Let’s fix that last link, shall we?
[sub]@#@ preview ^%@#[/sub]
Right here:
The scientific method means a hypothesis is only valid if it can be backed by experiments, which normally means using the hypothesis to make predictions and testing it against experiments. And if it disagrees, the hypothesis is no longer valid. To believe in something we cannot observe is to accept a hypothesis without any experimental evidence.
First of all, you’re dodging my question. (All together now: “What scientific methodology did you use to establish that fact?”) Answer the question. Directly. Now.
It does not. Science requires making observations, and we can only scientifically test what is observable. However, NOWHERE does the scientific method “require that you only believe what you observe.”
In attempting to defend the claim that science is the one true path to knowledge, your arguments are seriously misrepresenting the scientific method.
Your quote does not support your argument. It only talks about rejecting a hypothesis which has been tested scientifically, and which is not supported by that experiment. This is a far, far cry from saying that one must only believe in things that are observable.
So again, where does the scientific method state that we must only believe in what is observed?
How many times do I have to say this? There are only two options:
[ul]
[li]Test all hypotheses, and reject those that do not agree with observations.[/li][li]Pick one hypothesis, do not test it, just believe it.[/li][/ul]
The second method is useless for understanding the true nature of the universe because you cannot distinguish between different theories and find out which is true. So we’re forced to accept the first, which is the scientific method. If there is a third alternative, please let me know.
You’re not using the scientific method, scr4. I specifically asked for the scientific methodology that you used to support your claim. You did, after all, claim that this is the only way to determine truth.
So even if we accept your logic to be valid, the fact that you are forced to argue in this fashion implicitly disproves your own assertion.
JThunder, et al.
What truth can there be outside of knowlege?
And what can be known that has not been observed?
If something is outside of knowlege, then it is not known. It may be true, but we have no way of knowing that.
Similarly, there are some things that have not been observed YET-- but will be in the future. These things will become known when they are observed–until then, they are mere conjecture, hence unknown.
Does Conjecture = God? One can only conjecture.
Does God = the Unknown? How can that be known?
Perhaps in place of “observe” in my above post it is best to use the term “sense” instead. Lest one conlude that I only refer to eyesight rather than any physical sensation.
I don’t understand what you mean. By using logic to justify the scientific method, I’ve proven that the scientific method is invalid?? 
Interesting question, but it’s irrelevant to the question of whether science is the only path to truth.
For a start, what about the laws of logic? Consider a classic syllogism such as
- All men are mortal.
- Socrates is a man.
- Ergo, Socrates is mortal.
While this is undeniably true, it is not something which is determined scientifically. Rather, it’s the sort of thing which all reasoning humans know through what philosophers describe as intuition. In fact, the scientific method assumes the validity of the laws of logic; ergo, it cannot be used to prove their validity!
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that the scientific method is invalid. I said that it’s not the only means to knowledge. There is a tremendous difference between the two statements.
By your own admission, you were forced to use logic to justify the scientific method. This alone proves that science is not the only path to truth… which disproves the very claim that you were attempting to defend.
Incidentally, even if you prove that the scientific method is valid, that still would not substantiate your claim. One would also have to prove that it always applies – that is, that it’s a tool which can be used to investigate the validity of every possible postulate. So even if we grant that your “proof” is valid, it would still fall way short of the goal.
You’ve lost me there. Are you saying that the scientific method depends on the logic, and that logic is not always valid?
Not really. Science is about only accepting postulates that can be tested throug the scientific method. If it can’t, there is no reason to accept or even consider it.
I’m saying that the scientific method assumes that the laws of logic are valid. ERGO, it cannot be used to prove their validity, as that would be circular reasoning.
Agreed on that point, but here’s where you stumble:
Really? Have you proven that scientifically? If not, then by your own admission, there is no reason to accept that claim, or even consider it.
Look at what’s happening, scr4. In your attempt to prove that truth can only be known through science, you are repeatedly forced to make assertions that are not scientifically tested, and which cannot be proven scientifically. Your own attempts to defend your position are implicitly disproving it.
And you appear to have admitted that laws of logic do imply the validity of the scientific method, and that to reject the scientific method is to reject logic itself. I don’t see how we can debate the validity of logic itself, since the concept of “debate” relies on logic. Maybe we should just leave it at that.
You’re misrepresenting what I’m saying, scr4. NOWHERE did I say, or even remotely imply, that the laws of logic are invalid. What I said is that they cannot be proven scientifically – which is, after all, the matter under debate.
Saying that they are not scientifically provable is NOT the same as saying that they are false. Not even close.
We can put this matter to rest, scr4. You have yet to scientifically prove that only science can reveal the truth. Indeed, you have been forced to rely on other methods (i.e. appeals to logic) to defend that claim. So not only is there no proof for your claim, you have implicitly demonstrated its falsity. Case closed.
I have shown that logically, the scientifc method is the only way to obtain the truth about the universe. You haven’t pointed out any flaws in the logic itself. Your only argument seems to be:
Which, it seems to me, implies that you are challenging the concept of logic itself. Where am I wrong?
I cannot prove scientifically that the scientific method is valid. That by definition is circular logic, and you have already stated that you will not accept circular logic.
I feel that religion’s contribution is a negative one overall because there is nothing beneficial that religion provides which cannot be had without religion and religion comes with a ton of potential negative baggage.
As for the science vs. religion debate I will just say this:Call it “scientific method” or “critical thinking” or “rationality” or what have you(it’s all the same thing when you break it down) but I see no reason to believe that there are questions which cannot be answered through reason/rationality.In order to state that “faith answers questions about the spiritual” or somesuch, you must presuppose that something “spiritual” or “beyond the material” exists.If the spiritual or supernatural do NOT exist(as appears to be the case) then you are correct that science/skepticism/logic etc. cannot answer questions about these things.
No. It’s no myth, it’s the truth. Where one is, the other isn’t.
They were wrong. They started from an unproven premise that they never subjected to proper logic or experiments. Garbage in, garbage out; if you start from a bad premise it doesn’t matter how correct your logic is from that point.
Priceguy is correct. When one cites scientists who are religious, one is offering us persons who, along with their adherence to scientific method, have one glaring problem-- they break the rules of logic and admit to believing in a fantasy.
OK. So be it. We all make mistakes. Just don’t you make the mistake of claiming that because otherwise brilliant people (for example, Newton) believe in nonsense that that somehow makes it true. It doesn’t.
Next…