"A question to discuss..." Topic

Much faith is put in science and the scientific method.

However, I wish to propose a question for discussion if I may:

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?

This one should be fun.

How long is a piece of string?

Faith does not come into it.

If anything, the scientific method is anti-faith as it requires you to rigorously test your beliefs rather than accept them unquestioningly.

The scientific method, when done properly, actively encourages people to try and _disprove_ the assertion being made.

At it's simplest, if no-one can disprove it, the assertion is accepted as the current best theory that explains the observable facts.

That does not necessarily make the assertion the TRUTH, only the truth until a more truthy truth comes along.

As far as things existing, cogito ergo sum.

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?

Evidence to prove a negative? None, obviously. However my faith-based replacement for Petrol has failed to get me to work, and my Voodoo Bridge always leaves me with wet feet.

However the best evidence I can give you is this one – My Daughter believed Santa would bring her presents – she got presents. She then stopped believing Santa would bring her presents. She still got presents.

1F=P. 0F=P. QED F is not required for the equation to work.

Until a non-scientific method of proof that actually gives concrete results is demonstrated, I am sticking to the 21st Century rather than the 14th.

Pat

How long is a piece of string…?

Twice as long as half of it…

Logical inference based on the controlled observation of the materialistic environment. What is the alternative?

Trevor, your question really doesn't make sense. To borrow a phrase from another entry, you may as well ask, "What is the evidence that my piece of string is long?"

Could you rephrase the question?

Perhaps a better question would be the following:

"Is Science and the Scientific Method the best method for understanding the physical environment we find ourselves in?"

I would say the answer is Yes.

There are many definitions of science. All more or less say the same things, with varying degrees of verbiage. I'll pick this one for it's succinctness:

"Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena."

So is there a better way to observe, identify, describe, investigate and explain the world around us than Science? No because by observing, identifying, describing, investigating, and explaining our surroundings, we, by definition, are doing science.

Now, the Scientific Method is another thing. This is a means for placing safeguards into doing science. All scientists are flawed. Some could be cheats, some could be incompetent, and all of us make the occasional mistake. Very importantly, all of us display "observer bias" to some degree or another. Therefore, over the thousands of years of scientific inquiry we have developed means by which to minimize these potential errors. These methods include repetitive duplication, properly controlled experimentation and observation, double blind studies, and peer review. Is this system perfect? No, by no means is it perfect, but it is self correcting. Truth will always come out. The Scientific Method has vastly improved since Newton's day and will improve in the future as more techniques are developed to compensate for the failings and oversights of the individual practitioners. It is currently the best method to accurately practice Science.

"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway?
I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking,
but when you're good and crazy,
oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit. " ~~~the Tick

How long is a piece of string?

As long as I want it to be before I cut it.

…and then (usually, for me anyway) it's too short!

"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway?
I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking,
but when you're good and crazy,
oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit. " ~~~the Tick

Awesome! Thanks for that

Much faith is put in science and the scientific method.

As Mr. P says, faith doesn't enter into it.

What point are you really trying to make with your question? Do you feel the scientific method is inadequate, or incapable of proving or disproving something you do or don't believe in? Or is all reality just a mental construct, so the scientific method is moot?

I ask because I've seen questions such as yours posed in "discussions" of God, atheism, Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, homeopathic medicine, evolution, life after death, and many other topics.

The Scientific Method has vastly improved since Newton's day and will improve in the future as more techniques are developed to compensate for the failings and oversights of the individual practitioners. It is currently the best method to accurately practice Science.

The methodology improves with each advancement in technology. As our tools enhance our rather feeble senses, we discover even more to existence than was imagined in the past: So that the more we learn and know, the more we realize how little we know of what there is to know.

Or is all reality just a mental construct, so the scientific method is moot?

It could be moot. But only if the world changes such that the observed laws no longer remain. That would be evidence for "God", and with a malicious personality as well.

We have "faith" that the world is fixed. Observation, in its infancy, of the cosmos has shown a world that has been doing the same things for "billions and billions" of years. We can have faith that this reality will endure….

The methodology improves with each advancement in technology. As our tools enhance our rather feeble senses, we discover even more to existence than was imagined in the past: So that the more we learn and know, the more we realize how little we know of what there is to know.

Doug, what you say is true. By that is not what is meant by the scientific method. The process of how we double check our data and make sure that the data is unadulterated by observer bias has changed since Newton. But it has not changed as much as the technological means by which to collect the scientific data. That has expanded a thousand fold.

Newton would redo his experiments over again to make sure that his results were the same. However, even he wouldn't think of designing a double blind experiment, and he certainly wouldn't turn over his raw data to his peers for critical analysis. That just wasn't done.

We can have faith that this reality will endure . . .

No, that is not faith. As you say, that is based on observation, not faith. Obviously, if what we observe changes, our "reality" would also change and we would need to set about all over again, using the scientific method to explore and try to understand the new reality. Faith wouldn't enter into it, at least not for me.

I do not have *faith* that the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the east, I *know* that it will do so, based on past experience and my knowledge of planetary motions in the solar system. (Barring some catastrophic cosmological occurrence, of course, which would in no way contradict my knowledge because I acknowledge that such things are *possible*, though unlikely.)

We have "faith" that the world is fixed. Observation, in its infancy, of the cosmos has shown a world that has been doing the same things for "billions and billions" of years.

Not to be argumentative, but is that true?

The Earth is 4.54 billions of years old so it hasn't really been doing things for "billions and billions of years". About 4.53 bya, a horrifying catastrophe separated the Earth from the Moon. Since then, a slightly smaller Earth has been circling the Sun.

But we have also been circling the Galactic center of the Milky Way. The periodicity of that rotation is 200-250 million years. I make that about 18 rotations (is that right?). Then our Milky Way is clustered with the Local Group, consisting of the Milky Way, Andromeda Galaxy, Triangulum Galaxy, Fornax, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, M32, M33, M101, and 9 dwarf spheroidal galaxies. They all move in concert about 300m/sec, irrespective of the Hubble expansion.

So observation, in it's infancy, shows that the Earth has been pretty busy moving through the cosmos, in the last 4.54 billion years.

It is currently the best method to accurately practice Science.

Shame the AGW crowd doesn't actually use it…

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?

I defy the scientific method to prove the existence of love.

JJ

JJ, as to the existance of love, there are two ways of answering this :
(a) as I undestand it, there are measurable changes in brain chemistry when someone is 'in love' as opposed to 'not in love', at least for the initial rush of gentle insanity. Thus it has an objective, measurable reality.

(b) even without that, you don't necessarily have to have a physical thing you prod and poke directly to do SCIENCE! at it : take dark matter or black holes : if the model of the universe with them in it better describes what we _can_ see than a model of the universe that does not have them, even if we can't directly see them, that theory is the better theory and it is likely that they do exist…

At least until a better theory is thought of.

(note : I'm not up on the latest in cosmological thought, it is just an example)

People in love behave in an observably (often predictably) different manner to people who are not in love : just ask flower sellers and jewelers

I suspect the thing that really bugs some people about science and the scientific method is that there is no Absolute Certainty.

From wikiquotes :
"Some people think that science is just all this technology around, but NO it's something much deeper than that. Science, scientific thinking, scientific method is for me the only philosophical construct that the human race has developed to determine what is reliably true. "
Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry,

I agree with him.

Shame the AGW crowd doesn't actually use it…

JJ, you are not on the Blue Fez anymore. Here, unsubstantiated claims will be challenged. Could you please supply any corroborating scientific references that support your statement? Perhaps it would be best to start your own thread if you wish to pursue this topic.

I defy the scientific method to prove the existence of love.

Hmmm…..the scientific method doesn't prove anything. The scientific method is a "best practices manual" to ensure the best data possible, and minimizing operator error, while doing science.

That said, defy all you want. You are about 10 years too late in a field a little over 20 years old. You should look up the recent fMRI research. I suggest Google Scholar and Pub-Med.

Here are some graphic representations of indicative scans:

insidestory.iop.org/mri.html

Again, maybe a new topic may be appropriate.

Not to be argumentative, but is that true?

The Earth is 4.54 billions of years old so it hasn't really been doing things for "billions and billions of years".

I meant "world" to mean all of observable existence – the cosmos – not just Planet Earth….

However, I wish to propose a question for discussion if I may……..

So TJ, some of us have answered your question, even though you worded it rather awkwardly. Were you going to respond in kind? Meaningful discussion is a two way street, is it not?

Apparently not, Bowman.

This thread was just TJ echoing a common ID/Creationist line. He wasn't really interested in reading or understanding anyone's answer.

It depends what context or reality the piece of string finds itself in. It's as long as it wants to be in some dimensions, others, if it is a neutrino string in the Italian Alps, it is seen before it actually arrive; and in others it could be a dark matter no-string. The string might also find out it's not a string at all, but really just a theory. Lacking true self-consciousness, and unable to question it's own existence, a string may not exist at all to itself and other strings but may be apparent to yarns and twine. The best story about string was of course 'Mouse Hunt'. Where cheese became string, or string became cheese – proving that the scientific method fails in the face of mouse-inspired alchemy – one of Christopher Walken's best parodies of himself by the way.

Scientific method is useful for providing an outlet or mold for inspiration. Without that tool the other becomes simply philosophy, dogma and superstition. Without inspiration the scientific method is as useful as a seized motor.

Mouse Hunt: I NEED to watch that again.

Inspiration: isn't that some kinda metaphysical thing? Isn't that sorta like discussing religion? And isn't that verboten?…

Much faith is put in science and the scientific method.

TJ, in what context do use the term "faith" in this sentence? Are you equating religious faith with the scientific method?

Let's see, the 'scientific method' is the best tool we have for evaluating empirical data. In addition, it is by its very nature self-correcting.

Yesterday we find that Einstien's Theory of Special Revalativity, with nuetreons appearing to travel in excess of the speed of light. So scientists will examine the data, and if the observations are correct some explanation will be developed to account for the observed data.

Science is not about find answers, it seeks a series of evolving questions.

The question that follows from the OP is, "If not the Scientific Method, then what should we use to evaluate the world?"

Based on the OP's prior posts on the subject of evolution it would appear that he is wedded to psuedo-science that denies the scientific method. He hold to a weltanschauung that not only doubts evolution but the age of the earth as well. Afterall, who else but a psuedo-scientisific adherant would raise such a question?

Inspiration: isn't that some kinda metaphysical thing? Isn't that sorta like discussing religion? And isn't that verboten?…

Why would you assume that inspiration (and curiosity, for that matter) are closer to religion than science? I for example, would assume that that a truly curious person would be drawn to a world of understanding and observation, rather than that of unquestioned belief. The inspiration is simply the fire that makes one do the work.

Take the time to read a bit about the intellectual development of such people like Asimov, Darwin, Feynman, Sagan, and yes, even Dawkins, to see how inspiration formed their lives.

I don't think that we are looking at "inspriation" the same way. To me, there is an outside or "other" component to inspiration. The earlier work of iconic or legendary characters can "inspire", of course. But the feeling of receiving inspiration is more like revelation….

I think we are on the same wavelength. Artists and thinkers used to attribute inspiration as an external attribute. Whether it was a personal Muse or something else, it was external and "breathed in" or inspired.

I don't see that anymore with writers or artists, describing their craft. Inspiration now has been described as internal. I'll see some beautifully painted figures on TMP and it will inspire me to hunker down and paint my own troops. The painted soldiers are external, but the excitement and inspiration they evoke, come from me. I just need that stimulus to get me started. Do I make sense?

That's Bowman's "inspiration".

The older kind is what I am talking about; external, from some "other" source.

I think that you are right: creations are now considered the property of the creator. No outside "cause" is involved. And what do we get? A mass of repetitious cloned sound bites and images: as budding arteests copy what "inspired" them.

I don't believe that something that seems bigger than the artist can be produced, without the artist first believing that something infinitely bigger than the Self can use the artist as a medium to communicate to mankind through. If the artist is opened up to that concept while trying to express him/herself through their art, then new, inspiring works of art are possible. And new frontiers in science and technology are too….

Doug, I can't fault your logic, especially with you indictment on "modern" art.

But, I'm afraid that I am too much of a Humanist to agree. I cannot believe that all our greatest intellectual and artistic achievements originate from somewhere "outside" and we merely "channel" them into existence.

It's exactly the same as when those pathetic pseudo-science types, like Von Daniken, who couldn't conceive of mere humans building the pyramids, or Stonehenge, or the Plains of Naszca, without extra-terrestrial help. It is an insult to the genius, inspiration and hard work of the human builders.

As well written as your second paragraph is, I think you are selling Humanity short. Otherwise we are mere mannikens, manipulated by some outside puppet master, deluded that we have free will, and that our actions are our own.

Terry Pratchett had this to say about inspiration in his novel, "Sourcery":

It is a well-known established fact throughout the many-dimensional worlds of the multiverse that most really great discoveries are owed to one brief moment of inspiration. There's a lot of spadework first, of course, but what clinches the whole thing is the sight of, say, a falling apple or a boiling kettle or the water slipping over the edge of the bath. Something goes click inside the observer's head and then everything falls into place. The shape of DNA, it is popularly said, owes its discovery to the chance sight of a spiral staircase when the scientist=s mind was just at the right receptive temperature. Had he used the elevator, the whole science of genetics might have been a good deal different.

This is thought of as somehow wonderful. It isn't. It is tragic. Little particles of inspiration sleet through the universe all the time traveling through the densest matter in the same way that a neutrino passes through a candyfloss haystack, and most of them miss.

Even worse, most of the ones that hit the exact cerebral target, hit the wrong one.

For example, the weird dream about a lead doughnut on a mile-high gantry, which in the right mind would have been the catalyst for the invention of repressed-gravitational electricity generation (a cheap and inexhaustible and totally non-polluting form of power which the world in question had been seeking for centuries, and for the lack of which it was plunged into a terrible and pointless war) was in fact had by a small and bewildered duck.

By another stroke of bad luck, the sight of a herd of wild horses galloping through a field of wild hyacinths would have led a struggling composer to write the famous Flying God Suite, bringing succor and balm to the souls of millions, had he not been at home in bed with shingles. The inspiration thereby fell to a nearby frog, who was not in much of a position to make a startling contributing to the field of tone poetry.

Many civilizations have recognized this shocking waste and tried various methods to prevent it, most of them involving enjoyable but illegal attempts to tune the mind into the right wavelength by the use of exotic herbage or yeast products. It never works properly

I kinda like it.

ANSWER THE QUESTION TJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"If not the Scientific Method, then what should we use to evaluate the world?"

The shape of DNA, it is popularly said, owes its discovery to the chance sight of a spiral staircase when the scientist=s mind was just at the right receptive temperature. Had he used the elevator, the whole science of genetics might have been a good deal different.

Mmmm…… never heard that one. I was actually taught in my first year Biology class how Watson and Crick (and the less well know Maurice Wilkins) couldn't figure out the shap of the DNA molecule. This was at a time, where other prominent scientists like Linus Pauling, thought that the DNA molecule was too simple with it's alternating base pairs and sugars. For heredity you must need something complex, like massive proteins.

So another researcher, Rosalind Franklin is taking x-ray crystallographic photographs of DNA crystals. When photographed end on, she sees a circle, with the base pairs forming a circular staircase effect inside. She is perplexed and shows her x-rays to Watson and Crick. They instantly see it is a double helix, and without saying anything to Franklin, rush off and publish their findings. They win the Nobel Prize, she doesn't.

For those interested:

link

Not sure where Doug would place this example of "inspiration". Maybe the "outside force" is as chauvinistic and mercenary as Watson and Crick were.

As well written as your second paragraph is, I think you are selling Humanity short. Otherwise we are mere mannikens, manipulated by some outside puppet master, deluded that we have free will, and that our actions are our own.

Or rather, we are "God" manifesting infinitely as limited mortals (whether or not we are immortals temporarily experiencing mortality is a religious question): and by virtue of our inseparable connection to the totality of the Necessary Cause, comes these insights, these inspirations, that cause us to advance our species. There is nothing "puppet-masterish" about it: but rather, a love of variety and pathos.

Why would "God" make what Is, without free will? That is senseless.

It's the GAME that matters, not the outcome. And this is because the outcome is not limited to one, or even a numbered set of eventual outcomes: but rather, ALL that can possibly be imagined has its reality "somewhere/sometime". We imagine the possibilities, not realizing that in order to do so, in the first place, the possibilities must be realities. Where's the puppet-masterishness about that concept?…

Doug,
Your postings remind me of Richard Bach's crappola.

I have to wonder: How much actual stick time do you have?

PS- If I could PM you, I would…if you're willing to communicate privately, email me at 'gweirda at yahoo dot com'.

PPS- I'd like to establish communications regarding Rocky as well. thanks. don

??????

@gweirda: c. 68 hours, just enough to get my private pilot's licence, many, many, years ago.

I've been thinking like this for just about as long. In fact, ironically, it was my second to last daughter who just this summer put me onto Bach's "Reluctant Messiah"; and I found out that Johann Seagullus had a sibling all these years. I found the book, readable, but I feel way beyond what Bach had to say….

"Wait for iiiit"….

What "iiiit" are we waiting for?

I don't believe that something that seems bigger than the artist can be produced, without the artist first believing that something infinitely bigger than the Self can use the artist as a medium to communicate to mankind through.

No. New Age BS. As Bowman says, you're selling Humanity short.

ALL that can possibly be imagined has its reality "somewhere/sometime". We imagine the possibilities, not realizing that in order to do so, in the first place, the possibilities must be realities.

This is just silly. I assume you're riffing on the concept of infinite multiverses, and that we're all connected in some way to all of those infinite multiverses? No.

For me, the evolved Human mind and body are sufficient to account for everything that we've accomplished as a race, without the outside influence of gods, multiverses, spirits, or anything else. Many artists have *believed* their creations were influenced by supernatural forces, but ultimately it all came from inside their noggins. (Notwithstanding the definite influence of alcohol, drugs, psychosis, and other physical and mental factors on the noggins of many artists throughout history.)

I assume you're riffing on the concept of infinite multiverses, and that we're all connected in some way to all of those infinite multiverses?

No.

All the multiverses are connected to the Necessary Cause, which is Existence in the first place. The only way one possibility could be connected to other possibilities is to "route" through the Necessary Cause. I would not say this is impossible or never done; but I have seen no evidence that any egocentric universe connects to any other egocentric universe (that is to say, our thinking is totally separate from any other thinking – no mindmelds). Even more unlikely than minds in contact with each other, would be to have two or more possibilities existing together at the same time and place. But ALL possibilities do Exist as NOW with the Necessary Cause….

What "iiiit" are we waiting for?

That was for don; he asked for me to email him, if I wanted to, and so I left TMP to email him….

Ah, I'm familiar with the Necessary Cause argument.

Sorry I had to drop everything when my father-in-law passed away at the ripe old age of 86. Still sorting things out.

Lively enough Bowman?

I'll check in again soon.

Condolences to your family and friends, TJ.

Sorry for your loss, my best wishes to you and yours.

Lively enough Bowman?

????

How about addressing the comments answering your original question?

Ah, I'm familiar with the Necessary Cause argument.

Hee hee, ya familiarity doesn't make it any more comprehensible does it?

Yeah, I was introduced to Necessary Cause (Aquinas?) in a college philosophy course. The professor made it comprehensible, as well as the arguments against it, although I've forgotten most of it by now. (What caused the Necessary Cause? How many iterations back do you go?)

For several years now Doug has posted his version of this "stuff," a mish-mash of many religious, spiritual, and philosophical ideas. If it works for him, more power to him, but it's not one to which I'll ever subscribe.