Science: A Method not a Source

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.

So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?

But the rationality of this test is to a large degree dependent on the rationality of the original belief is it not?

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?

So they weren't applying the scientific method were they?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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? 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. 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?

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?

So it has nothing to do with logic.

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?

So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?

Jar - Why do you think prediction is a key component of the scientific method?

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"?

And why do you think it is effective?

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.