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.
So you're admitting that the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe has no scientific validity, since it's not something which is testable by the SM?
Erm, what? Do you have a problem understanding the words I post? Perhaps you should re-read what I've posted.
May I expand a bit. As the Creation/Formation/Construction of the universe is not observable and can not be replicated. I agree some other method other than the SM is required to prove how it came into being.
Perhaps it cannot be observed or replicated because creationism is not valid scientific argument. Your suggestion is tantamount to declaring a theory valid, and then searching for evidence to validate it. Sorry, dude, that isn't how it works. How it works is that you do the observations and experiments, then allow others to peer review it and conduct their own observations and experiments to see if the theirs agree with yours. If they do, and enough evidence is validated, THEN, and only then do you develop a theory that explains them. Got anything like that?
You are correct. Us theists do often make those errors. Also many of us have a nagging thought that to find proof of something, somehow lessens our Faith. We forget that blind faith is blind.
We do need to understand that our belief is intangible. We do need to investigage why we believe what we believe. We do need to show rational, logical reasons for our beliefs.
When is that going to happen? You guys have had an entire millenia. One would think that you'd have caught on to it by now.
Science is admittingly not one of my best subjects, however God has given me other talents and skills in other curriculums that others probably would struggle with as we are not all made to understand amd be scientists. Be happy for what the Lord has given you.
Are you suggesting that scientists have some inate ability to understand things that the rest of human doesn't have? Because I used to be scientifically illiterate until I decided that I no longer wanted to be that way, and went to school, got the education I needed, and then pursued a science career in geology. Am I special? No. I'm just better educated/trained in science than those who decided not to persue such a vocation.
He said that not all hypothesis lends itself to testing by the scientific method. It's just a recognition that the scientific method isn't well suited to all types of questions.
What it means is that some hypotheses are not supported by the scientific data (and hence are rejected) even though they may have been scientifically formulated, not that the scientific method has failed in properly evaluating them. For instance, one such hypothesis that was rejected was the expanding Earth (EE) hypothesis. Once plate tectonics was discovered as a better explanation for the geological facts as well as the fact that the former violated many known physical laws, the expanding Earth hypothesis was discarded. In this case, EE was testable, and found to be an unsupported explanation. And so it has been discarded.
Arguments such as "god did it" are not testable and not falsifiable since they are based on subjective axiomatic reasoning, and as such, are not suited to scientific scrutiny. Science is based on empericism, not anecdotal evidence.
At some point in testing hypotheses, if the results contnue to give a negative result, it is time to formulate new ideas to explain your results.
What it means is that some hypotheses are not supported by the scientific data (and hence are rejected) even though they may have been scientifically formulated, not that the scientific method has failed in properly evaluating them. For instance, one such hypothesis that was rejected was the expanding Earth (EE) hypothesis. Once plate tectonics was discovered as a better explanation for the geological facts as well as the fact that the former violated many known physical laws, the expanding Earth hypothesis was discarded. In this case, EE was testable, and found to be an unsupported explanation. And so it has been discarded.
Arguments such as "god did it" are not testable and not falsifiable since they are based on subjective axiomatic reasoning, and as such, are not suited to scientific scrutiny. Science is based on empericism, not anecdotal evidence.
At some point in testing hypotheses, if the results contnue to give a negative result, it is time to formulate new ideas to explain your results.
Erm, what? Do you have a problem understanding the words I post? Perhaps you should re-read what I've posted.
Here's the exchange:
Quote:
DAVID: I'd say the main problem area as it [The SM] relates to this particular forum (and how it's used in such forums) is that these things only deal with natural and/or repeatable phenomena.
Quote:
ORIGENIC: Probably because there is no evidence that anything other than natural, repeatable results have any scientific validity. DAVID: So you're admitting that the idea of a naturalistic origin for the universe has no scientific validity, since it's not something which is testable by the SM?
ORIGENIC: Erm, what? Do you have a problem understanding the words I post? Perhaps you should re-read what I've posted.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that unless something has natural, repeatable results, it has no scientific validity. Since naturalistic creation has no natural, repeatable results, then (per your logic) it has no scientific validity. Unless you're saying it does, in which case, how? How can we use the SM to test whether the universe has naturalistic origins rather than having been purposely created?
If I've misunderstood your argument, I apologize, but then please explain what your argument was in this exchange.
Arguments such as "god did it" are not testable and not falsifiable since they are based on subjective axiomatic reasoning, and as such, are not suited to scientific scrutiny. Science is based on empericism, not anecdotal evidence.
The problem is that NO explanation for the universe's existence, including naturalistic ones, are testable and falsifiable, either.
We know that the universe began to exist billions of years ago and is expanding, but we can't use the SM to determine what, if anything, caused it to exist and expand in the first place. The SM is obviously the wrong tool for that particular job.
This is the Religion and Philosophy section of city data, not the Science section. If the discussion were as simple as you are making it out to be, this whole thread would be off-topic.
Yes, this is the R&P section, and I don't hang out here much, but I've seen evolution brought up enough times to know that science comes into discussions often enough. Religion/evolution is a hot topic on the net (as I'm sure you know). Further, rifelman's second post in this thread, again, notes science. To be clear, going off topic is quite natural in discussion. I take no beef with that. Given how this conversation has gone, I can see why folk who discuss science geared topics do not understand the fundamentals. A quick look into KingDavid's post history shows discussion of science, and yet he doesn't have a grasp of the basics. That is not conducive to productive communication imo. Before folk launch off into OT discussions, it might be a good idea to know where they are launching off from. That, ime, requires pausing and digestion of the initial material.
Quote:
But it's not off topic, because there are some implications of what is being discussed that are implied, but perhaps would be better understood if made more explicit.
We are discussing the limitations of the scientific method as a tool of rational inquiry into questions related to religion, and even the questions regarding the origins of everything. Some are acknowledging the power of the scientific method, while they are also acknowledging it's limitations.
Actually, you weren't discussing anything when he made the initial error, which took place in the second post of this thread before any discussion started. The OP asked if folk understood those terms. It's been establish that some do not. If the SM cannot be applied to a question then it is not a scientific question. That in itself is not a limitation of science or the SM. Misdefining a term is not a limitation of the SM. But, as far as I can tell, that was proposed in the second post in this thread.
Quote:
When the OP asked about the weaknesses of the SM, we are pointing out that it is not a flaw in the processes involved in the SM that is the primary limitation, rather it is simply the fact that many religious questions are not a suitable subject matter for scientific inquiry. The scientific method is not well designed to answer at least some of those questions.
Again, I recognize that some questions lay outside the realm of science, but I do not see the OP asking about the weaknesses of the SM under that guise. He states "But of course if you do feel there are inherent problem areas when these principles are correctly and honestly utilized, please outline those." I'm not seeing what you're seeing in this request. He then follows this by mentioning failed experiments, which is under the science brand. With that said, it's dandy to note that SM cannot address any and all questions. It simply does not fit in a reply to ascertain an understanding of scientific terms. It would fit in an OT discussion.
Quote:
By-the-by, the alternatives to the scientific method aren't limited to layman methods. There's also the field of philosophy, which is another tool in the tool box of rational methods of inquiry. There is also religion, for what it's worth.
Philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science, is one of the reasons I asked if I was missing something. It's not my bag, so who knows. But, that horse has not been let out of the gate yet. As it stands, the foundation of this conversation rests on error. Errors that have been pointed out and willfully ignored. I suspect this is quite common in discussions that involve both religion and science.
As far as other inquiries go, most of which I'm unfamiliar with, I have to wonder if the same shoddy approach is applied. If that is the case, then conversations addressing realms like philosophy and religion, which are far more complicated than science imo, must get pretty confusing.
To be clear, none of this is to charge you Boxcar. You're a great poster. I just happened to notice this thread by accident, saw the mention of the SM, and it attracted me because it's something I'm familiar with.
So are you seriously saying it IS testable by the SM? How so?
Sure, we do it all the time. Did you think that scientists just made up the idea of the big bang out of thin air? Come on, they're scientists, not theologians.
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.
