Is the scientific method real?
How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?
How can science prove logic?Or mathematics?
At least I can feel God, But I'm starting not to believe in this whole science thing. Can anyone prove these things to me
77 comments
"Can anyone prove these things to me"
Radios, televisions, computers, telephones, fridges, cars, toasters, microwaves, clocks, batteries, carbon monoxide detectors, spray cans, nuclear reactors, robots, polymerase chain reaction machines, electricity, gas and water infrastructures. Need I go on?
I hope this is PoE, I really do because this level of pure stupid should only exist in urban legend. Anyway, the simplest and most effective way to demonstrate that science is trustworthy is that it is applicable in real life and gives you repeatable and reliable results. It makes accurate predictions that far exceed chance alone (what we'd see if science was just another system that doesn't really work is that it's predictions are as accurate as chance; kind of like the various prophecies and prayer).
In short, science: it works, bitches!
I didn't know the scientific method proved itself. It is not a conclusion. It's a method to draw the best conclusion available.
But all this anti-science talk from the fundies really worries me. I'm worried that anyone could be so willfully stupid.
This is probably a poe, but okay! Step 1: take any object that you can lift without any strain and raise it to about chest-height. Step 2: Let go of the object. Congratulations! The object falling to the ground is proof of the force of gravity. The fact that you don't need to tie yourself to the ground to prevent yourself from floating into space is further proof of this force.
Cody, the scientific method isn't justified by itself; it's justified both by philosophical (non-empirical) reasoning and by the simple fact that it has been extremely successful throughout the history of human civilization.
@Kat:
Your link is broken. I tried adding it myself, but I got the same error.
@David B:
An excellent book, but it only covers one of the three areas Cody mentioned: mathematics. Eventually it all just comes down to an inherent understanding that reasoning works. I could say "faith" in that understanding, but faith tends to inspire devotion beyond question, and there's no reason you can't--or shouldn't--question the idea of logic. ...At some point in this paragraph I switched back to talking to Cody...
...so yeah, logic. It works and stuff.
(Also, there's the very obvious point that most justifications for the Bible are themselves circular, with the exception of appeals to archaeology which are theoretically valid but turn out to be epic failz.)
(And one last thing: learn to punctuate. "It's" means "it is.")
"How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?"
More like : have stringant, logical, testable limitations on final decisions. What makes it a Theory is not that it's a guess but that it's the best answer with available data to offer.
"How can science prove logic?"
Maybe cause Science has a logical bias, It's for it, to an irritating level. Mr Spock wasn't wrong, know-it-alls piss people off.
"Or mathematics?"
Mathematics doesn't need science to prove it. It proves itself by always working. Science uses mathematics because it always works.
"At least I can feel God"
Really? Leave out.
"But I'm starting not to believe in this whole science thing."
Like you ever did
"Can anyone prove these things to me"
Yeah, but we'd have to use scientific evidence and accomplishments and you've decided that's untrustworthy.
Can't see the Fundie in this. Out of context. Could be a transexual Atheist plumber for all it get's fundie
How can science prove logic? Or mathematics?
It doesn't. It's the other way around. The so-called "propositional calculus" is a formal system that defines the logical process. Mathematics is an extension of this process. Both are abstract tautologies; that is, they're true by virtue of the meaning of the words. These abstractions can often be applied by scientists to derive conclusions about the real world.
From the answers:
- someone gets an idea - called a theory
- this theory is tested by experiment
- if the result is positive, others repeat the experiment to make sure
- if all agree, the theory is accepted as fact
AAARGH!
no..
- somebody observes something which is a fact
- somebody comes up with an idea of how the fact came to be. This is called hypothesis
- Using the hypothesis to make predictions, an experiment is made and the results are compared with the prediction
- ....
- If it stands up to rigorous test, it gets added to the "theory".
oh hell, I don't have to explain that to you lot.
> Is the scientific method real?
> How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?
Scientific method is a method . Scientists have established a process which they believe produces accurate and reliable results. Feel free to propose a better method - quite a many of them have been tried over the years, after all. Expect thorough lists of shortcomings. Scientists have surprisingly high standards.
> How can science prove logic?Or mathematics?
Mathematics and logic are based on axioms (self-evident facts such as "if a = b and b = c, then a = c"). Axioms are not proven.
Mathematics and logic are not natural sciences. There's no experiments that could yield insight into how things are.
> At least I can feel God, But I'm starting not to believe in this whole science thing.
Oh, that's just the natural consequence of not thinking very well. I don't understand most of the stuff either, but even I can see that the science has some good foundation to stand on. Just engage the brain more often and you'll be fine.
@arcturus
- someone gets an idea - called an hypothesis
- this hypothesis is tested by experiment
- if the result is positive, others repeat the experiment to make sure
- if all agree, the hypothesis is accepted as a theory
-theories are not real or true nor do they mean anything, they merely predict experiment
-using words like "fact" is counterproductive to science
FTFY
How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?
Considering you idiots use this method to prove the bible is true because the bible says it is, don't you find your irony meter overheating to critical mass?
Oh, for fuck's sake. Sure, you can not believe in science. Just like you can not believe in the number nine. But quick - what's four plus five? Three times three? Seventeen minus eight?
Fuck, you idiots. Science isn't a monolithic, inflexible set of beliefs, like religion is.
Religious belief is an act of self persuasion in the absence of evidence; self persuasion that leads to self delusion and the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, embracing willful ignorance and stupidity as virtues, surrendering critical thinking and self-determination to the control of others with suspect, manipulative agendas, and vilifying progress, knowledge, and intellect in the process. Religious faith, with no verifiable basis in reality, is an insidious mental illness that threatens the survival of our civilization and our species.
You do something that results in some observable consequence. How did it happen you wonder? What if I try to do THIS instead? Is the outcome the same? Yes or no would be your response. Depending on your outcome, you keep trying different things (THIS1, THIS2, THIS3, THAT etc.) to narrow possible reasons for the consequence happening. You eventually converge on a satisfactory answer that explains ( preferably with a small margin of error) what caused the consequence. Scientific method is just using common sense.
How do you know that what you feel is really God? It could be due to some weird chemical fluctuation in the brain. It is true that chemical changes in the brain make people feel many different things, good things, terrible things, ambivalent things, aweful things, awesome things, spiritual things. Feelings have very often and expertly been shown to not be wholly reliable as a source of information about the world. To try and find out whether it is really God you're feeling rather than, say the effects of a bad pizza you ate last night, you need to do some experimentation, using scientific method.
"How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?"
You're talking about the bible, right?
"Is the scientific method real?"
Yes. There is a (loosely) defined scientific method, so it is in fact real.
I believe what you meant was "is the scientific method valid ?"
Does your computer work? Yes, and the Internet, too. I bet you can watch satellite TV in your living room, and store food in the fridge. If you get sick, there are surgical and medical treatments that will help you out.
Yeah, science is bullshit.
@LOLWUT:
Ah yes, but it's actually God that is responsible for all that you see? He has a host of little email cherubs on hand to deliver your messages and the dreaded angel of chill visits each and every icebox to keep the temperature down.
He only makes it look like an objective science is at work because he's a douche mysterious 'n' stuff.
How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?
How can the Bible prove God?Or miracles?
At least I can see, hear, and touch SCIENCE, But I'm starting not to believe in this whole God/religion thing. Can anyone prove these things to me??
FIXED.
#1126210
ThinkingManNeil
Religious belief is an act of self persuasion in the absence of evidence; self persuasion that leads to self delusion and the inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, embracing willful ignorance and stupidity as virtues, surrendering critical thinking and self-determination to the control of others with suspect, manipulative agendas, and vilifying progress, knowledge, and intellect in the process. Religious faith, with no verifiable basis in reality, is an insidious mental illness that threatens the survival of our civilization and our species.
THINKINGMANNEIL WINS THE THREAD!!! :D
But replace "religious belief" with "FUNDY RELIGIOUS BELIEF" because I am a Wiccan/Agnostic and have a general Wiccan religious outlook although I do believe in God... Im just not as insane as well over half these stupid bible thumping idiots are and even I can accept logic, deductive reasoning, scientific method, and cause and effect. So... yeah not all religious people are delusional... what I do works for me and doesnt harm others...
*gives us both a cookie* :D
What's sad is this is the same bullshit my philosophy teacher spouts (not the god part though, the science part).
I think this is some new age philosopher attacks on science 'cause they didn't get it in school and rather than admit their own ignorance they say it's not real. I've seen so many dumb asses spouting this same nonsense of late.
"but I am starting not to believe in this whole science thing. Can anyone prove these things to me"
Gee. Cody. I dunno. However, I would guess that you have flicked a light switch, made coffee, seen a car going down a road. Do you just think those things happen magically by the hand or gawd?
Science doesn't actually rely on the "truth" of logic and mathematics. (Or, more specifically, science doesn't rely on an absolute correspondence between synthetic formal systems such as logic and mathematics and phenomena such as language, thought, society, or the world.) All science tries to do is develop models which fit the observed world more and more closely and which make more and more useful and precise predictions. Mathematics and logic have been quite useful to this end (and I'd be quite surprised if that were to change), but if a better alternative is found, then science will eventually adopt that alternative. Fundie religion, it should be noted, doesn't fit the needs of science anywhere near as well as logic and mathematics do, even though fundie religion has the advantage of being an adaptive rather than a formal system.
Well, actually she (he?) has a truly valid point there (besides the last line of course).
"Scientific method is the only way to make scientific results which leaves only scientific experience as a guideline to develop scientific methods."
This circular argument omnipresent in scientific theory was (I think) first challenged by a guy called Paul Feyerabend, a philosopher on the same level of influence as Thomas Kuhn, but people prefer to cite Kuhn because he is more convenient in his thoughts.
Not fundie I'd say, I understand cody's statement as a cry for education.
Trust me, when the gravitational potential energy of a 50 kg anvil three meters above your head is transferred into kinetic energy, and when the now energized anvil does work on your cranium, you will, for an instant, know that xkcd was right.
SCIENCE WORKS, BITCHES.
"How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process?
How can science prove logic?Or mathematics?
At least I can feel God, But I'm starting not to believe in this whole science thing. Can anyone prove these things to me"
You were debating someone, and that person told you 'The Bible cannot be used to back up what the Bible says'/'How can the Bible be used to logically prove the Bible? One Word: Talking Snake', and that caused you to dry up, and thus lose the argument, didn't they, eh Cody...?! >:D
How long did it take you to come up with this little argumental nugget? Oh, and as Morbo would say...:
image
'LOGIC DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! '
You've been taking pointers in (non )logic & circular arguments from one ('Dr.') Jason Lisle, haven't you, eh Codiepoos...?!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.