Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,397
Location: Stendec

16 Mar 2015, 6:21 am

Are there any viable alternatives to the Scientific Method?

Ouija boards? Crystal balls? Bible magic? Prophetic visions? Delusions of adequacy?

No?

Then until some clown develops something better than the Scientific Method, it is still the best investigative tool we have.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Mar 2015, 10:56 am

appletheclown wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Such people simply don't understand Science.

No true Scotsman fallacy.
Pointing out failures in anything, including tools like the scientific method, is the easiest way to point out flaws, and fix them.
They wouldn't have moved from ironwood mallets to steel shock proof hammers if they thought ironwood mallets weren't flawed.


You and your seeming devotion to "no true scotsman" This is not one of them. Someone who cannot see the method in action eg when it disproves an hypothesis such as the luminiferous aether, or when it modifies a previously held law eg Newtonian gravity, does not understand science.

And for the umteenth time, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the contemporary scientific world would state that the scientific method is perfect. It is simply the best tool we have yet developed to help us get to the nature of things.

Fnord said that people who point out the scientific method is prone to failure simply don't understand science,
he did not say people who haven't seen it in action don't understand science.
This makes it a "No true scotsman" fallacy.
Someone who is invested in science as much as you are can still attest to the fact that eventually the scientific method will fail, some may not.
That is not a no true scotsman fallacy.
Also, not many people who know something isn't perfect, will claim it isn't flawed, that is a contradiction.


Oh wow.

Here's what Fnord actually said

Fnord wrote:
The problem is that people will look at the unproven 'theories' (i.e., "String Theory' and the Graviton) or alleged 'theories' that have been disproven and discarded (i.e., "Electric Universe" and "Lumeniferous Aether") and claim that the Scientific Method is prone to failure. Such people simply don't understand Science.


If you look at an unproven theory or a disproven theory as evidence that the scientific method is prone to failure, it really does mean you don't understand science. The scientific method is how an unproven theory gets tested and it is how a disproven theory gets disproven. If you don't realize that you are seeing the scientific method working with those examples, you don't understand science.

Here is the scientific method:

Quote:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

String Theory is currently at step 2. Old theories since discarded were discarded at step 4.

Your mallet analogy works but not quite the way you think it does.

appletheclown wrote:
Pointing out failures in anything, including tools like the scientific method, is the easiest way to point out flaws, and fix them.
They wouldn't have moved from ironwood mallets to steel shock proof hammers if they thought ironwood mallets weren't flawed.


Ironwood mallets and steel shock proof hammers both belong to the larger group of 'tools that pound' (a term I got from my tool dictionary which divides tools by functional groups). The scientific method is a tool in the same way that 'pounding thing' is a tool. If an ironwood mallet gets discarded in favor of a steel shock proof hammer, that is analogous to the model of luminous aether being discarded because it failed further (or any) testing. Discarding the scientific method would be like ceasing to ever again use a pounding tool of any sort. That day may come. We may figure out a way to pound things without tools (moving things with the power of our mind? :wink: ). And we may find a way to make accurate-as-possible models of nature without ever testing them (I got nothing, but then I'm not a science fiction writer). But until then, the scientific method and 'things that pound' are the best tools we have for their respective purposes.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

16 Mar 2015, 11:21 am

Narrator wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Neither matter or energy create themselves, it is impossible. If it wasn't the earth would be growing in size every day.

If that were even remotely true, then all string theory scientists must be complete and utter idiots, CERN in Switzerland is so expensively stupid that their stupidity is off the charts, and millions of people around the world who understand the science have their heads up their arses.

If they believe in unproven theory I will reserve my right to believe in an unproven God.


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

16 Mar 2015, 11:29 am

Janissy wrote:

If you look at an unproven theory or a disproven theory as evidence that the scientific method is prone to failure, it really does mean you don't understand science. The scientific method is how an unproven theory gets tested and it is how a disproven theory gets disproven. If you don't realize that you are seeing the scientific method working with those examples, you don't understand science.

Here is the scientific method:

Quote:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

String Theory is currently at step 2. Old theories since discarded were discarded at step 4.

Your mallet analogy works but not quite the way you think it does.

appletheclown wrote:
Pointing out failures in anything, including tools like the scientific method, is the easiest way to point out flaws, and fix them.
They wouldn't have moved from ironwood mallets to steel shock proof hammers if they thought ironwood mallets weren't flawed.


Then my problem is with people who think the scientific method isn't flawed in any way, and the fact that
they are thereby hypocritical to say the bible is flawed, there fore we shouldn't believe a word it says.
It's over 5000 years old at least, of course its claims are exaggerated, and some of its stories methaphorical.
I have a problem with people who say something that isn't perfect, isn't flawed, whether that is the bible or the scientific method.
And no, my hammer analogy works fine, eventually we will find a replacement for the scientific method, and eventually the bible will be revised, just as the ironwood mallet was revised into the steel shockproof hammer.


_________________
comedic burp


Orangez
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 320
Location: British Columbia

16 Mar 2015, 1:39 pm

appletheclown wrote:

Then my problem is with people who think the scientific method isn't flawed in any way, and the fact that
they are thereby hypocritical to say the bible is flawed, there fore we shouldn't believe a word it says.
It's over 5000 years old at least, of course its claims are exaggerated, and some of its stories methaphorical.
I have a problem with people who say something that isn't perfect, isn't flawed, whether that is the bible or the scientific method.
And no, my hammer analogy works fine, eventually we will find a replacement for the scientific method, and eventually the bible will be revised, just as the ironwood mallet was revised into the steel shockproof hammer.


How is the scientific method flawed? It runs on a great logic and will throw out worst models for better ones unlike the meta physics of religion which cannot improve on itself since it is already perfect by its own internal logic. Thus, if a religion rejects one of its own ideas it becomes false as a whole. With that idea I can disprove almost all religions as I can find a contradiction, thus, the whole argument falls since God's word is not perfect.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 5:44 pm

The scientific method is certainly a cool tool.

But it will not work well with Human, in study of Human Nature, as the scientific method shows is NOT A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT, as each human being and human being emotional AND SENSORY experience of life IS Unique AND NOT REPEATABLE, AS IS, from within.

THE ONLY WAY to truly fully figure out human nature, IS UP TO EACH NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT THAT IS HUMAN BEING from within, innately and instinctually with intuitive mind more fully in tow.

Oh yeah, the scientific method does not work well, as a tool to measure human intuition either.

And since philosophy is all about the human condition that is unique unto each individual like a Universe of human being unto itself, perceiving the Universe differently than all other unique human beings, the tool of science, per the scientific method, or even science in general, per the systemizing human mechanical cognition mind, has very limited advantage in discussing the philosophy of human being, overall, as humans are driven by emotions and senses more than systemizing mind, when healthily functioning, in mind and body balance.

Overall, poetry OR EVEN NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION, like dance or other ways of instinctually and intuitively, sensory and emotionally connecting to humans and the environment around human beings, per MOTHER Nature TRUE AKA GOD, works better in understanding human being and Nature AKA GOD than science, as it (social cognition mind) is based on human emotions and senses, rather than the science of mechanical cognition systemizing way, instead, in abstract metaphor way in words and or non-verbal physical action, per social cognition mind.

And that depends on poetry IQ, and physical intelligence and such as that IS sadly lacking around here, as my recent two year long science project shows..;)

Yes, one can do science on this, as clinical studies; however, each study IS A NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT, SO THE scientific method is a limited to no tool of substantial significance when it comes to the philosophy of human being.

It's quite amusing to me how much TIME is spent on this philosophy forum about whether or not GOD exists, when the pressing issue in our society is whether or not humans STILL EXIST, AS EVOLVED, AS SUCH, per epigenetic and neuroplastic negative influence in just one life time.

Seriously philosophy is the perfect place to discuss that issue, and science ain't really got a clue 'cause science ain't got a good working tool, to even study it.

And that's really sad, as suffering and misery all around us could be potentially prevented with a little philosophical common sense, out of mechanical cognition limited ways of thinking, and the scientific method is almost iconic, per this problem in society, and systemizing ways of mechanical cognition, in general.

I mean DUH.

THE FIRST thing a doctor does these days, when there are somatic issues from chronic stress, like headaches, and low energy, is prescribe a psychotropic pill to cure the symptoms, instead of frigging attacking the root issue..

AS, TRUE in-DEED, THE ROOT ISSUE ISN'T ADDRESSED IN MEDICAL BOOKS THAT CANNOT ADDRESS THE HUMAN CONDITION WITHOUT THE HANDCUFFS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD; Ugh, CATCH 22, HUMAN STYLE.

IF I HADN'T CURED MYSELF WITH MY OWN INTERNAL GENERATED PHILOSOPHY, I WOULD STILL BE A VEGETABLE ROTTING IN MY BEDROOM, BEHIND A COMPUTER 'SCREAM', INSTEAD of a relative SUPERMAN in full effect and AFFECT IN REAL FLESH AND BLOOD LIFE, AS I have evidenced here ad-nasuseam, to at leasts some 'deaf eyes' of mechanical cognition way.

The scientific method, is an extremely potential dangerous tool, as it simply CANNOT ADDRESS AND FIX THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN NATURE IMBALANCED AND ALL SCREWED UP, ALMOST EVERYWHERE ONE looks in society, and particularly among

'THE CANARIES IN THE COLD MINE OF HEART' REGULATED EMOTIONS AND SENSORY INTEGRATION.



Philosophy, can be the cure for eyes and ears that cannot see the light and truth of wisdom that comes from INNATE, INSTINCTUAL, AND INTUITIVE PHYSICAL intelligence that even science is starting to indicate drives enhanced emotional regulation, sensory integration, and cognitive executive functioning, per focus and short term working memory and balance for a real life of human potential bliss, like most other animals enjoy as their birth right of living 'right' with their GOD given Nature by the GOD of Mother NATURE TRUE, instead of false illusions fed by a sick culture that is truly a virus for human beings, overall.

But anyway, with ALL THAT SAID, and or sad..:(:

'HEaReMagicK' FLUTE'musicK' OR NOT, to end this monologue or rant of 'MIN'..;)eD..:)FR..Ed...

That's not French; that's Irish and Happy St. Patrick's day from Leprechaun2 FRED..;) and or PanMIN..:{eD..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 16 Mar 2015, 5:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

16 Mar 2015, 5:48 pm

aghogday wrote:
The scientific method is certainly a cool tool.

But it will not work well with Human, as Human Nature, as the scientific method shows is NOT A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT, as each human being and human being emotional AND SENSORY experience of life IS Unique AND NOT REPEATABLE, AS IS, from within.

THE ONLY WAY to truly fully figure out human nature, IS UP TO EACH NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT THAT IS HUMAN BEING from within, innately and instinctually with intuitive mind more fully in tow.

Oh yeah, the scientific method does not work well, as a tool to measure human intuition either.


Physicists would probably agree with you while sociologists probably would not. I am somewhere in between. There are some things about humans which are measurable and some things where the variables are so.....variable as to make the data suspect.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

16 Mar 2015, 6:12 pm

Janissy wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The scientific method is certainly a cool tool.

But it will not work well with Human, as Human Nature, as the scientific method shows is NOT A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT, as each human being and human being emotional AND SENSORY experience of life IS Unique AND NOT REPEATABLE, AS IS, from within.

THE ONLY WAY to truly fully figure out human nature, IS UP TO EACH NON-REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT THAT IS HUMAN BEING from within, innately and instinctually with intuitive mind more fully in tow.

Oh yeah, the scientific method does not work well, as a tool to measure human intuition either.


Physicists would probably agree with you while sociologists probably would not. I am somewhere in between. There are some things about humans which are measurable and some things where the variables are so.....variable as to make the data suspect.


I baffled all my psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and doctors in what I accomplished on my own.

So yeah, after 7 years of dedicated experience to cure myself and study of the issue with literally over 10 million words written and a myriad more words read, to create my OWN human miracle, I'm rather dismissive of what science (systemizing and scientific method) AND sociology/psychology has to 'say' about the human condition.

Now if I couldn't prove it that would be another issue, all together but I have made even doctors, psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists believers out of me, IN what I can do for me, as my own frigging case-study that I for one cannot escape alive.

OM frigging GOD, experience is the BEST TEACHER WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN BEING, at least in my case, irrefutably documented in the medical record and in flesh and blood Internet evidence I can whip out in a minute's notice, anywhere I go, to prove what I say, at least for me, is irrefutable truth.

But the challenge here, is each person must find their own path to human HEALING, THRIVING, AND EVEN potential real life Bliss.

All each individual can do is share their experience of the journey, paths, arrival and stay in 'STAYCATION' HUMAN BEING..

LITERALLY AS SUCH IN TOTAL continuous ALWAYS potential BLISS..:)!

THAT'S amazing that I CAN PROVE IT TOO, UNASHAMEDLY SO TOO, AS literal HUMAN hell is the other place I went to, provable too, in my medical record, as such.

The problem with all sciences (general systemization) AND PHILOSOPHY (words from the heart), TODAY, IS IT IS SPOON FED, and not generated within.

What works for one person will often not work for others, and seriously that should be common sense.

But tell scientists, doctors, sociologists, psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, teachers, and so-called professional philosophers or clergy that, and they will usually scoff at it, as they live in their own world too.....

Sharing is key to success with many open minds listening to all of what is said, if 'they' will and or can.

Hoarding, collecting, and owning information as gospel truth, is simply church, dressed up as science, politics, sports, religion, or philosophy when it all PLAYS out.

TRUEST WINNERS KEEP EXPLORING AND SHARING WHAT THEY KNOW FREELY WITH OPEN MINDS and BODIES IN BALANCE, IF THEY WILL, IF THEY CAN, IF......THEY ONLY KNEW.. AND JUST DO!.. with human relative free WILL.. THEY CAN.....

'JUST DO IT', AS 'my friends 'from Nike say.

Those three copyrighted word, as phrase, beat PhD's every now of the week, at least for me..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Mar 2015, 6:15 pm

appletheclown wrote:
Then my problem is with people who think the scientific method isn't flawed in any way, and the fact that they are thereby hypocritical to say the bible is flawed, there fore we shouldn't believe a word it says.
It's over 5000 years old at least, of course its claims are exaggerated, and some of its stories methaphorical.
I have a problem with people who say something that isn't perfect, isn't flawed, whether that is the bible or the scientific method.
And no, my hammer analogy works fine, eventually we will find a replacement for the scientific method, and eventually the bible will be revised, just as the ironwood mallet was revised into the steel shockproof hammer.

Comparing the "flaws" in an empirical system with the "flaws" in a semi-historical record is, as they say, comparing apples with oranges.

The scientific method is the closest you can come in a method to being an equation. (What else would you expect from scientists?) For example, the only flaws in 1 + 1 = 2 is in how people assign or use the numbers. In other words, there will always be a flaw in how humans use any method, because humans are flawed.

But if you can point to a flaw in the method itself, I would sincerely like to see it. On the other hand, you can indeed point to flaws in the Bible, long before you look at how humans assign value to what is written. And the reason it has flaws is because it's not an empirical record.

That doesn't take away from anyone's "right" to believe in God. When I was a Christian, I saw the flaws in the Bible as a feature, not a detraction. :wink: After all, the Bible is in many ways an anthropological testament of how human thinking has changed over a few thousand years, especially between the time of oral transmission and the advent of writing. I still find the Bible a fascinating record - flaws and all.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,282
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Mar 2015, 6:23 pm

One thing we should remember: The Bible was compiled in a time when the "standards of history" were somewhat lower than they are today--to the point where they might be called "semi-historical" in most instances.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Mar 2015, 6:55 pm

The main difference between science method and faith is the word doubt.

Faith generally looks to find ways to support itself. Doubt is often considered anti-faith.

Science will always side with doubt. Everything science "believes in" has only survived after a many trials of doubt tests. We non-scientists only get to see the highlights.

Yet here's the twist. Science will doubt all claims. Faiths demand that science undergo doubt, but won't put its own beliefs to the same test.

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,397
Location: Stendec

16 Mar 2015, 6:59 pm

Orangez wrote:
appletheclown wrote:
Then my problem is with people who think the scientific method isn't flawed in any way, and the fact that they are thereby hypocritical to say the bible is flawed, there fore we shouldn't believe a word it says.
It's over 5000 years old at least, of course its claims are exaggerated, and some of its stories methaphorical. I have a problem with people who say something that isn't perfect, isn't flawed, whether that is the bible or the scientific method. And no, my hammer analogy works fine, eventually we will find a replacement for the scientific method, and eventually the bible will be revised, just as the ironwood mallet was revised into the steel shockproof hammer.
How is the scientific method flawed? It runs on a great logic and will throw out worst models for better ones unlike the meta physics of religion which cannot improve on itself since it is already perfect by its own internal logic. Thus, if a religion rejects one of its own ideas it becomes false as a whole. With that idea I can disprove almost all religions as I can find a contradiction, thus, the whole argument falls since God's word is not perfect.
This is how the Scientific Method is stated:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

This is how the Clown Science method is stated:

1. Observe some aspect of personal perception.
2. Invent any half-brained explanation that is inconsistent with at least one known Scientifically-determined principle, and believe that the explanation reveals a Hidden Truth.
3. Using False Authority, Appeals to Incredulity, and Ad Hominem attacks against anyone who questions the validity of the belief, state the belief as being the only 'real' science.
4. Expand the belief by applying it to any other subjective belief, generalizing and adding subjunctive clauses and conditional states as needed.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until all opposition to your beliefs is silenced, and then declare victory over the entire Scientific Establishment.

What is 'wrong' with the Scientific Method is that it can not be altered to fit any subjective belief system without revealing the fallacious nature of that belief system to anyone who has any understanding of objective reality - in other words, Nothing.

This is probably the only time I have actually enjoyed comparing apples and oranges ... :lol:



Last edited by Fnord on 16 Mar 2015, 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

16 Mar 2015, 7:01 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Goonsquad you are right on the money regarding the hammer. From what I understand you are implying that the SM is used to see if IT works, if so this is flawed, we use it to test hypotheses, the proof of the SM is the by product of testing hypotheses IE the rapid advancement of human knowledge.


No, I understand your point about the SM, and I totally agree with it. As far as the scope of this thread goes hammer=SM in that they are both tools and both judged in the same manner.

I was just tweaking you a bit in my first post, because I thought your OP could be misunderstood. But, I knew what you meant, as like I said, I totally agree.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Last edited by GoonSquad on 16 Mar 2015, 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,282
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Mar 2015, 7:01 pm

Yep..."faith," at times, is irrevocable--not open for any debates.

There's nothing wrong with "faith"--as long as it's presented something which has not necessarily been proven with any objectivity.

The existence (and, probably, the nonexistence) of a supreme deity is a matter of "faith."

"Faith" presents problems when it masquerades as "absolute truth"--as something which has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, and which does not leave any openings for inquiry.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,397
Location: Stendec

16 Mar 2015, 7:13 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Yep..."faith," at times, is irrevocable--not open for any debates...
While Science raises questions that scientists expect may never be answered; religion provides so-called 'answers' that religionists demand to never be questioned.

That's the biggest objection that closed-minded people have to the Scientific Method (e.g., "Critical Thinking") - it gives people the impetus to question everything, even matters of faith, thus reducing the alleged authority of the "Thou Shalt Believe and Obey" crowd and diminishing their own feelings of self-worth.

That's why they hate Science - it reduces their ability to keep people in a state of fearful ignorance, and thereby eliminates their power base.

Teach the people to think for themselves, and they shall be free from self-appointed authorities who seek only to lift themselves up on the backs of those they keep in ignorance and fear.

Teach people instead to surrendered their right and ability to think for themselves, and they shall become the drones and soldiers for charismatic dictators and religious fanatics - such the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and "Boko Haram".



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,035
Location: temperate zone

16 Mar 2015, 9:17 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Simple question does the Scientific Method require empirical validation from outside the current scientific paradigm?

As far as I see it the Scientific Method is simply a tool which helps us validate and verify hypotheses of the natural world, it is not a Law of nature, it is not a scientific theory, it is not even a hypothesis. As such its verification lies in its performance and usefulness.

There are some on this forum who believe this style of verification is circular, ie they think we are using the method to verify itself. They seem to be demanding either an infinite regression of verifications, or some form of uncaused first cause form of scientific validation, I find this approach not only false but essentially absurd.

What are your thoughts?


Youre right. The "scientific method" is just that... a "method". A way to get at the truth via experimentation, and observation. A means, and not an end.

No need to "defend" it against folks attacking it for being an end, when it is a means, and not an end.