|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whether or not we can find individuals employing the scientific method on historical literature sources isn't relevant to whether or not there are such applications possible. Right. So it is all in your head.
If you believe that we cannot find any examples of the scientific method being used with historical literature sources, and so believe that this debate has no relation to anything you can point to immediately in the real world, and so decide it is not worth your time participating, then you are free to withdraw. You had me until 'not worth your time participating'...
I have no desire to force you to debate a point you may feel is irrelevant. Yeah, its definately irrelevant. But I do like refuting your arguments. You seem to be very conceited and to think you're profound. I enjoy comming in and exposing your shallow pedantry for what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You asked how the method outlined in the OP differed from the scientific method. It differs in it's lack of testing conclusions by prediction. Which method? I do not recall laying out any specific method in the OP. Perhaps you can quote the points to which you are referring.
By the terms of your argument we wouldn't bother to build particle accelerators, seek specific transitional fossils or make predictions at all. That is not my argument, Straggler.
So whether you like my arguments or not the fact is that you are refuted by the very actions of scientists around the world. I am not sure how any of the 'actions of scientists' you listed at all refute what I had said against your argument about verification and vindication of conclusions.
Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. What does this have to do with verification and vindication of conclusions?
A theory makes specific testable predictions. The prediction is tested. If the prediction is verified the theory is vindicated as being an accurate model of reality. 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. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But I do like refuting your arguments. You've yet to do anything of the sort.
Right. So it is all in your head. Irrelevant. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But that unevidenced assumption that the Bible is completely true is necessary in order to believe that one is calculating the age of the Earth by following that method. So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method?
quote: Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But I do like refuting your arguments.
You've yet to do anything of the sort. I've refuted your OP.
Message 28 awaits reply.
Right. So it is all in your head. Irrelevant. From the OP:
quote: None of that stuff is actually happening. Its just a hypothetical possibility in your head. It might be irrelevant to your hypothetical possibility, which I've already agreed is possible, but its relevant to the point that it doesn't matter because its not real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method? No, of course not, which is why I did not state or imply that in any way whatsoever. If you sincerely want to find out what I think, then may I recommend to you as a first step that you should read what I actually wrote? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method? No, of course not, which is why I did not state or imply that in any way whatsoever. quote: When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring? It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'. If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced? Jon Edited by Jon, : -the Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring? Uh ... to the fact that there is no evidence that everything in the Bible is completely true.
It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'. No.
If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced? In the sense that it is unevidenced. I don't know how to make this concept any simpler for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. Well done for finally getting past your mantra of falsification.
Jon writes: If two competing theories, X and Y, both predict z, and z is found true, does this verify theories X and Y? No. Which is why it matters what you choose to test. Different theories pertaining to explain the same observations will have different logical consequences. If the logical consequences of one theory are verified to a high degree (as was the case with the Big Bang theory) then that theory will be considered superior. Even if the second theory remains unfalsified or is modified to take account of the new data (which is exactly what Hoyle attempted to do with his Steady State hypothesis). By the mantra of falsification which you have been adhering to up until this point a theory with a glut of verified predictions is no better or worse than any old unfalsified nonsense one can pluck from ones arse. I am delighted to see that you have moved on. But just in case you are still insisting that the Cosmic Microwave Background is a falsification of the steady state hypothesis rather than a verification of the Big Bang theory - Have a look at this NASA page (it doesn’t even mention the steady state hypothesis)
Link writes: According to the Big Bang theory, the frequency spectrum of the CMB should have this blackbody form. This was indeed measured with tremendous accuracy by the FIRAS experiment on NASA's COBE satellite. This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum. NASA Link The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory and only a fool would deny this. This is because it is relatively easy to construct theories that explain and interpret known observations. But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality. So to these hypothetical people who you claim are applying the scientific method to the bible (or whatever else) my question is simple. What have you ever discovered? Not what have they concluded. But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions? And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: 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. And why do you think it is effective?
jar writes: 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. So we seek human-like conscious intent regardless of whether any exists or not and the result is that we imbue mindless physical processes with anthropomorphic traits (emotions, desires etc.) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Jar was saying that imagination is one of the components of reason, logic and reality. You asked how they could come to it without imagination. No. I asked how the conclusion that the world would end if people weren't sacrificed could be arrived at through logic, reason and reality.
CS writes: His point is that even with just reason, logic, and reality, you would still be with imagination. And my question pertains to the logic and reason that can be used to conclude that the world will end if no sacrifice is made. So the fact that it is possible to be imaginative and logical simultaneously is irrelevant as it doesn't answer that question does it?
CS writes: I dunno, I suppose I could, but that one's wierd. Dude it's jar's example. Not mine.
CS writes: Being wrong doesn't mean he didn't use them. And of course there's some imagination in there, but that doesn't mean he didn't use them either. Why do you think he didn't? I don't. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I don't think it matters why it was effective, the issue is that it could only develop over time though experience. Of course it matters why it is effective. In the context of this thread it matters because the question of how we judge our theories has been raised. How do we assess which theories best reflect reality? Is ability to predict a strong indicator of the accuracy of a theory? These are the questions being considered here. So I ask again - Why do you think prediction is an effective component of the scientific method? In what sense is it "effective"?
jar writes: Of course, but whatever? What does that have to do with the example I presented? It shows that the example you presented is not an example of a strictly rational conclusion but instead a very human one. Exactly as I argued in Message 103
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024