|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So, how do you view the scientific method? What makes something the 'religious methodology' as opposed to the scientific methodology? When following the scientific method, if your results lead to a particular conclusion you accept that conclusion. When following the religious methodology, if your results lead to the wrong conclusion (one which does not follow scripture, for example), you don't accept that conclusion. A perfect example is the recent creationist RATE Project. A number of credentialed scientists, who were also creationists, set out with over a million dollars of creationist money to disprove the decay constant. This was seen as a critical step in showing that radiometric dating techniques are wrong and the earth is indeed young. These creation "scientists" came up with results that showed millions to a billion years of decay, confirming what real scientists had been saying. So naturally they refused to believe their results and fell back on scripture as the more accurate source of information on this topic. Creation "science" is the opposite of real science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
we wouldn't know what to make of it. Fair enough. So, you maintain that the scientific method is not applicable to certain forms of information? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality. One cannot make a determination given these options. If two independent falsifiable theories repeatedly stood the test of falsification, there would be no criteria by which to accept one of them over the other.
What we test and why has EVERYTHING to do with the scientific method. Because the things we choose to test are how we determine which of our competing theories most accurately reflects reality. Okay; the scientific method, you claim, is discriminatory in regards sources for informational inputs. If you could explain why that is and how it works, then I could understand your position better. And you are going to have to tell me how 'why' makes a hill of beans difference in the scientific method; if I study cancer treatments because I like to learn or because my parents both died from cancer, what on Earth difference does it make to the application of the method?
Are you really going to tell us that you consider some unfalsified explanation for an observed phenomenon to be on par with an explanation for the same phenomenon that results in a mass of specific and verified predictions? ... unfalsified, falsifiable explanation... Do I really need to keep correcting this?
Predictions are not things which are already known. They are how we test our theories and discover new phenomenon. I think it would be beneficial if you could explain the role you believe predictions to play in the scientific method. From what I gather, your understandings of 'predictions' are different than the ones laid out in the Scientific Method thread. Perhaps an explanation of how you see predictions in relation to the scientific method might help clear some things up. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
When following the scientific method, if your results lead to a particular conclusion you accept that conclusion. When following the religious methodology, if your results lead to the wrong conclusion (one which does not follow scripture, for example), you don't accept that conclusion. Okay, good start. May I ask how folk following the 'religious methodology' first come to their understandings of what conclusions do and do not 'follow scripture'?
Creation "science" is the opposite of real science. Then it's a really good thing we're not talking about 'creation science', eh? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
May I ask how folk following the 'religious methodology' first come to their understandings of what conclusions do and do not 'follow scripture'? Simple. The results of the RATE Project study showed evidence of radioactive decay going back millions to a billion years. This is incompatible with their belief in a young earth, so they refused to accept their own results. From a review of the RATE Project: In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed. From another review: Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old.111 This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. This illustrates the difference between creation "science" and real science. The folks who conducted the RATE Project refused to believe their own results, and instead fell back on prior belief based on scripture. This is the exact opposite of real science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: I think it would be beneficial if you could explain the role you believe predictions to play in the scientific method. The most famous example is the Big Bang theory Vs the Steady State Theory. One theory's acceptance over the other as a superior and more accurate portrayal of reality was a direct result of the predictions made.
quote: Note: It was not just the existence of the radiation that was predicted by BB theory but the precise value measured. A verified prediction that vindicated the theory exactly because of it’s specificity.
Jon writes: Straggler writes: What we test and why has EVERYTHING to do with the scientific method. Because the things we choose to test are how we determine which of our competing theories most accurately reflects reality. Okay; the scientific method, you claim, is discriminatory in regards sources for informational inputs. What are you talking about? We choose our predictions on the basis of achieving the most exacting and objective test of our theory we can devise. For example it is no use claiming that a new theory of gravitation has been verified because it’s predicts that the Sun will rise tomorrow. A theory is vindicated if it predicts new and previously unknown phenomenon. Why don’t you lookup General Relativity and see all of the verified predictions that theory has resulted in? You might learn something. I asked you why we make predictions and test them. We do this because it is the most exacting and most objective test of our theories we can come up with. It is relatively easy to construct a theory that meets all the known facts and yet which is full of subjective biases and wrong turns. But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing. And it is this component of the scientific method which your various scenarios and falsification only strategies are woefully lacking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: 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. 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?
jar writes: Logic has almost nothing to do with the subject. So it has nothing to do with logic.
jar writes: Of course they are rational and they originate from the same source as all other answers, from using reason and logic and reality. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This is incompatible with their belief in a young earth, Okay; here's what I am trying to get to. How is it they came up with the 'young Earth' belief? I do not recall any biblical passages mentioning a 'young Earth'. From what nooks of Scripture is this notion derived?
This illustrates the difference between creation "science" and real science. The folks who conducted the RATE Project refused to believe their own results, and instead fell back on prior belief based on scripture. It is certainly unscientific behavior for folk to reject application of the scientific method to understandings of certain evidences. In fact, any rejection to apply the scientific method would be, by definition, unscientific behavior. But, in this thread, I am not interested in looking at all the places where folk have rejected application of the scientific method; rather in looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process. Unless, of course, you find the source of the information crucial to the scientific method and can demonstrate which aspects of the scientific method so stipulate the nature of the informational source. This is what is at issue in this thread. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Okay; here's what I am trying to get to. How is it they came up with the 'young Earth' belief? I do not recall any biblical passages mentioning a 'young Earth'. From what nooks of Scripture is this notion derived? That's for you and them to figure out. A young earth is their belief based on the bible, and how they got there is not my problem. They clearly reject science and the scientific method when it conflicts with their beliefs. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And it is this component of the scientific method which ... falsification only strategies are woefully lacking. I think you'll find little lacking in my presentment of the scientific method; but let's take a look at the issues you raise and see what can be said about them:
Jon writes: I think it would be beneficial if you could explain the role you believe predictions to play in the scientific method. The most famous example is the Big Bang theory Vs the Steady State Theory. One theory's acceptance over the other as a superior and more accurate portrayal of reality was a direct result of the predictions made.
quote: Note: It was not just the existence of the radiation that was predicted by BB theory but the precise value measured. A verified prediction that vindicated the theory exactly because of it’s specificity. But what had the Steady State Theory 'predicted' regarding CMBR? If we read on, we see more:
quote: If 'vindication' to you is simply failure to be falsified (despite being falsifiable), then so it is; I will not debate on your usage of words. I will say this, however: had both BB and SST predicted the nature of the CMBR as it was discovered, then its discovery would have added nothing to the debate; it was only in as much as the discovery of CMBR was inconsistent with the notions of SST that one theory was able to be 'tossed' while the other be 'vindicated'. It would, thus, appear, that the 'vindication', or 'verification', of theories is not a positive process, but rather a negative one that results when certain of competing (falsifiable) explanations are falsified. The discovery of informations pertaining to certain (falsifiable) predictions seems completely useless if it does not serve to falsify one of a series of competing explanations. Without falsification it is impossible to get anywhere in science. If two competing theories, X and Y, both predict z, and z is found true, does this verify theories X and Y? I think here is where you will find the error of your thinking, for if we follow what you say, then indeed the finding of informations consistent with a theory's predictions serves to verify these theories; in cases such as X and Y, the finding of z verifies two theories which cannot both be true. This approach, then, leads us to believe in the truth of a contradiction, and any method that so allows this, as the scientific method per your description does, is not worth its weight in air and should definitely not be regarded as 'reliable' in any sense of the term. Certainly, this is not what we want; you yourself have argued, often, the importance of a reliable method. Such a method, of course, does exist, but depends on falsification of falsifiables, not verification of verifiables. With such a method, we can find z true without creating a contradiction, as it does nothing in the way of verification, and we rest both our theories as yet unfalsified, a clearly non-contradictory stance that does not jeopardize the reliability of our scientific method.
But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing. Believing you have something worth pursuing is much different than having something that is 'accurate'. Clearly, proponents of both X and Y would continue pursuing further research to their theories, but simple logic tells us that at least one of them is false. Finding a theory to be 'worth pursuing' does nothing to 'vindicate' or 'verify' said theory.
I asked you why we make predictions and test them. I think we should drop the topic of 'why' someone participates in any aspects the scientific method; one's personal motives are completely unrelated to anything regarding the method's actual values and merits. Speaking about relationship to the arguments, I would hope that we can find a way to bring this discussion of 'predictions' back around to the topic of the thread:
quote: As I recall, this issue of 'predicitons' was brought up in discussing the hypothetical scenario in the OP. It has been decided that, to save all our sanities, we should switch from matters related to the OP's scenario to matters related to the OP's argument. If we cannot relate 'prediction' to the general topic of the thread, then perhaps it should be dropped or brought to another thread. So, how do 'predictions' relate to the general points of the OP? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay; here's what I am trying to get to. How is it they came up with the 'young Earth' belief? I do not recall any biblical passages mentioning a 'young Earth'. From what nooks of Scripture is this notion derived? That's for you and them to figure out. A young earth is their belief based on the bible, and how they got there is not my problem. So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture?
They clearly reject science and the scientific method when it conflicts with their beliefs. And when it does not conflict with their beliefs? I agree, that it is certainly unscientific behavior for folk to reject application of the scientific method to understandings of certain evidences. In fact, any rejection to apply the scientific method would be, by definition, unscientific behavior. But, in this thread, I am not interested in looking at all the places where folk have rejected application of the scientific method; rather in looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process. Unless, of course, you find the source of the information crucial to the scientific method and can demonstrate which aspects of the scientific method so stipulate the nature of the informational source. This is what is at issue in this thread. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: 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. So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024