Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Or must we automatically dismiss all the "non-scientific" evidence for things like paranormal phenomenon, or even a "God" (Theist or otherwise)? And by "evidence", I include the experiences of mystics and similar "non-scientific methods" that aren't necessarily "reproducible". Especially when even quantum physics is starting to look more like "philosophy" these days, is it time for perhaps a broader, inclusive and more truly "empirical" approach to seeking knowledge and understanding of the universe, than simply the "scientific method"?
No. The scientific method is right in requiring some sound evidence before admitting it no matter how it might get to look like the philosophy, pure mathematics or mysticism. Without the method we would have told ourselves that we already 'knew' the answers and we would never have got to the point where quantum begins to approach mysticism, but without the trappings of religion.
Incidentally, it isn't the either/or fallacy you posted mate. All science requires is some decent evidence about the mystical stuff, not 'science will never have the answers so you must take it on no evidence' argument we generally get.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
No. The scientific method is right in requiring some sound evidence before admitting it no matter how it might get to look like the philosophy, pure mathematics or mysticism. Without the method we would have told ourselves that we already 'knew' the answers and we would never have got to the point where quantum begins to approach mysticism, but without the trappings of religion.
Incidentally, it isn't the either/or fallacy you posted mate. All science requires is some decent evidence about the mystical stuff, not 'science will never have the answers so you must take it on no evidence' argument we generally get.
But that's the point, when even conventional "science" begins to resemble the "woo-woo" stuff, what constitutes "sound evidence" anymore? Is it time to reevaluate things, just as Newtonian physics once did? Or has "Scientism" simply become the new Fundamentalist "religion", never evolving, always infallible and inflexible, forever and ever, amen?
The scientific method is limited, but not irrelevant. Unfortunately, there is no better tool for understanding the universe at the moment.
Stepping away from the scientific method inevitably takes one back to bogus "magic" and "religion" though processes. On the flip side, anything that actually exists but is currently beyond scientific understanding is also beyond regular experience and more or less irrelevant to us anyway, so we aren't out much by failing to undertand it.
Science is our best chance at comming to an accurate understanding of all that is, mostly because at least science will admit it's wrong when new evidence/experience comes along to shake things up.
But that's the point, when even conventional "science" begins to resemble the "woo-woo" stuff, what constitutes "sound evidence" anymore? Is it time to reevaluate things, just as Newtonian physics once did. Or has "Scientism" simply become the new "religion", never evolving, always infallible and inflexible, forever and ever, amen?
Even with the Woo Woo stuff, there has to be sound evidence - supported reasons to put it forward as fact. The mathematic or musings, philosophical as they may seem, are (I heard this said) required to be demonstrated before acceptance. Quantum theory, string theory, dark matter and the holographic principle, though the mathematics may be so compelling as to persuade the scientific concensus, still ask for some hard evidence to demonstrate that it is so. Why do you suppose so much money is spent on machines for banging atoms together? Because we need the evidence.
Re - evaluation is always neccessary, but to throw the scientific method out of the window just because things begin to look a bit abstruse and revert to the blind and blundering speculations of imperfect human senses is senseless and only those who hope to find a way to wiggle around the science which is making God unnese-sarry and return to faith based indoctrinated myths and traditions could possibly propose it.
Why would you want to throw it out. It is a very effective tool, a filter so to speak, that in a sense, separates the wheat from the chaff, and there has been a lot of chaff, eapecially from these claimed experiences. Until something better comes along there really is no reason.
Here's a peculiar line of argument.
Quote:
inclusive and more truly "empirical" approach to seeking knowledge and understanding of the universe, than simply the "scientific method"?
You use that word "emperical." As Inigo Montoya so elloquently put it, "I do not think it means what you think it means." You have have tried to set up a conflation where there is none.
Imperical is, by definition, a quality of observation that is uniquely part and parcel with the scientific method. To make imperical observations more inclusive of non-imperical obervations is changing the meaning of imperical.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Oh yeah, no question, you start gettin' "off the path" of scientific rationalism and it's pretty shaky ground. But nevertheless, I have to wonder whether we're starting to seriously investigate some places where the old terminology, tools & methods are just becoming kinda "limited". Especially when even "science" is now questioning conventional notions of "cause and effect".
Just personally, I don't dismiss the experiences of some mystics or paranormal abilities as purely "subjective". But so far the scientific method doesn't provide any adequate tools for investigating these areas, or even recognizing them! Just intuitively (another of those "irrational" things), it seems like something's wrong with that picture.
Or must we automatically dismiss all the "non-scientific" evidence for things like paranormal phenomenon, or even a "God" (Theist or otherwise)? And by "evidence", I include the experiences of mystics and similar "non-scientific methods" that aren't necessarily "reproducible". Especially when even quantum physics is starting to look more like "philosophy" these days, is it time for perhaps a broader, inclusive and more truly "empirical" approach to seeking knowledge and understanding of the universe, than simply the "scientific method"?
Calling all hucksters, con men and snake oil salesmen.
No. The scientific method is the best approach we have to understand, and make predictions. The last is key. You can easily "understand" something (often incorrectly!) if you don't require the ability to reproduce an effect. Scientific theories make testable predictions based on how they model physical reality. Even quantum mechanics and quantum effects follow rules.
However, we'll never be a totally rational species, so don't worry - the weird and (currently) unexplainable will always provide fascination - and trigger all the weirdos as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
