|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief Versus The Scientific Method | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
ringo is right (I think) all evidence is objective.
But not all observations are evidence. Collected data should not be considered as evidence until they have been verified, the role of peer review and duplication. Second, evidence may change. That does not mean the past evidence was not objective. It may not have been complete but, if done right, it can be objectively obtained and analyzed, even if wrong (cold fusion comes to mind). IMHO, objectivity has little to do with the truth value of the evidence (also the function of peer review and replication) but in the nature of the data collection and its analysis. Once verified and the community agrees the data was objectively collected and analysed then it becomes evidence. Observation, data, unverified, does not count as evidence for the very reasons you cite. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
So when one of these guys or both claim they represent science you overrule it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Except that the guy who says he is a joke of a known liar happened to be the guy that invented mrna vaccine, no? Why would we favour the one opinion over the other?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Now you are trying to favour one media over another based on one media making unsubstantiated claims about other media.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
CNN? Ha Twitter? Facebook? Infowars? The point is that there is no such thing as a single voice for science or for politics, or media truth and etc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
So fauci and all others should check with you before claiming science? Good luck with that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Supernatural? I think that means anything beyond what natural knowledge deals with. Maybe like claiming laws break down before the Bib Bang or some such? How would I know all physics ceased to exist any more than I would know that an angel someone saw was real or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Maybe let's hunt one duck at a time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Just curious. If we completely removed the human element, would there be science or evidence at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
drlove Member (Idle past 791 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Some things could never be verified. So should we file all of that under magic, or belief?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Hm, I smell troll. Yuk!
Now you are trying to favour one media over another based on one media making unsubstantiated claims about other media. Just what the hell are you talking about? If you have a particular case of "unsubstatiated claims" in mind (other than the bat quano nonsense posted on your wnd site), then present it! In the case of science regarding the supernatural, science only says that it cannot deal with the supernatural and hence cannot use it. Just as my computer keyboard cannot deal with photographs or music, so it cannot use either of those two media as input. If you truly think that that means that my keyboard is making unsubstantiated claims about photos or music, then please explain yourself. Dang, the stench of troll is getting strong! "drlove". Does that mean that you're a "true Christian"™? Their Orwellian distortion of the word "love" is very well-known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Supernatural? I think that means anything beyond what natural knowledge deals with. And you think incorrectly. Supernatural means imaginary (although imaginary numbers are not supernatural). There is no such thing as natural knowledge.
Maybe like claiming laws break down before the Bib Bang or some such? Nope, incorrect again.
How would I know all physics ceased to exist any more than I would know that an angel someone saw was real or not? Not, but we are pretty sure that you don't know anything.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
drlove writes: Except that the guy who says he is a joke of a known liar happened to be the guy that invented mrna vaccine, no? Why would we favour the one opinion over the other? It wouldn't matter a toss if he was Micky Mouse in drag buggering the Pope. Science stands independent of the scientist and regardless of media. Science's great value is that it works. It has to be able to be demonstrated to work to others. If it doesn't work it's called something else - a story, a belief, a myth, a religion, a mistake - whatever. We're fond and proud of our scientists but it's the scientific method not the scientist that makes science work.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Supernatural? I think that means anything beyond what natural knowledge deals with. Hey, you yourself said in Message 128: " ... things that involve more than the natural laws the bind science." That pretty much fits the definition of supernatural. If you think that you're talking about something different, then simply state so. Though I rather doubt that your troll nature will allow you to. Are we to assume that you are also a creationist (and not in the nice sense)? A young-earther too? Then look into "contributing" to one of the topics on that subject. Though with actual claims, not the vague innuendo you've been waving about reeking of decaying bat quano.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What the Christian Cult of Ignorance insists on ignoring is that science is based not on belief but rather on doubt. It is doubt that requires science to independently test observations and to use a variety of tests to see if an assumption holds true.
Belief plays no place or function in science just as source is far less important than content.My Website: My Website
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024