Problems With the Scientific Method

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by TruthSeeker, Jun 5, 2007.

?

What are the problems with the scientific method?

  1. 1

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  2. 2

    3 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. 3

    2 vote(s)
    13.3%
  4. 4

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  5. None

    9 vote(s)
    60.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825

    I did, I'm a working scientist; any truth in science, no matter how certain, exists only as long as the conditions that define it. It makes no difference to the process of science since there is no lie or truth in science, only the process and its results. The inferences are our own and are based on our assumptions about the hypothesis, its independent and dependent variables, the process we use as well as about the results obtained. Science is merely about the inference, since it not only drives the assumptions that follow, but in many cases, also the assumptions that lead to it. Any notions of accuracy or truth that ignore this are bias.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I am with 4) - the problem with the scientific method is that its foundation are the reserves of human perception and rationalization, which is very much prone to four things
    1) imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
    2) tendency to make mistakes ... perceive lycopene as helpful in combating cancer
    3) tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
    4) a cheating propensity --- our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc (I stand to make a packet from lycopene combating cancer)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Fallacy.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm not the moderator of this forum and besides that I'm on the same side as you in the battle against the Forces of Darkness. But I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Sam. The argument is descending into semantics. Please remember that this is an international community. We don't all have the same background, the same context, the same set of understandings and assumptions. And especially not the same subtle meanings for words. Rather than criticize Sam for saying something that does not seem consistent with your own understanding of the universe, I think it would be far more in the spirit of science to simply ask her what she meant. Perhaps this would not only avoid a misunderstanding but spark an interesting and spirited discussion.
    I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I never appreciate my work--whether it's my casual writing here, my letters to the editor, the courses I teach, or even my bloody music--being used as justification for a flame war. I don't think it's Sam who owes anyone an apology.
     
  8. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    In the spirit of fraggles last post...

    How do you define truth? What does saying something is "true" mean to you?
     
  9. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Phallacy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    That its not falsifiable.
     
  11. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    While I completely sympathize with the content of this post, you are far too stodgy and restrictive for a forum who's main purpose is entertainment and consists of a multinational member base with a wide variety of reasons for posting here.
     
  12. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    I see. Of course you do. God, of course, would then consist of truth.

    I think that is not a definition of "truth" that many people would accept.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Of course True =! False is a rather radical definition of truth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    So. Science does not deal in things that are !False ?
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Of course not!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Science makes no judgments about certainty.

    Haven't you ever read a scientific publication?
     
  16. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Of course. Science always makes judgements about certainty. Have you never heard of statistics? All data and analysis comes with error bars that indicate the degree of certainty of the information.

    I fully accept that "truth" is provisional and comes with statistical provisos.

    "The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.

    "Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.

    "The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Provisional truth is an oxymoron, like being almost pregnant.

    If its not falsifiable, it is not science.
     
  18. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    No. That is a mystical/theistic stance. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All of it is statistical. All truths are provisional as I have said.

    I understand that if it's not falsifiable, it is not science. I never argued otherwise. But to say that science dosen't deal in varying degrees of truth (correctness, accuracy, ...?) is clearly wrong.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Science does not deal with truth because if it is not falsifiable it is not science.

    Am I not clear?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Did I not say that all "truth" is statistically provisional and is of course falsifiable?

    Am I not clear???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Then you are saying that Truth = ! False is wrong. so what you are saying is that there is no truth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    No. Let me be clear. I'm saying that your definition of True and False as absoultes is flawed. Truth = ! False is flawed. Truth = P(!False), P being a statistical probability, would be closer to reality.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So what is the definition of false?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page