|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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? So, you're unable to point out the instances in which the lad failed to do what you say he failed to do?
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. 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?
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? My stance in that thread is irrelevant here; if you wish to discuss it, go to that thread.
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? Huh? Who are you arguing against with 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". Perhaps you could explain what you meant, then, when you said:
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: 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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So testing your conclusions against reality is off-topic in this thread? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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: 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.
Crashfrog writes: Science is both a means of deriving conclusions from sources and a means of judging which sources produce reliable information about the physical world, and the context in which that information is probative. Science is a source - it's a source of information about the reliability of sources. If your young man fails to apprehend that his parents are the Villiage Liars, or apprehends it but accepts their testimony at face value regardless, he's failing to appropriately apply the scientific method. Ultimately, the scientific method is one of skepticism about sources. Your position is one of complete credulity towards a particular, unreliable source. Nothing about that is scientific. 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?
Jon writes: Would you say the young lad in the OP example is guilty of bad science, and if so, what should he have done differently? What more could he have done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Straggler said that he could have tested his conclusions against reality. 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. Jon Edited by Jon, : Expanded Edited by Jon, : + did he Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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? At least, yes. But he then goes on to use the same data to set an upper limit. I quote:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. The particular wording in the story was a little ambiguous, hence my clarification:
quote: quote: 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? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But our hypothetical enquirer was around at a time before the scientific method had even been developed. 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.
He cant be faulted for working with what he had. Can he? 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. Jon Edited by Jon, : - because irrelevant + becomes moot Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024