Science Doesn't Work

[Received]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

ETA: Everyone please keep in mind that I'm not arguing (at all) that science doesn't work. I'm appealing to the type of fallacious reasoning a person would commit like with the OP. And you can replace science with the following:

I tried dating a woman who ended up being crazy...and concluded I shouldn't date because all women are crazy.

I tried a protein smoothie blend that gave me indigestion...and concluded I shouldn't try any protein drinks because they all give me indigestion.

I tried debating with a Christian but he was an idiot...and concluded that all Christians are idiots.

You get it.

 

[bhsmte]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

Maybe you messed up the experiment, or the experiment did tell you something, you didn't recognize.

Regarding theology, that's a little less rigorous.

 

[Resha Caner]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Awesome analogy.

 

[bhsmte]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

What results were you looking for?

 

[mark kennedy]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

If you want to define science as experimental method then you will run into one problem pretty quick:

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."...The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!. About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," ... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos.(Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Received]

Maybe you messed up the experiment, or the experiment did tell you something, you didn't recognize.

Regarding theology, that's a little less rigorous.

Maybe you messed up the God experiment, or the experiment did tell you something you didn't recognize.

Sure, theology is less rigorous, but it's still a science, at least in the broad sense.

 

[Paradoxum]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

I did A level (ages 16-18) chemistry in school and I swear in one of my experiments 25-50% of the electrical wires were faulty. True story.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

What does it mean to not get results with a theology?

Maybe you messed up the God experiment, or the experiment did tell you something you didn't recognize.

God could just say hi... he is a person apparently, not a force.

Sure, theology is less rigorous, but it's still a science, at least in the broad sense.

It not a science though. I like philosophy (my degree), but it definitely isn't a science in any sense.

 

[BL2KTN]

Any experiment you run will feature results. They may not be what you like, but there will be results. The natural laws do not suddenly go on vacation when you perform an experiment. But in your hour of greatest need, do not be surprised when a 3,500 year old Canaanite god does not intervene... be it Yahweh or Baal, El or Ashterah.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

An experiment will always produce results. When it's not the result you expected, that also makes you learn something...

Theology... Is not geared towards results. It's rather geared to make reality "fit" with pre conceived beliefs.

 

[Eudaimonist]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

I am perplexed. I don't get how this is supposed to be a successful analogy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe you messed up the God experiment, or the experiment did tell you something you didn't recognize.

Sure, theology is less rigorous, but it's still a science, at least in the broad sense.

Nope. Theology has no testable models of reality, no empirical testing, zero peer review and lots of rationalizing when the answers aren't what people wished were true. That's basically the opposite of science.

I've seen this sort of thing before. One knows that science does the best job of producing knowledge about reality. And yet it doesn't seem to support their religious beliefs. So instead of concluding the obvious, the solution is to change science to somehow allow their beliefs in. The problem is that in doing so they seek to destroy the very thing that makes science so successful and turn it into theology or philosophy or an exercise in creative writing. I don't get it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

...because I tried an experiment and didn't get results.

God doesn't work...because I tried a specific theology and didn't get results.

Right?

Wrong.

Science has a coherent, workable epistemology with a history of producing critically robust, tangible results.

Theology has no epistemology, with a history of producing absolutely nothing except more theologians.

 

[Received]

FYI, guys, I'm a research coordinator, so forgive me if I'm using informal speech to get home an idea that wouldn't be literally formally accepted. "I didn't get any results," means, "I didn't get the results I wanted," or "I didn't get statistical significance," therefore the results are useless.

ETA: I partly change my mind: getting statistically insignificant results isn't useless, provided you have enough participants and therefore you're not committing a methodology error. If you have a methodology error, then statistical insignificance is useless with regard to data; the experimenter might have something to learn because of this experiment, but in terms of its usefulness to science the data aren't helpful by not being significant.

 

[Received]

Wrong.

Science has a coherent, workable epistemology with a history of producing critically robust, tangible results.

Theology has no epistemology, with a history of producing absolutely nothing except more theologians.

Theology does have an epistemology. Just because one is more rigid and strict than another doesn't mean the other doesn't count or that the same logic in the OP doesn't apply.

If I were to date one woman and she ended up being insane, would I be reasonable in quitting women entirely?

 

[Received]

Nope. Theology has no testable models of reality, no empirical testing, zero peer review and lots of rationalizing when the answers aren't what people wished were true. That's basically the opposite of science.

I've seen this sort of thing before. One knows that science does the best job of producing knowledge about reality. And yet it doesn't seem to support their religious beliefs. So instead of concluding the obvious, the solution is to change science to somehow allow their beliefs in. The problem is that in doing so they seek to destroy the very thing that makes science so successful and turn it into theology or philosophy or an exercise in creative writing. I don't get it.

You guys speak like science is in some magical epistemological category all on its own, and only its criteria work in determining knowledge. Again, I date a madwoman, I'm being unreasonable if I conclude it's reasonable to give up women.

 

[Received]

I did A level (ages 16-18) chemistry in school and I swear in one of my experiments 25-50% of the electrical wires were faulty. True story.

Yeah, blame it on the CONDUCTOR, I see.

What does it mean to not get results with a theology?

What it pretty much says, although obviously not in a strictly scientific sense.

God could just say hi... he is a person apparently, not a force.

That's a whole 'nother philosophical discussion, but I think you bring up the singular motivation for why people try a bedraggled version of fundamentalist whatever and conclude with a bad taste in their mouths that God just can't exist, because if he did then I wouldn't have to go through all this futile theology and he would just take the reins for me by showing me The Way. First of all, the theology isn't futile just because it didn't work; it teaches you something, if wrong, about what God isn't, and should help you value better concepts of God, not just swipe off the chessboard entirely because you got your queen taken.

 

[DogmaHunter]

FYI, guys, I'm a research coordinator, so forgive me if I'm using informal speech to get home an idea that wouldn't be literally formally accepted. "I didn't get any results," means, "I didn't get the results I wanted," or "I didn't get statistical significance," therefore the results are useless.

I can only repeat what I said. No results of an experiment are "useless". (assuming the setup of the experiment made sense, off course).

Any result will always tell you something, it will always add data.
Not getting what you wanted or expected doesn't change that. In fact, if experiments would be setup to always get you what you wanted or expected, then the experiments themselves would be useless....

 

[BL2KTN]

FYI, guys, I'm a research coordinator, so forgive me if I'm using informal speech to get home an idea that wouldn't be literally formally accepted. "I didn't get any results," means, "I didn't get the results I wanted," or "I didn't get statistical significance," therefore the results are useless.

Yeesh...

 

[bhsmte]

Theology does have an epistemology. Just because one is more rigid and strict than another doesn't mean the other doesn't count or that the same logic in the OP doesn't apply.

If I were to date one woman and she ended up being insane, would I be reasonable in quitting women entirely?

On your last point, to an outsider, it would appear unreasonable to quit women altogether. To the person who dated the insane women and likely experienced significant emotional trauma, it may seem quite reasonable to give up women, at least for a while. Different experiences, can lead to different motivations.

 

[Received]

I can only repeat what I said. No results of an experiment are "useless". (assuming the setup of the experiment made sense, off course).

Any result will always tell you something, it will always add data.
Not getting what you wanted or expected doesn't change that. In fact, if experiments would be setup to always get you what you wanted or expected, then the experiments themselves would be useless....

Disagree. Your experiment might tell you your methodology was flawed, and that doesn't tell you anything about the data per se.