Can we bring people back from the dead?

Not open for further replies.
The scientific method is a way to use experimentation and observation to discern how the universe works.

He's not debating the validity of the method. He's debating the tendency of atheists and skeptics to use it as some sort of failsafe algorithm or oracle for deciding what is real and true in our experience. In this sense it is exactly how fundamentalists use the Bible as an ethically-adhered to standard for all knowledge. As if there can ever BE just one way to get to the truth. It's dogmaticism in the guise of open-minded inquiry and objectivity.

"The standard description of the scientific method makes it sound like an almost machine-like process for sifting and separating truth from error. The method is typically described as involving the following steps:

  • Observe and describe some phenemenon.
  • Form a hypothesis to explain the phenemonon and its relationship to other known facts, usually through some kind of mathematical formula.
  • Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  • Test those predictions by experiments or further observations to see if they are correct.
  • If not, reject or revise the hypothesis.
This is all well and good as far as it goes, but the description of the scientific method that we have given above is actually something of a myth. Not only is it a myth, it is a fairly recent myth, first elaborated in the late 1800s by statistician Karl Pearson. Copernicus did not use the scientific method described above, nor did Sir Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin. The French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes is often credited with ushering in the age of scientific inquiry with his "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking the Truth in the Sciences," but the method of Descartes bears little relation to the steps described above. The molecular structure of benzene was discovered initially, not in a laboratory but in a dream, as was Einstein's theory of relativity. These theories did not originate through some laborious process of formulating and modifying a hypothesis, but through sudden moments of inspiration. The actual thought processes of scientist are richer, more complex, and less machine-like in their inevitability than the standard model suggests. Science is a human endeavor, and real-world scientists approach their work with a combination of imagination, creativity, speculation, prior knowledge, library research, perseverance and plain old blind luck-the same combination of intellectual resources, in short, that scientists and nonscientists alike use in trying to solve problems."===
Last edited:
S0 iow you can't show me where I'm deluded. Why am I not surprised?

So you are, once again, refusing to accept even an iota of evidence against your position, while providing none to back it.

No. That's not going to fly.

The OP question has been sufficiently answered, and at this point this is just a soapbox for MR to peddle more of his twisted reality... suffice it to say, the horse has been sufficiently beaten.
Not open for further replies.