Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and if I date an igneous rock and find it to be 5 million years old +/- 1% ten times. I can be assured that it is correct. Furthermore, if I do the same thing using 10 different isotope methods and come up with the same answer I can be assured it is correct. That is how "science" knows that the earth has made more than 6,000 trips around the sun. There is no embedded age no matter how far you stick you head in the sand.

And if you saw Adam on the day he was created, as well as Eve -- let me guess -- you would also assume the earth has gone around the sun about 20 or 30 times, correct?

If I'm sticking my head in the sand, it's to look for you.

(And don't bother answering my question; it'll probably be some rhetorical bologna.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure - but he's got the ancient writings of a bronze-age people that he's using as a science manual. You can't beat that.

-- and the false accusations just keep on coming, don't they?

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

There is some science in the Bible, but it is written in prescient form so as to apply in all ages.

And for the record, the Creation Week is history, not science.

Let me know if I ever use the Bible as a science book. As I'm fond of saying:

• Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gates' diary as a computer manual.

Let me reiterate, yet again: Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it isn't. This is a very poor argument. You can do better than this Juve.

The continuing existence of astrology only demonstrates the continuing existence of human gullibility and/or our enjoyment of being entertainingly wrong.

Not everyone can be an astrologist. It is a study, thus it is a science.

 

[acropolis]

Not everyone can be an astrologist. It is a study, thus it is a science.

The only scientific elements are the methods of cold reading and other means of deceiving people. There isn't actually any science involved in divining future events from the position of the stars, since non of it is falsifiable.

 

[dbcsf]

A law of science is a powerful tool for science. It is stronger than conclusions drawn from the scientific method in one sense, and weaker in another.

It is stronger than the scientific method in that science must postulate it to be true in order to utilize the scientific method. A scientific law is the necessary foundation of science.

It is weaker than the scientific method in that it cannot be understood in a scientific manner. It is understood only as observed phenomena.

How does the scientific method work?

First someone observes something. Next they form a hypothesis, next they try to falsify it, etc. Over the course of many different repeatable experiments scientists get a pretty good understanding of the mechanism of what they are studying.

Please do not mistake the scientific method for the method of understanding the laws which it necessarily utilizes.

Laws come from observation alone. That is the first step of the scientific method, not the last. No one has developed a theory of gravity and developed experiments to support their theory. Gravity is, therefore, a law. It is not understood scientifically. Yet, it is necessary to be used in order to do science.

The whole point of science is that people can understand the mechanism of things. For example, what is the mechanism of creation? If you cannot describe the mechanism you do not understand your subject scientifically.

Does science depend on faith? If you define faith to exclude the scientific method AND faith of scientists in the laws of science then, no, I suppose not.

What do you call it when a scientist depends on a scientific law for his science, for which he has no understanding or explanation?

Science is not observation AND the scientific method. Scientific understanding is the understanding derived from the scientific method.

Your definition of faith may exclude faith in science by including observation of physical phenomena, but your definition of science has to limit its scientific understanding to information gained from the scientific method.


If you cannot admit that "the law of gravity" is somehow understood in a very different fashion than a combustion engine then you are being intellectually dishonest with me. Combustion engines can be explained. Eyesight can be explained. Antibiotic efficacy can be explained. We know the mechanism. We have done the experiments.

Gravity? I am still waiting. No explanation of the mechanism of gravity implies directly that science is based on trust, postulation, observation alone without the benefit of experimentation, faith or whatever.

Please do not hold up a "scientific law" and tell me that it is stronger than the scientific method.

This is not a time for definitions or faith based statements about science. It is a time for honest and clear thought.

When you make statements without the support of a mechanism supported by experimentation you are behaving as a theist, and your scientific laws are turning into Gods which you worship and adore for no rational reason except that wherever you look you observe them. That and of course when you make your calculations based on your observations you can reliably date the universe or design an airplane, or a better mousetrap, etc.

Additionally when you hold up scientific laws as "special science", you imply that there are two methods of knowing scientifically. What will it be? Can we know things by observation alone and by the scientific method? If you say yes to this I can name hundreds of things that people thought they knew based on observation alone which were very wrong.

On the contrary, we developed science precisely because observation alone was not as accurate. We want to get our facts from the scientific method, not from observation alone, and preferably not from faith.

Science, therefore is based on postulations, or, the other way of knowing. Some call it faith. Depends on how you define faith, I guess. Science is not based on science, that is a fact.

Science is wonderful. It is not based on science or fact. It is based of trust in the foundation for which there is no falsifiable repeatable, testable evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not everyone can be an astrologist. It is a study, thus it is a science.

Studying something does not make it scientific. Astrology is not scientific because it is neither testable nor falsifiable. If want to claim that every astrological prediction is accurate then you will be sorely disappointed. The fact that astrology continues on in the face of false predictions only further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of astrology.

But if you think I am wrong please cite a scientific astrological study and we will go over it together.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, we're talking about the correct, historical definition of the English word "faith". It appears to me that you haven't really thought very hard about what I said.

Since we are talking in the present the present usage of the word is the correct one to use.

You think that it's waste of time to establish the correct definition of terms?

I think it is a waste of time to play semantic games. What we should be doing is describe what we each mean by faith and discuss it. Ignoring someone's definition because it does not match a definition in a 2,000 year old book is a waste of time.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I've said nothing about any conclusions.

You will notice that I did.

My comments are aimed only at the presupposition that we are rational and that we can make observations that conform to reality. That's not something that is provable scientifically. If it is, then prove it.

Science is not trying to prove those presuppositions. That is not the purpose of the scientific method. That is the purpose of philosophy and epistemology. When we are talking about the scientific method as it is used we are talking about the conclusions that the scientific method arrives at. That IS the purpose of the scientific method, to produce testable and falsifiable theories that are derived from the observable evidence.

I, for one, view axioms (as part of an epistemology) and faith as two different things. You may view them as the same thing. Perhaps that is worth discussing?

 

[Loudmouth]

I most certainly have, quite clearly. So far no one has bothered to provide a coherent rebuttal what I've said.

Why should we rebut the trivial nature of your argument? The type of faith you are describing is the same type of faith that is required for cooking or playing golf. It is exceedingly trivial.

Yes it does, as I've shown from the actual meaning of the word and the way it's been used in English since the language developed up to the present day. You're just choosing to ignore an argument that you can't rebut.

Ok. Science requires the same level of faith that is required for cooking and playing golf. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[davedajobauk]

A law of science is a powerful tool for science. It is stronger than conclusions drawn from the scientific method in one sense, and weaker in another.

It is stronger than the scientific method in that science must postulate it to be true in order to utilize the scientific method. A scientific law is the necessary foundation of science.

It is weaker than the scientific method in that it cannot be understood in a scientific manner. It is understood only as observed phenomena.

How does the scientific method work?

First someone observes something. Next they form a hypothesis, next they try to falsify it, etc. Over the course of many different repeatable experiments scientists get a pretty good understanding of the mechanism of what they are studying.

Please do not mistake the scientific method for the method of understanding the laws which it necessarily utilizes.

Laws come from observation alone. That is the first step of the scientific method, not the last. No one has developed a theory of gravity and developed experiments to support their theory. Gravity is, therefore, a law. It is not understood scientifically. Yet, it is necessary to be used in order to do science.

The whole point of science is that people can understand the mechanism of things. For example, what is the mechanism of creation? If you cannot describe the mechanism you do not understand your subject scientifically.

Does science depend on faith? If you define faith to exclude the scientific method AND faith of scientists in the laws of science then, no, I suppose not.

What do you call it when a scientist depends on a scientific law for his science, for which he has no understanding or explanation?

Science is not observation AND the scientific method. Scientific understanding is the understanding derived from the scientific method.

Your definition of faith may exclude faith in science by including observation of physical phenomena, but your definition of science has to limit its scientific understanding to information gained from the scientific method.


If you cannot admit that "the law of gravity" is somehow understood in a very different fashion than a combustion engine then you are being intellectually dishonest with me. Combustion engines can be explained. Eyesight can be explained. Antibiotic efficacy can be explained. We know the mechanism. We have done the experiments.

Gravity? I am still waiting. No explanation of the mechanism of gravity implies directly that science is based on trust, postulation, observation alone without the benefit of experimentation, faith or whatever.

Please do not hold up a "scientific law" and tell me that it is stronger than the scientific method.

This is not a time for definitions or faith based statements about science. It is a time for honest and clear thought.

When you make statements without the support of a mechanism supported by experimentation you are behaving as a theist, and your scientific laws are turning into Gods which you worship and adore for no rational reason except that wherever you look you observe them. That and of course when you make your calculations based on your observations you can reliably date the universe or design an airplane, or a better mousetrap, etc.

Additionally when you hold up scientific laws as "special science", you imply that there are two methods of knowing scientifically. What will it be? Can we know things by observation alone and by the scientific method? If you say yes to this I can name hundreds of things that people thought they knew based on observation alone which were very wrong.

On the contrary, we developed science precisely because observation alone was not as accurate. We want to get our facts from the scientific method, not from observation alone, and preferably not from faith.

Science, therefore is based on postulations, or, the other way of knowing. Some call it faith. Depends on how you define faith, I guess. Science is not based on science, that is a fact.

Science is wonderful. It is not based on science or fact. It is based of trust in the foundation for which there is no falsifiable repeatable, testable evidence.

Excellent post

dave


postulate: I wonder if
conclude: a, b, c, and d, can be seen so it maybe so, but maybe also
faith: is hope that what one believes is-right
FACT: is testable, repeatable, proven, according to the limit of present understanding

 

[juvenissun]

Studying something does not make it scientific. Astrology is not scientific because it is neither testable nor falsifiable. If want to claim that every astrological prediction is accurate then you will be sorely disappointed. The fact that astrology continues on in the face of false predictions only further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of astrology.

But if you think I am wrong please cite a scientific astrological study and we will go over it together.

How about political "science"? If the study of politics could be a science, then what is not a science?
If you think politics is not a science, then I would suggest you to write such a message to the school board of nearly all universities.

 

[Loudmouth]

How about political "science"?

Your quotations are well placed. Political science is not a part of the natural sciences. When we talk about the scientific method we are talking about the natural sciences, not political science.

If you think politics is not a science, then I would suggest you to write such a message to the school board of nearly all universities.

You will notice that political science is part of the Humanities, not the Science Department. Again, playing semantic games is not helping your argument.

 

[juvenissun]

Your quotations are well placed. Political science is not a part of the natural sciences. When we talk about the scientific method we are talking about the natural sciences, not political science.



You will notice that political science is part of the Humanities, not the Science Department. Again, playing semantic games is not helping your argument.

I am not the one who played the game. People are jumping to science these days anyway they could. Everything is science. The term science now is becoming meaningless. I have just heard terms like "economic science" and "financial science" the other day. "Accounting Science" has be around for quite a bit time already.

Fine, scientific method. Let me ask you: what study does NOT use scientific method?

 

[juvenissun]

Excellent post

dave


postulate: I wonder if
conclude: a, b, c, and d, can be seen so it maybe so, but maybe also
faith: is hope that what one believes is-right
FACT: is testable, repeatable, proven, according to the limit of present understanding

One could win the super lotto once in his life. It is not testable, it is not repeatable, and can not be proven. So is it not a FACT?

 

[davedajobauk]

The FACT that the lotto had been won ...
could neither be denied nor found to be false
and a consequence therefore, of possession... is, that it is 'proven fact'

What may be... is to be tested _ ~understanding is adjourned 'sine-die'
what is.... is appreciated for as much as it may be understood
what has been..... is the precursor to understanding 'today', and 'tomorrow' ~ when, it gets here

Hypotheses, re: what may be
are examined in 'prescribed ways' lending shared-understanding via similar 'scientific-study' [peer review]

 

[AV1611VET]

Hypotheses, re: what may be
are examined in 'prescribed ways'...

You said a mouthful there, Dave.

I won't argue with this at all.

And scientists prescribe the ways too, don't they?

 

[CabVet]

*delete

 

[f3n1xhvn732]

Science is more than just facts. Is the sum of facts and interpretation if the facts. With the interpretation you can make a testeable hipothesis to understand the mechanism. Facts are undeniable, interpretation could change. Thats how science advances. Bieng wrong is good, and discussion of results is what gives "vitality". Science got dead.

Laws come from observation alone. That is the first step of the scientific method, not the last. No one has developed a theory of gravity and developed experiments to support their theory. Gravity is, therefore, a law. It is not understood scientifically. Yet, it is necessary to be used in order to do science.

Yes and no. Sometimes you can´t have all information required but that doesn´t mean it can´t have an ontological reality. For example, you can have a tridimensional sphere. Half white, half black is an onthological truth. Then everyone observe it from different perspectives and take it like evidence of their models of the sphere. The average don´t work that well because it can be biased from one side or another (specially if you can´t know is a sphere, all think that is only a circle).

Thats the difference of model and reality. The model is based on assumption and observations (sometimes testing) but can be wrong. As long is useful is good. Sometime you can´t know all about the system you are working with. Sometimes information is discarded and it could be useful to know the reality.

The whole point of science is that people can understand the mechanism of things. For example, what is the mechanism of creation? If you cannot describe the mechanism you do not understand your subject scientifically.

But sometimes the machanism that is prepared could be wrong. All because you can´t know all the important things. New evidence could change everything. Is the black swan paradox, if you only see white swans you can deduce that all swans are white. But all can change if then apears a black swan. They are the thing that makes Science interesting and exciting, it can change "the rules". This is specially truth in the biological, ecological and medical sciences. They can´t know all the interactions (or pertinent information). Is simply too complexity inherently on the systems itselves. The best we can do is describe and make models knowing that can change with the time. And is Science though.

The fact that Science can be wrong is what differentiate it with religion.

 

[Supreme]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone clean up. Please keep it civil, with no goading- that applies to all members.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[davedajobauk]

You said a mouthful there, Dave.

I won't argue with this at all.

And scientists prescribe the ways too, don't they?[/quote]



For sure! There are 'prescribed methods' of investigation
which, when followed by the book may or may not
provide answers of an understandable nature/ kind


However, while an eminent scientist, may well recall some experience
that might, when-announced, pave the way [as prescribed]
for another person to see a similar set of figures [YES!]
I dont hold that scientists PRESCRIBE the ways at-all

Faith, has little do with Science [beyond the 'first-person']
Science, has no need of faith in any form

Scientists learn,
HOW TO follow, 'the tried and tested' [beaten path] of their predecessors
in the hope [not faith]
of expanding upon, recent past-knowledge of, the subject]

Some of the earlier posts, were cause sufficient, for a few smiles [here]



dave

 

[davedajobauk]

Gravity ? isn't that, the_ Mass ^ Inertia > energy 'kinetic'

~gravitate toward the next 'largest' [the bigger, the better] mass
'accretion', limited, only, by 'source availability' [met 'en-route']
'attraction' increases along with growth in Mass and inertia
Electro-magnetic fields also attract/ repel, 'selectively' [sort-of]
But then, again
maybe, there is, 'order', _to be found, amongst chaos


dave