Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Davian]

...
The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true.

You do if you are implying that you have a methodology that can be used to explore reality with a greater level of accuracy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Of course the scientific method can be tested. Simply determine whether the use of the SM produces theories that accurately model reality. Boom! Tested!

 

[Davian]

Of course the scientific method can be tested. Simply determine whether the use of the SM produces theories that accurately model reality. Boom! Tested!

"But how can scientific methodology be considered accurate if it doesn't confirm the existence of my god?" - theists everywhere.

 

[bhsmte]

The scientific method is not itself testable. It is a philosophical position. It is logical and for the most part I agree with it. But consider this

The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true. We use our minds and make inferences from what we observe. Science after all simply means knowledge. Positing a Supernatural being from observations of what is made ( the material World) is not unscientific given an adequate explanation, relating to observed facts.

We can, and do, make logical inferences from observable data. Those inferences may be wrong, but scientists make inferences every day.



As I'm on my iPad the typing is slow. More can be said. Chew on it a while before dismantling.

Everyday of your life, you rely on conveniences brought to you through the scientific method, that you likely take for granted and don't even think about.

 

[Chriliman]

If there is no way to find out if a claim is false, there is also no way to find out if it is true.

So you first want to know if a claim is false?

You see how this would differ from someone who wants to know if a claim is true. No?

 

[Davian]

So you first want to know if a claim is false?

No, that it is testable.

You see how this would differ from someone who wants to know if a claim is true. No?

Spend a moment and familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Chriliman]

No, that it is testable.

Spend a moment and familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

So the scientific method should not be employed when one wants to figure out the truth about reality because the truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

 

[Davian]

So the scientific method should not be employed when one wants to figure out the truth about reality because the truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Spend a moment and familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Chriliman]

Spend a moment and familiarize yourself with the concept of falsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

It's not that difficult to understand. Maybe try explaining it in your own words. Sometimes it helps to think things through by typing it out.

 

[Davian]

It's not that difficult to understand. Maybe try explaining it in your own words. Sometimes it helps to think things through by typing it out.

Heed your own advice.

I will observe your posts, to see when and if you have grasped the concept.

 

[Chriliman]

Heed your own advice.

I will observe your posts, to see when and if you have grasped the concept.

How can I know that you have a proper grasp if you never explain your own understanding of the concept?

 

[Davian]

How can I know that you have a proper grasp if you never explain your own understanding of the concept?

You are free to point out where I have misapplied the concept. Maybe try explaining it in your own words. Sometimes it helps to think things through by typing it out.

 

[Chriliman]

You are free to point out where I have misapplied the concept. Maybe try explaining it in your own words. Sometimes it helps to think things through by typing it out.

Sure, when statement is falsifiable, this means it can be shown to be possibly false. This is required in order for a statement to be considered scientific.

The truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable, therefore the truth about reality would logically be unscientific. Therefore, one should not employ the scientific method in order to figure out the truth about reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, when statement is falsifiable, this means it can be shown to be possibly false. This is required in order for a statement to be considered scientific.

The truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable, therefore the truth about reality would logically be unscientific. Therefore, one should not employ the scientific method in order to figure out the truth about reality.

Any claimed truth, that has no way to be falsified, is not based on objective evidence and can not be objectively verified.

Do you think, the principle of falsification, is logical?

 

[Chriliman]

Any claimed truth, that has no way to be falsified, is not based on objective evidence and can not be objectively verified.

Do you think, the principle of falsification, is logical?

If one wants to know the truth about reality, they should not employ the scientific method because the scientific method relies on falsification. If you want to understand the truth about reality, just think logically and don't use the scientific method.

Can you show the above statement to be false?

 

[Davian]

Sure, when statement is falsifiable, this means it can be shown to be possibly false. This is required in order for a statement to be considered scientific.

Indeed.

The truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable, therefore the truth about reality would logically be unscientific. Therefore, one should not employ the scientific method in order to figure out the truth about reality.

You have confused 'unfalsifiable' with 'unable to falsify'. The former means unscientific, the latter could mean a degree of scientific accuracy.

Consider this: is it the truth that the Earth rotates, and orbits the Sun?

 

[Belk]

If one wants to know the truth about reality, they should not employ the scientific method because the scientific method relies on falsification. If you want to understand the truth about reality, just think logically and don't use the scientific method.

Can you show the above statement to be false?

Yes.

The idea behind falsification is not that something must be proved false but that there must be a way to determine if it is true or false. If you cannot determine if something is true or false you have no idea if it is true. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Belk]

The scientific method is not itself testable. It is a philosophical position.

Can I ask how you mean tested? Perhaps it is just me but I consider the fact that we have an ever widening base of knowledge the repeatedly seems to work to be a test that validates science works.

It is logical and for the most part I agree with it. But consider this

He has a valid point but I do not see how it changes the fact that science does work. It is certainly possible that there are better models out there but we have not found them yet.

The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true. {/quote]

Undeniably true. It still remains the best tool we have discovered to date.

We use our minds and make inferences from what we observe. Science after all simply means knowledge. Positing a Supernatural being from observations of what is made ( the material World) is not unscientific given an adequate explanation, relating to observed facts.

I disagree. One of those limitations of science is it is only able to deal in the natural. Positing anything supernatural immediately puts it outside the bounds of science.

We can, and do, make logical inferences from observable data. Those inferences may be wrong, but scientists make inferences every day.



As I'm on my iPad the typing is slow. More can be said. Chew on it a while before dismantling.

True, they do. And sometimes those inferences are proved right and sometimes proved wrong. It seems to me it is the test that allows us to tell if we are correct that are the important part.

 

[The Cadet]

The method is simply thinking for yourself.

I'm thinking for myself, and I think you're wrong. How do we resolve this? What you've described here is not a method.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true.

That science cannot answer some question does not imply that religion can.