|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,786 Year: 4,043/9,624 Month: 914/974 Week: 241/286 Day: 2/46 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If you predict that human sacrifice is what sustains the world, and so sacrifice humans and find that the world continues, does that validate the prediction?
If you predict that the reason the crops failed this year is because people did not perform the rites properly and so they propitiate and next year the crops are better, does that validate the predition? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Superficially. However if you predict that human sacrifice is what sustains the world, and then don't sacrifice any humans and find that the world continues that does rather comprehensively refute your theory. And is thus a much better test of the causal relationship you have suggested. But what you suggest is a rather stupid experiment, fraught with way too much danger for any rational person to attempt.
So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not? It is part of the MODERN scientific method and actually irrelevant to the thread. Edited by jar, : missed the question Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the rationality of this test is to a large degree dependent on the rationality of the original belief is it not? No, not really.
Oh so this thread is about the OLD scientific method is it? Can you describe this OLD scientific method and point out where it differs significantly from the MODERN scientific method? Do you consider the MODERN scientific method to be superior in terms of accuracy and reliability of results? The scientific method itself is a fairly recent development. The systems used in the past were the best ones available to the people at the time. They looked at experience. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So they weren't applying the scientific method were they? Not as we know it today.
As fallible, often irrational, and imaginative human beings I am sure we can all understand and empathise with the idea that such conclusions might seem very reasonable under certain social circumstances. But believing that the world will end if you don’t sacrifice a goat (or whatever) is ultimately a belief based on appeal to authority or appeal to popularity isn’t it? Both of which are logically fallacious arguments are they not? I think it is irrelevant whether the argument is logically fallacious or not. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, to the accuracy of the conclusions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So illogical conclusions are just as valid, just as accurate and just as in accordance with reality as logical conclusions as far as you are concerned? We've been down this road before so I'll just point out that it is irrelevant whether or not I am concerned. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nor have I made that claim here.
The belief that the world depended on propitiation of the gods was not illogical at the time. Bad things happened and there was no explanation better then "goddidit". I would go so far as to say that as an example, the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end was both reasonable and logical, and that to test the null hypothesis, not perform the rites and risk the world coming to an end would be the illogical, unreasonable and irresponsible behavior. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar - Why do you think the MODERN (as you insist on calling it) scientific method incorporates prediction as a key component? What do you think the reasoning behind this is? What does it add to the investigative process? Experience, built up over time in very small steps.
Doesn't that tell us more about man's need to come up with explanations and the sort of explanations we are psychologically prone to making? From the perspective of imaginative, story telling humans seeking conscious intent in the actions of nature it is a perfectly understandable thing to do. But what has that to do with logic? Would a purely logical being unblessed with the human gift of imagination come to the same conclusion? You seem determined to conflate what is humanly reasonable with what is logical. But humans are not (thankfully) purely rational beings This is arguably why we need formalised processes such as the scientific method to come to reliable and accurate conclusions. Because left to our own instinctive devices we have a strong tendency to go in more creative directions. Logic has almost nothing to do with the subject.
Once the belief is already ingrained acting on it is arguably perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the irrational human beings that we are. But where did such beliefs originate and can these sources be accurately described as "rational" or would "human" be a better description?Jar - Why do you think the MODERN (as you insist on calling it) scientific method incorporates prediction as a key component? What do you think the reasoning behind this is? What does it add to the investigative process?
jar writes: The belief that the world depended on propitiation of the gods was not illogical at the time. Bad things happened and there was no explanation better then "goddidit". Doesn't that tell us more about man's need to come up with explanations and the sort of explanations we are psychologically prone to making? From the perspective of imaginative, story telling humans seeking conscious intent in the actions of nature it is a perfectly understandable thing to do. But what has that to do with logic? Would a purely logical being unblessed with the human gift of imagination come to the same conclusion? You seem determined to conflate what is humanly reasonable with what is logical. But humans are not (thankfully) purely rational beings This is arguably why we need formalised processes such as the scientific method to come to reliable and accurate conclusions. Because left to our own instinctive devices we have a strong tendency to go in more creative directions.
jar writes: I would go so far as to say that as an example, the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end was both reasonable and logical, and that to test the null hypothesis, not perform the rites and risk the world coming to an end would be the illogical, unreasonable and irresponsible behavior. Once the belief is already ingrained acting on it is arguably perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the irrational human beings that we are. But where did such beliefs originate and can these sources be accurately described as "rational" or would "human" be a better description?
Of course they are rational and they originate from the same source as all other answers, from using reason and logic and reality. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That isn't an answer to any of the above. Do you agree that it is much more difficult to construct a theory that successfully predicts new observations than it is to construct a theory that merely incorporates known observations? I'm not sure. And how is experiences built up over time not the answer?
So it has nothing to do with logic. Learn to at least read what you quote. I said "Logic has almost nothing to do with the subject."
So it is derived from logic after all. Huh? And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me? But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered? Nope, doubt that was what I said. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar - Why do you think prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Because experience as the method evolved showed that it was effective.
Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? Certainly. There are horrible things that happen, storms, the volcano we live next to, other nations, death, sometimes the moon goes away and even the sun. We see all these things and know that the end can happen. We know that we cannot control all these things, it is a power beyond us. To propitiate those powers we must show that we respect them. It really is that simple. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And why do you think it is effective? I don't think it matters why it was effective, the issue is that it could only develop over time though experience.
These are not the actions of a purely logical and rational being. These are the actions of beings who have evolved instinctive methods of making sense of the world. Instinctive methods which the formalised methods of science sometime need to overcome if accuracy and reliability is to be achieved. Of course, but whatever? What does that have to do with the example I presented? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And strictly rational is irrelevant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
< content removed per suggestion of Admin seen below >
Edited by jar, : no point in responding Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024