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.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Now your challenge is to prove that is true: By not using the Scientific method.
PROOF: It is true because the Bible uses it.
It is observed to have been used in the Bible. Basically that is what is being done in
Matthew 7:16-18 (NASB):
You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Ask a Question-- How will you know them
Do Background Research--Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles
Construct a Hypothesis--every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment--Check trees and see what the fruits are
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion--You will know them by their fruits
Communicate Your Results--Recite a parable to the People.
Vizio's question isn't something that should be easily dismissed. It's not a crackpot question brought forward only by people who attack science or defend religion.
As I pointed out earlier, there's not a single scientific method. Science uses all sorts of methods to determine what is true. The validity of those methods and the refinement of those methods occurs within the Philosophy of Science discipline.
I think the answer to his question is "no", because I think "proving that something proves something" requires philosophy, not science.
Exactly. Proof is the realm of mathematics. Philosophy tries to extend this via logic and reason, but at some point there is something that must be taken as an axiom.
However, simply because we cannot prove the methodological correctness of science ( forget proving, it is hard to even define) mathematically, science can be evaluated on another metric. Philosophy can answer questions about logical or formal correctness, which empirical validation cannot do. There is a lot of philosophy behind what science is, how it should be done, and the limits of what it can tell us. However these are strictly looking at logical limitations. It examines correctness in the abstract.
However, we can examine the models that a scientific process produces, and compare their error vs reality with the error generated by some other method that produce explanatory models of reality. We can clearly see that genetics, epigenetics, and chemical imbalances appear to model reality much better than the assumption that demons cause mental illness. We can say that the underlying methodologies that are in the rather nebulous field of science ( be the Popperian, Empiricism, methodological naturalism, or whatever) appear to give results with more predictive power when applied to observable reality than, say a Platonic approach, or a religious one. This is not proof in the philosophical sense, but may be proof in a vernacular sense.
Well I agree with everything except the SM acknowledges it is relative to what is observable by man. So its the only possible view man has from this form of gaining knowledge, the question becomes appropriate for what ?
03-27-2014, 03:05 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
So far the OP has used the terms 'proven', 'sound', and 'valid' in relation to the scientific method. I suggest he reevaluate the use of those terms and use them in their proper sphere.
Validity has to do with the structure of an argument - particularly a deductive argument or syllogism. What is interesting about validity is that you can have a valid argument even if the premises are not true. It is content blind or topic neutral.
The conclusion is true only if the premises are ALSO true. This is a sound argument.
Now let me ask this - how do you show the premises are true without appealing to further a priori statements? Uh! You must appeal to a posteriori statements which are based upon inferential methodologies - i.e. - the scientific method as one example.
As far as proof - well that has been dealt with already.
Science is a philosophy, a worldview, or maybe it could be stated a religion.
If that helps you sleep at night you can certainly believe that. But if you're viewing it in that context you should note that the science-religion worships logic, reason, and objectivity rather than some creature derived from ancient folklore.
So far the OP has used the terms 'proven', 'sound', and 'valid' in relation to the scientific method. I suggest he reevaluate the use of those terms and use them in their proper sphere.
Validity has to do with the structure of an argument - particularly a deductive argument or syllogism. What is interesting about validity is that you can have a valid argument even if the premises are not true. It is content blind or topic neutral.
The conclusion is true only if the premises are ALSO true. This is a sound argument.
Now let me ask this - how do you show the premises are true without appealing to further a priori statements? Uh! You must appeal to a posteriori statements which are based upon inferential methodologies - i.e. - the scientific method as one example.
As far as proof - well that has been dealt with already.
My sole point of this thread was to question why people hold up science as the ultimate answer. It is a philosophy--just like religion. You have no more basis to believe that naturalistic science is the end-all answer to life, the universe, and everything, than any religion....since you are on the most basic level, operating under the assumption that it is true, and have no way to prove it.
My sole point of this thread was to question why people hold up science as the ultimate answer. It is a philosophy--just like religion. You have no more basis to believe that naturalistic science is the end-all answer to life, the universe, and everything, than any religion....since you are on the most basic level, operating under the assumption that it is true, and have no way to prove it.
Just my opinion.
I have no qualms with science and accept scientific explanations as being valid explanations for the physical world.
It relates to that which can be seen, measured and replicated.
But, I also believe there is a realm that is not part of this physical existence. the realm of God(swt) all that was neither created nor made. This is the cause and reason for all physical existence, but it can not be observed by physical means nor measured by anything within our physical existence. Our tools and methods are of no use in the exploration of the Realm of God(swt)
Science is an excellent tool for that which is within the physical nature and can explain all physical things. But it is not related to what has been since before the creation of matter.
My sole point of this thread was to question why people hold up science as the ultimate answer. It is a philosophy--just like religion. You have no more basis to believe that naturalistic science is the end-all answer to life, the universe, and everything, than any religion....since you are on the most basic level, operating under the assumption that it is true, and have no way to prove it.
No, physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, etc., are not just philosophies. They are physical sciences. As such, they have rules that are testable and repeatable.
The idea of repeatable testing makes these disciplines believable in their own right. Personally, I've never heard anybody refer to any of these sciences as the end-all answer to life, the universe, and everything. If you have any evidence of such, it would make interesting reading.
It's not an assumption that chemistry and physics provide true answers. When hypotheses are predicted, tested, repeated, and verified by disinterested third parties, the proof is obvious. There is no assumption of truth.
Now, some may consider the scientific method a philosophy. I don't know why. It seems more like a methodology to me.
Science is a philosophy. You are starting out with the basic premise that the scientific method is valid. I'm asking you to prove that it is. And don't use the scientific method to try to prove itself--that's circular reasoning.
Ah... no. A Thousand times NO!!!
Science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, to split" (cf. Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)).
Science is as old as mankind, we observe a phenomenon and we ask the question why.
Early man looked to the heavens and noticed that the sun, moon and stars moved across the sky and logically inferred that surely this movement must be the result of the cosmos moving around the earth. That conclusion was based upon observation, nascent scientific inquiry. Yet in the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus of Samos proffered an HYPOTHESIS that in fact the earth revolved the sun. However, Aristarchus' hypothesis was untestable, it wouldn't be until 1512 that Nicolaus Copernicus who among other things was a professor of Canon Law mathematically confirmed Aristarchus hypothesis although he was wisely reluctant to opening publish his findings in order to avoid cross the Church's Bible driven nonsense that the earth was the center of the universe. Galilei wasn't as wise as Copernicus and as a result of his observations that reconfirmed both Copernicus' observation and Aristarchus hypothesis almost lost his life to the Inquisition. Over the subsequent centuries scientist have again and again looked over the work of these men who were just curious about the ways of the universe and through retesting their findings have led us to a far more profound understanding of the cosmos, an understanding that no sane person would again argue that the sun revolves the earth or anything else other than our moon.
That my friend is the scientific method.
We Observe, Question and Test... and test again until someone tears the whole edifice of knowledge down and then we humans start the process over again. THAT is the scientific method.
Creation science on the other hand (talk about cognitive dissonance) does precisely what they accuse the scientific community of doing. Begin with a premise (the Bible) and scurry around like chickens trying to shoe horn observations and data into the confines of 3000 year old mythology.
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.
) mathematically, science can be evaluated on another metric. Philosophy can answer questions about logical or formal correctness, which empirical validation cannot do. There is a lot of philosophy behind what science is, how it should be done, and the limits of what it can tell us. However these are strictly looking at logical limitations. It examines correctness in the abstract. 
