Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:48 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 177 (589967)
11-05-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Jon
11-05-2010 9:55 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 9:55 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 177 (589970)
11-05-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
11-05-2010 8:43 AM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 8:43 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:03 PM Jon has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 177 (589972)
11-05-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2010 10:03 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 10:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 11:04 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 177 (589975)
11-05-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2010 8:12 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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 in Message 1:

Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?


Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:35 AM Jon has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 177 (589979)
11-05-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Jon
11-05-2010 10:28 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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:
I propose that the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature to generate knowledge about the physical world is not, as many claim, unscientific or (dare I say) 'supernatural', but instead perfectly good science differing only in results (by means of different inputs) from presently accepted knowledge in the overall scientific community. To clarify, I am not addressing specifically the knowledge itself that is so generated, but rather the methodologythat is, the generation of knowledge about the physical world based on the reading of histories.

I also propose that the ramifications from dismissing these methods as unscientific undermine the entire framework of science and the scientific ideals of investigation, skepticism, and minimally assumptive explanations (Occam's Razor). That many in the 'scientific community' are so quick to dismiss these methods as unscientific quackery shows their lack of respect for this framework and these ideals; and these prejudices work hard against the virtues of the scientific method that make it so much a valuable tool of discovery.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:28 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 141 of 177 (589984)
11-05-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Straggler
11-05-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 7:57 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:11 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 142 of 177 (589988)
11-05-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jon
11-05-2010 10:36 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:36 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 177 (589997)
11-05-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 11:35 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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:
Adequate in Message 128:

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.


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 12:21 PM Jon has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 144 of 177 (590002)
11-05-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
11-05-2010 12:02 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 12:02 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 177 (590032)
11-05-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jon
11-05-2010 10:26 AM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
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 doesnt 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:26 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 4:39 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 177 (590035)
11-05-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by jar
11-05-2010 11:22 AM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 11:22 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 2:19 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 177 (590039)
11-05-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 2:48 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 177 (590040)
11-05-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
11-05-2010 2:11 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:11 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:27 PM jar has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 177 (590044)
11-05-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
11-05-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
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 Re: Testing BY Prediction (Message 103)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 2:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 2:35 PM Straggler has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 150 of 177 (590045)
11-05-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Straggler
11-05-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
And strictly rational is irrelevant.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:27 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 7:12 AM jar has responded

  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019