Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority)
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 30 (448402)
01-13-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
01-12-2008 6:32 PM


I could not disagree more
Science at the fundamental level is about revealing objective truth about the natural world based on physical evidence.
Although necessarily imperfect the methods of science involving prediction, repeatability etc. etc. etc. are the best means we have constructed of ensuring the MOST objective and MOST accuarate conclusions possible.
Science is more than prescriptive method. It is about the best means of evaluating theories given the different kinds of physical evidence available.
Any reliance on authority is for the purely practical reason of not reinventing the wheel at every turn and the history of science is littered with absolute disregard for authority at any point that authority and nature seem to be at odds with each other.
In a contest between established thinking (i.e. authority) and reliable repeatable experimental evidence, evidence will (and has) won at every turn.
Purely because evidence is more reliable than authority in achieving the aims of science.
What you are describing is not science as I know it. It is however the very essence of unprovable faith based thinking.
That is the difference between the two and your misappreciation of the way science works is why you are confusing the two.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 01-12-2008 6:32 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 10:47 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 30 (448407)
01-13-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-13-2008 10:47 AM


Re: I could not disagree more
Aha!
It is a sad fact that we often have to make the creationist arguments for them as they are a) so few on the ground and b) so unable to make their own case in any properly debatable format.
I would say in respone to the original post you link to that the question "why is prediction so key to evaluating scientific theories" needs to be asked.
The answer is that it is one of the most difficult and objective tests that a theory can undergo.
It is not applicable to all evidence but as a method of objectively evaluating the 'truth' of a theory measurable prediction is second to none.
Constructing logical fallacy arguements based on the method rather than the reasons for the method misses the big picture 'nature of science' point entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 10:47 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024