact as refuting no parts of the OP whatsoever; thus my confusion and why I am requesting clarification.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Although I am not a very scientifically minded person, I can be logical if given a moment...so with that in mind, let me add my 2 cents to this topic.FIRST, concerning topics in general, the advantage that an originator of a topic has is that they get to basically frame the issue the way that they see fit.It is a waste of time to try and hijack a topic by reframing it the way that you see it and trying to convince everyone of your point of view. Thus, Jon initially says:

quote:

---

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

---

For the enquiring mind of that time, examination of oral traditions was a source, but was used as a methodology. For him to use it was proper for that time. For us to use what he concluded is not as appropriate, since we have other methods. The Bible was written in a properly objective methodical manner, but cannot be used objectively as either a source or a method exclusively. Science appears to be a methodology, however. Why attack the sources or methodologies used by people thousands of years ago? The issue perhaps is what we can use today rather than what they used then. Also..is what they used then defined as the scientific method of that day and era? What more could he have done?

I don't know why you're unsure or how this quibbling about the ways an answer is related to your topic is even relevant. You asked what more the person could have done to follow the scientific method, and Straggler said that he could have tested his conclusions against reality. Seems related to the topic, and you agree since you say, "Yes, it is related," so why not simply continue the discussion by responding to what he said instead of asking funky questions about how specifically his answer is related to the topic. You asked a question, he answered. If you disagree with his answer then just say so and explain why so the discussion can continue.--Percy

I thought my post explained it quite well.There are (at least) two explanations for his observations. One involves a known, observable process, the other involves an unknown, unobserved process. He jumped to the conclusion that he should explain his observations by the means of the latter and not the former. This is unscientific.

But he never said how, nor did he point out where the lad failed to do this by all investigative techniques within his means, and of which he knew.JonEdited by Jon, : ExpandedEdited by Jon, : + did he

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

Huh? If your parents tell you their family history back to four great grandparents, why should you not, lacking any other forms of evidence, tentatively conclude that humanity has existed at least as far back as your first ancestor? In such a case, I seriously think anyone who failed to make the same tentative conclusion would not only be rejecting the scientific method, but would also be acting just downright stupid.Are you saying this kid must behave like an idiot in order to behave scientifically?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

At least, yes.But he then goes on to use the same data to set an upper limit. I quote:

That makes perfect sense as a response. I suggest posting another message to Straggler that says this instead of asking him how his response relates to the topic. Now that I see this I think that what you really meant to ask was whether he realized his response did not take into account all your preconditions and constraints.--Percy

But our hypothetical enquirer was around at a time before the scientific method had even been developed. He cant be faulted for working with what he had. Can he?

The particular wording in the story was a little ambiguous, hence my clarification:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 1:

​

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.

---

quote:

---

Jon in Message 12:

​

Modulous writes:

​

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

​

Scientific conclusions should be logical. The only scientific thing this young man can actually say is

​

quote:

---

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 at least six generations: 300+ years

---

​

And the confidence would be increased by independent convergent lines of evidence.

​

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?

---

Thus, the matter on which you now quibble has already been brought up and settled.But as you brought this back up, I have thought more about it, and I am beginning to wonder why it is the young man should believe his figure to rest potentially on the lower end. Given the evidence he's collected, it may also be reasonable to be curious as to whether his conclusion is an over-estimationthat is, whether his conclusion might be wrong in either direction. Isn't it more scientific for his conclusion to be tentative, rather than to assert a hard limit at either direction of the time line? And if he says his conclusion is 'tentative', doesn't that make his choice of using at least, about, or at most in its wording irrelevant?I think we may be too quick to jump and say he must come to a conclusion that includes our current figure, but that's certainly just our own bias, no? Is that really what the scientific method would require?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

I believe the scientific method is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is certainly possible to follow this method without ever having read or heard about it, and it existed and was being used long before ever being written down.You may say: Our hypothetical enquirer was around at a time before the scientific method had even been written down, but then your point becomes moot, as it still does not address whether or not he was behaving in accordance with that method; written, unwritten, or otherwise. If you mean to say we cannot judge his methods negatively because he failed to use investigative technologies not at his disposal, then I agree. If you mean to say we cannot judge him because he may not have used the scientific method, then I disagree, for we can certainly fault him as behaving unscientifically if he failed to use the scientific method. Whether that is a mark on his sloppy thinking or on his character in general is another matter entirely. Which is why I am more interested in the lad's methods than in the lad himself.JonEdited by Jon, : - because irrelevant + becomes moot

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!