Science: A Method not a Source

Are you suggesting that the sort of methods you describe above give equally accurate answers to questions such as the age of the Earth as more conventionally accepted scientific approaches?Or do you accept that some methods give more accurate answers than others? An entirely subjective foundation that results in inaccurate conclusions.

OK. Do all inputs lead to equally accurate conclusions?Or do you accept the pragrammers maxim of "rubbish in rubbish out"? No matter how logically valid ones method in-between may be. I guess technically it is an input.But I suspect that where we are going to disagree is as to our ability to seek objective inputs as well as methods.So - Do all inputs lead to equally accurate conclusions?

Huh!!So you are just going to assume that all starting points are equally valid and then ask if applying the same logical methods results in equally valid conclusions? But not all starting points are equally valid. And thus not all conclusions are equally valid or accurate as compared to reality.Are they?If you don't recognise this the entire question you pose is entirely pointless. Your question amounts to the following:"If I assume the bible is a valid starting point and apply logical methods to the information in it are the conclusions I derive just as valid as any other assumed starting point to which I apply the same logical methods?"So once again I put to you the pragrammers maxim of "rubbish in rubbish out". No matter how logically valid ones method in-between may be. You should retitle your topic: "Nonsense In Nonsense Out"That says it all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then I guess you missed the Verifying Epistemologies thread in which Jon declared his axionatic approach to these matters. Jon is misunderstanding a lot of things. Not least of all the fact that the aim of the scientific method is to maximise objectivity and make comparison with reality the yardstick by which all conclusions are ultimately measured.

A good methodology should be able to weed out poor evidence (or poor use of evidence) should it not? Are you familiar with prediction and verification as a key component of the scientific method?If we have some evidence we create a model, we logically extrapolate our conclusions based on that model to form predictions and then see if those predictions match reality. If they do match reality we have good cause to think our evidence is good, our logic sound, our model accurate and our conclusions in accordance with reality.If not - Then we review the situation.Are you familiar with this at all? Are you taking into account the fact that a key component of the scientific method is the constant checking that ones theories are in accordance with reality (i.e. that they are accurate)?So if the scientific method is properly applied (i.e. not as you desribe it in your OP) you can start wherever you want (yes even assuming that the bible is true) but you will still ultimately end up in the same place. Falsifying those theories and conclusions which are not in accordance with reality. And verifying those which are.If followed you will find that biblical literalism gets found out as being NOT in accordance with reality.Strangely that is exactly where we find ourselves. Because the scientific method has been applied.So what exactly is your point in this thread?

That the scientific method requires that one constantly compare ones models and conclusions with reality thus meaning that whatever starting point one chooses should be largely irrelevant as to the models and conclusions one ultimately ends up deeming as accurate. Yes Jon I did. You describe the following: "This young man, in his search for knowledge, has investigated the only thing he has the means for investigating and has come to a tentative conclusion that is based only on the evidence available and requires as few assumptions as possible. In every shape and form, this is precisely the way the modern scientific method has been designed to function."But that isn't the "modern scientific method". The "modern scientific method" incorporates various techniques for minimising subjective biases and verifying that conclusions are in accordance with reality. When you talk about using the bible to derive conclusions about the physical world by applying the scientific method creationism immediately springs to mind as that is exactly what creationists claim they are doing.Are they not doing this as far as you are concerned? If not in what way are they failing to meet the criteria you detailed in your OP? You make me feel so special. Not massively at the moment. But I'll keep you posted.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Jon it is still very unclear as to whether or not you accept that some conclusions are actually more accurate and in accordance with reality than others.For example - Is there an actual age of the Earth that is correct regardless of ones epistemology? Or do you think that there are no correct answers to such questions because all knowledge is derived from axioms? Thus making any one logically derived conclusion as good as any other. This is certainly the stance you took in the previous Verifying Epistemologies thread.Are you still wedded to this stance or have you moved on? Do you think testing ones conclusions against reality through prediction is a key component of the scientific method?Did he do this? I didn't use the phrase "ultimate end".Western civilisation has largely abandoned biblically derived conclusions in favour of scientifically derived conclusions regarding such things as the age of the Earth. How do you think this came about if not by the application of the scientific method? Perhaps you would like to reread it? Well we can only hope.......

Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? It’s your scenario and as described by you in the OP I cannot see any mention of him doing this at all. If he did can you give me an instance where he did do this including details of the prediction made and the actions carried out to test this prediction?But whether he did or he didn’t do this my question to you remains the same — Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Whether or not we can expect the lad in question to be aware of the scientific method or come to accurate conclusions regarding the question he is asking is another matter. I simply dispute that he was actually following the scientific method. An ability to make specific verified predictions is not an indicator of the accuracy of anything as far as you are concerned then?Then can I ask you why you think scientists bother to make predictions and test them? So all unfalsified conclusions are equally accurate as far as you are concerned? For example would you not agree that the conclusion that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun rather than being flat and fixed in space is a conclusion that is so well verified and thus deemed to be accurate to such a degree that any tentativity is purely philosophical? Well if prediction is the method by which we test and determine the accuracy of our models, theories and conclusions it is rather key to the topic is it not?So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.The trick here is to actually seek to test your theory. Either by refuting vague and generalised predictions that outright falsify your theory or (preferably) by confirming highly specific predictions which cannot just be guessed at.Although if you genuinely believe your actions will result in the end of the world you may not wish to undertake this sort of test. But that says more about the strength of belief than the accuracy of the conclusion. Bearing in mind the above do you think this is a good test of the theory in question? Or does it tell us more about the belief than the causal relationship under consideration?Compare this with (for example) the sorts of precise predictions made by the Big Bang theory or the readily falsifiable predictions made by evolutionary theory.You need to consider why we are testing predictions. Not just mindlessly follow some script. Science is a human endevour. If it were simply a logical algorithm we could just let the computers get on with scientific research while we sat on the beach.So - Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well that depends on ones beliefs.If one believes that answering people called jar on debate boards on the 1st of November 2010 will result in your head exploding then answering people called jar on debate boards on this date to test if this actually occurs would arguably be a "stupid experiment, fraught with way too much danger for any rational person to attempt".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?

Well exactly. So they weren't applying the scientific method were they? It seems we agree. Now if the question posed is whether we could reasonably expect them to apply the scientific method then I suspect we could both agree that - No this would not be a reasonable expectation.But that was not what Jon asked. 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 whilst such beliefs are very understandable and arguably even sometimes reasonable from an entirely human perspective that doesn’t mean that they are logically sound or strictly rational does it?It certainly doesn't mean that they are scientific. Which, as I understand it, is the question being asked here.

Irrelevant to what?The accuracy of the conclusions?

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?

Jon you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.I strongly recommend that you have a look at, and take part in, the thread The Scientific Method For BeginnersOf course people test things. But what do they test, how do they conduct these tests and why do they even bother to perform these tests?There are numerous examples of scientific theories being vindicated by means of verified prediction. In fact such verification is arguably the gold standard by which scientific theories are judged.Do you really think that a theory that has resulted in whole series of specific verified predictions is considered no more or less accurate and in accordance with reality than another theory which has nothing going for it beyond being unfalsifiable?Is that really how you think science works?

We have certainly been down the road of you arguing that belief is effectively evidence upon which to justify belief.I am unaware that you have previously declared the illogicality of a claim to be irrelevant as to it's accuracy or veracity.