OH the failings of science...

[rcorlew]

I would like to take a look at some of the things that science cannot do and is not really designed to do. I am going to start off by giving the definition of scientific method and then show how this is not the only method used in science by a nice use of myself.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Glossary

Item number 1 on this thread I would like to be that you cannot use the "scientific method" to prove the existence of me or anyone else. Thankfully (I cannot be explained by the scientific method as there are many things about me that cannot be explained!!! EVER!!!!!
[/FONT]

 

[philadiddle]

I would like to take a look at some of the things that science cannot do and is not really designed to do. I am going to start off by giving the definition of scientific method and then show how this is not the only method used in science by a nice use of myself.



Item number 1 on this thread I would like to be that you cannot use the "scientific method" to prove the existence of me or anyone else. Thankfully (I cannot be explained by the scientific method as there are many things about me that cannot be explained!!! EVER!!!!!
[/size][/font]

What is it about you that science will never be able to explain?

 

[rcorlew]

What is it about you that science will never be able to explain?

Well in a nutshell, just me, nothing else. Thankfully I am not repeatable so I cannot be explained by the "scientific method" I can be observed (but I am not really that interesting to watch) I can be proved by empirical evidence though.

 

[Assyrian]

Would science be able to show your DNA was a combination of your mother and father's, with the usual 120 to 180 new mutations?

 

[Orogeny]

Well in a nutshell, just me, nothing else. Thankfully I am not repeatable so I cannot be explained by the "scientific method" I can be observed (but I am not really that interesting to watch) I can be proved by empirical evidence though.

I think you are mistaken. You may not be repeatable yet, but human cloning is within the reach of science.

Your existence is quite easy to prove. We observe you, and we observe that you act upon your surroundings. Existence=proven.

 

[shernren]

To throw this thread on a wholly different tangent:

Science cannot show that science is the best paradigm within which the world should be understood. IOW, science cannot show the irrelevance of philosophy, theology, art, etc.

 

[Assyrian]

I think his point is that exact combination of genes is unrepeatable, being a random selection. Run the process again and you would get another combination.

 

[gluadys]

Well in a nutshell, just me, nothing else. Thankfully I am not repeatable so I cannot be explained by the "scientific method" I can be observed (but I am not really that interesting to watch) I can be proved by empirical evidence though.

You are, however, observable and the observations are repeatable. Many observers can observe you multiple times and formulate a hypothesis based on their observations of the phenomenon we call "you".

 

[rcorlew]

You are, however, observable and the observations are repeatable. Many observers can observe you multiple times and formulate a hypothesis based on their observations of the phenomenon we call "you".

Yes I am observable, but science cannot successfully recreate all the specific events in a controlled lab setting that led to my becoming of a person. That is the "scientific method", the ability to test a hypothesis multiple times and produce predictable results. There are other methods of verifying a hypothesis in science though, you can use geology, archaeology, math, cosmology, as well as paleontology to name the most useful. My point is that if you, as a point of argument, rely solely on the "scientific method" in order to prove, or in many cases on forums such as these, disprove any point you have missed the fact that science does not rely solely on this one method.

To throw this thread on a wholly different tangent:

Science cannot show that science is the best paradigm within which the world should be understood. IOW, science cannot show the irrelevance of philosophy, theology, art, etc.

Ahhhhhhhh, very good man!

I think that science shows how important the other aspects to knowledge are, much like this: A scientist discovers how to make a "super-duper bomb" yet has no sound theological or philosophical view to keep him from using this bomb to control the world, so Dr. Evil decides to do just that (much like Nazi Germany tried to). Without a strong foundation answering the question of why we have value, no amount of knowledge in the world is actually worth anything!

 

[matthewgar]

Yes I am observable, but science cannot successfully recreate all the specific events in a controlled lab setting that led to my becoming of a person. That is the "scientific method", the ability to test a hypothesis multiple times and produce predictable results. There are other methods of verifying a hypothesis in science though, you can use geology, archaeology, math, cosmology, as well as paleontology to name the most useful. My point is that if you, as a point of argument, rely solely on the "scientific method" in order to prove, or in many cases on forums such as these, disprove any point you have missed the fact that science does not rely solely on this one method.



Ahhhhhhhh, very good man!

I think that science shows how important the other aspects to knowledge are, much like this: A scientist discovers how to make a "super-duper bomb" yet has no sound theological or philosophical view to keep him from using this bomb to control the world, so Dr. Evil decides to do just that (much like Nazi Germany tried to). Without a strong foundation answering the question of why we have value, no amount of knowledge in the world is actually worth anything!

I think your confused on something here, don't worry it's a common strawnman misconception about science.

Science isn't intingent onf wether we like something or not, or what comes from science." Argumentum ad, Consequentium", we have gained alot of knowledge and benefits from understanding nuclear energy, but it can be used in destructive ways, but thats up to the people not science to use it wrong or right.

Take evolution, it's a common argument to say, "Belief in evolution leads to atheism, to nazi germany, to slaughtering, to people rioting in the streets, to insanity." or any other nonsense. But even if this is true, wich me and anyone else here that accepts evolution can attest too, it says nothing about wether it's true or not. Wether we like the consequences of the truth it's still truth, reality doesn't get to conform with our likes or dislikes, as I"m sure many here would tell atheists, that their like or dislike of god doesn't change he exists.

Also you use the idea that everything has to be repeatable in science, fortunetly thats not what real science follows, we don't have to recreate every aspect of you in the exact same way, we just have to observe and do repeatable experiments. Can me, and 300 different people sequence your DNA and that of your parents and come to within margin of error reasonable conclusion that your most likly a product of your parents. We could also find out if you were adopted or likly one of your parents cheated, and this can be repeatable by everyone testing.

In astronomy, we havn't had to see the planetary disk that formed our solar system, the moon hitting the earth and forming, among many other things, these hypotheses and such were formed by observation, and have since been verified outside of our own solar system multiple times in many locations by many different people.

There is a reason that any time someone has said, "Beyond this point science can't explain it." that point has been broken. Everything up to god will likly be explained or least something found out about it, the time to say, "Science can't explain or observe X" is at the point that science has proded, poked, and beat the object with every method of observation to death, putting lines in the sand and saying this is something science can't learn about only hinders knowledge, and gives up before trying.

 

[rcorlew]

I think your confused on something here, don't worry it's a common strawnman misconception about science.

Science isn't intingent onf wether we like something or not, or what comes from science." Argumentum ad, Consequentium", we have gained alot of knowledge and benefits from understanding nuclear energy, but it can be used in destructive ways, but thats up to the people not science to use it wrong or right.

Take evolution, it's a common argument to say, "Belief in evolution leads to atheism, to nazi germany, to slaughtering, to people rioting in the streets, to insanity." or any other nonsense. But even if this is true, wich me and anyone else here that accepts evolution can attest too, it says nothing about wether it's true or not. Wether we like the consequences of the truth it's still truth, reality doesn't get to conform with our likes or dislikes, as I"m sure many here would tell atheists, that their like or dislike of god doesn't change he exists.

Also you use the idea that everything has to be repeatable in science, fortunetly thats not what real science follows, we don't have to recreate every aspect of you in the exact same way, we just have to observe and do repeatable experiments. Can me, and 300 different people sequence your DNA and that of your parents and come to within margin of error reasonable conclusion that your most likly a product of your parents. We could also find out if you were adopted or likly one of your parents cheated, and this can be repeatable by everyone testing.

In astronomy, we havn't had to see the planetary disk that formed our solar system, the moon hitting the earth and forming, among many other things, these hypotheses and such were formed by observation, and have since been verified outside of our own solar system multiple times in many locations by many different people.

There is a reason that any time someone has said, "Beyond this point science can't explain it." that point has been broken. Everything up to god will likly be explained or least something found out about it, the time to say, "Science can't explain or observe X" is at the point that science has proded, poked, and beat the object with every method of observation to death, putting lines in the sand and saying this is something science can't learn about only hinders knowledge, and gives up before trying.

Perhaps you might not have understood what I was saying, so I will make it more clear than I may have.

The argument that it is incumbent upon science to be able to reproduce the events in which it has made a correct summary of in the form of an observable theory to be reproducible is without merit. The scientific method is not the only method available to ascertain the validity of a hypothesis, if this statement were not true the amount of verifiable knowledge would be exponentially lower than the present level. Quite simply put, there are many tools available to science today.

 

[Chesterton]

It's true that science can't prove anything, but I think it's not exactly right to call that a "failing". It's an "inability" rather than a failing, just like man being unable to flaps his arms and fly is not a failure of man, just an inability.

 

[matthewgar]

Perhaps you might not have understood what I was saying, so I will make it more clear than I may have.

The argument that it is incumbent upon science to be able to reproduce the events in which it has made a correct summary of in the form of an observable theory to be reproducible is without merit. The scientific method is not the only method available to ascertain the validity of a hypothesis, if this statement were not true the amount of verifiable knowledge would be exponentially lower than the present level. Quite simply put, there are many tools available to science today.

Except your claim has 0 merrit and just your assertion that science must conform to your preconceptions of what it is, not what science actually has stated and based upon for the last few hundred years. You do NOT Have to repeat the events to prove they happened, any more then a forensic detective has to repeat and recreate the entire crime to find out what happened, your just making a strawman argument so you can refute science as best as I can tell.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps you might not have understood what I was saying, so I will make it more clear than I may have.

The argument that it is incumbent upon science to be able to reproduce the events in which it has made a correct summary of in the form of an observable theory to be reproducible is without merit. The scientific method is not the only method available to ascertain the validity of a hypothesis, if this statement were not true the amount of verifiable knowledge would be exponentially lower than the present level. Quite simply put, there are many tools available to science today.

Does the scientific method mean reproduce the events, or being able to repeat the tests used to verify the hypothesis? It sounds to me like your other methods to ascertain the validity of a hypothesis, are scientific method too.

 

[[serious]]

I would like to take a look at some of the things that science cannot do and is not really designed to do. I am going to start off by giving the definition of scientific method and then show how this is not the only method used in science by a nice use of myself.



Item number 1 on this thread I would like to be that you cannot use the "scientific method" to prove the existence of me or anyone else. Thankfully (I cannot be explained by the scientific method as there are many things about me that cannot be explained!!! EVER!!!!!
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I theorize that you are an actual person.
I formulate a test of this which consists of driving to your house and seeing if you exist.
My theory gets confirmed.

Hence, science can prove individuals exist

 

[Assyrian]

I theorize that you are an actual person.
I formulate a test of this which consists of driving to your house and seeing if you exist.
My theory gets confirmed.

Hence, science can prove individuals exist

Maybe it just means you've taken the blue pill...

 

[Cabal]

In the sense that a person's life is subject to enough stimuli, changes in environment, experiences etc, it is essentially a chaotic system. Not being able to define a human's life is like saying that science can't say anything about the trajectory of a gas molecule in a cylinder (full of other gas molecules). It's not that it couldn't be predicted, but our methods are such that it's not feasible.

Broad trends, on the other hand, could be predicted.

This aside, I expect the whole notion of "do things REALLY exist" is somewhat axiomatic to science. There might be confusion establishing what actually exists and what is a construct, but on whole I think science dispenses with that kind of philosophical...applesauce.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes I am observable, but science cannot successfully recreate all the specific events in a controlled lab setting that led to my becoming of a person.

This is not a qualification of science.

That is the "scientific method", the ability to test a hypothesis multiple times and produce predictable results.

Yes, and that 'testing' includes observation. It is not necessary to reproduce natural phenomena to test them.

[/quote]

 

[Chesterton]

This aside, I expect the whole notion of "do things REALLY exist" is somewhat axiomatic to science. There might be confusion establishing what actually exists and what is a construct, but on whole I think science dispenses with that kind of philosophical...applesauce.

One man's applesauce gives another man indigestion.

 

[Cabal]

This is not a qualification of science.

Sure it is.

That's why EVILution (lol) is of the devil and is not science.

And so is forensic science.

waiiit a second