First of all, I want to apologize for that remark about replying “petulantly.” I was upset, and that remark was unnecessary.
Having said that, I don’t think it’s your place to decide what’s “worth discussing” and what isn’t. Other posters obviously felt that it WAS worth discussing.
As for the incongruity… I have already mentioned it repeatedly. REPEATEDLY. The statement contradicts itself. The statement can not be tested scientifically, and therefore, it disproves itself. How many times must I point this out?
I think it is readily apparent. If the statement is true, then what scientific method can possibly be used to determine that it’s true? It’s a simple case of reduction ad absurdum.
And as has already been pointed out, that objection – however valid – has no bearing on the matter at hand. It does not demonstrate that there’s no contradiction.
For the last time, I’m not purporting to have a better process in mind! You are reading way too much into a simple intellectual challenge!
You insinuate that there’s no contradiction in the original premise. Fine. Then tell me which scientific process you have used to determine its validity.
The “statement” was a badly stated opinion of the fictional speaker, not a scientific treatise up for testing. Thus, it is not a candidate for testing, scientific or otherwise. As far as the worth of your thread goes, all I am seeing is a lot of frustration and misunderstanding, not a meaningful discussion.
And that’s where you’re wrong (again). Since you purport that this statement came from a fictional speaker, I invite you to substantiate your claim.
The speaker was not fictional. Indeed, this occured during a formal debate … as I stated earlier in this thread. If you had bothered to read the earlier postings more carefully, you would have noticed that. What’s more, the statement was a lynchpin of the debater’s arguments, as evidenced by his subsequent challenge – “Can you name any truth which is not scientifically determined?”
And even if the speaker were fictional, would that imply that there’s no point in discussion his statements – not even as an academic exercise? If so, then there are thousands of universities which need to re-write their liberal arts curricula.
For the last time, it was a simple exercise in logic. Nothing more, nothing less. I asked the readers if they could identify the contradiction in his statement. You are the one who insists on making it into more than that… and that is where the “frustration and misunderstanding” stems from.
Well gee, if science were really about the search for truth, one scientific way to test the truth of that statement would be to test every single possible other way of getting truth, and if none of them worked, then from within the framework of science, the statement would be correct. Or at least that’s what seems kind of obvious to me as a not too deep thinker. Of course, science ISN’T about a search for truth, we have no scientific definition for what “truth” really is, and as a practical matter, I can’t see how you WOULD test all possible ways to search for truth, but that’s a problem in a sloppy definition of science, not a problem in logic per se.
I agree what you said. In addition, it’s not possible to scientifically identify all possible means of discerning the truth. (For example, how do you scientifically test the statement, “We have found all possible tests for the truth”?) That’s just one of the reasons why this statement is not a scientific one.
BTW, I commend you for noting the fallacy of that approach. You say that you’re a “not too deep thinker,” but I say you were quite astute in this particular situation.
I suppose I could be wrong, but why does this statement necessarily contain a contradiction because you say so? Neither you nor the original speaker thought this through very well, IMHO. As for determining validity, a very simple example: part of the scientific method would be interpreting the data and formulating a hypothesis. To further test validity, one would make predictions based on said hypothesis, at which time an independant set of tests could be conducted on these predictions.
If you have a punch line, I am more than ready for it.
Your original statement is flawed in a number of ways, as has been pointed out. Your statement that it cannot be checked by scientific methods is simply incorrect.
I can (If I wished for some obscure reason) construct experimental models using multiple iteration of people seeking the truth in some definable matter. I can determine what methods are being used, and which of these methods meet the criteria of science. I can then compare the efficacy of those different means.
The exercise is pointless, as was the original statement, but it is “scientific” in its method.
The statement is trivial, unimportant, wrong, incorrect, and useless. Your observation on the nature of its logical failing is incorrect.
The Straight Dope Teeming Millions have spoken with an unaccustomed unanimity in this matter. I would consider that strong evidence that you have been blinded by the brilliance of your moment of revelation. You are not the only one who can understand this fine point of logic, you are just the only one who perceives it as a point of logic.
Tris
“The road to truth is long, and lined the entire way with annoying bastards.” ~ Alexander Jablokov ~
Nope. It would only help test the hypothesis. It can not prove the hypothesis unless one can test all possible methods AND prove that no other methods exist. Furthermore, it would require testing these methods under ALL POSSIBLE circumstances – a feat which is patently impossible.
Ergo, the original claim IS scientifically untestable, and it therefore contradicts itself.
P.S. – Czarcasm, calm down. You’re reading too much into this whole issue.
Nobody’s saying that there’s a contradiction “because he said so.” Rather, there’s a contradiction because the statement can not be verified through scientific means, thereby violating its own premise.
Of course. Now how would you formulate a set of tests that would determine that science is the ONLY way that truth can be known? (Remember: In order for this to be the only way, your tests must rule out all possible alternatives, in all possible situations.)
In principle, science can be used to verify that the scientific method appears to be the most reliable method under the circumstances tested. To step beyond those limits is to go beyond the evidence that the scientific method can provide.
Furthermore, it’s easy to say, “Well, science demands conducting a set of tests.” It’s another thing to say what those tests would be — and it’s yet another thing to demonstrate that those tests can be performed. So Waverly’s “simple example” is really just a broad generalization. It doesn’t explain how this specific hypothesis can be tested.
BTW, some of you guys are really being obtuse about this whole thing. The earlier participants were fairly civil and open to reason. I don’t think I can say the same for most of the latecomers in this discussion.
It is only scientific if all other “methods” can themselves be tested scientifically. So, your hypothetical experient is far from a complete description of the “scientific” test required.
Moreover, we have already seen that there are some truths which can not be tested scientifically – axiomatic statements. By definition, axioms are assumed to be true because they are self-evident. Since axioms can not be tested scientifically, there is at least one situation wherein we cannot use the scientific method to evaluate the validity of non-scientific methods. The same holds true for matters of direct experience (e.g. “Am I conscious, or am I experiencing an elaborate dream?”), since these are obviously not subject to experimental verification.
Oops. Gotta correct myself here. Axioms are untestable but self-evident.
Either way, the point remains. We can’t use the scientific method to test the validity of an axiom. That’s because axioms are, by definition, outside the purvey of science. In fact, one is forced to assume their validity before one can engage in scientific inquiry. (We’ve discussed this before, but it’s obvious that not everyone understands this point.)
Here’s another example. Use science to prove that the scientific method is valid. Try as you might, you can’t. Why? Because science assumes its validity.
So no matter how elaborate your attempt may be, you can not design an experiment that will determine if science is the only path to truth. Logic shows that it can’t be done.
You are assigning logic to an illogical statement.
Why would anyone design an experiment to determine if science is the only path to truth? It’s not the only path to truth. It’s not even apath to truth. That’s why we don’t design scientific experiments to see if pigs can fly. We’re confident that they can’t. Well, I am.
The statement is wrong. It couldn’t be wronger. It’s one of the wrongest things I’ve ever heard.
Reasoning with an unreasonable premise is not recommended.
Hey, I fully agree with you on those points. There is no good reason to conduct such an experiment. It would be foolish to do so.
However, some posters have proposed that such an experiment can be designed. I’m merely demonstrating that it it can’t be done – that such an experiment is inherently impossible.
Let me first reiterate that the original quote is flawed. Given enough time, statistics will dictate that even ESP will yield the occasional ‘truth.’
Where does it state that an investigation must include and n-squared (i.e. all possible permutations) test of all possibilities? To start, it is acceptable to eliminate, without trial, using common sense. I wouldn’t begin an investigation to determine the shortest distance between home and office by outlining every possible route. Within reason, I use adjacency, distance, direction, and speed to whittle the possibilities down. It is also common, given a large enough number of paths, to use sampling. Granted this provides a degree of confidence, not an absolute, but I believe we have already established that by definition, this is what scientific methods do. Managing multiple variables is also the reason that we use DOE.
It’s been stated ad nauseum that the original quote is flawed. Now you seem to be arguing semantics, while JT stated specifically this was a logic question. Your quote above is defining exactly how any scientist would qualify his or her finding of the ‘truth’. [In all likelihood the original speaker included, had he or she realized that they were making such an absolute statement that could be taken so literally.]
It was an example that indicated that science could be used to test itself. As for science being the only path to the exclusion of all others: the scientific method is put up against other methods every day. Given this extensive sampling (I’m unaware of scientific methods ever coming up short, if I’m wrong please cite an example), isn’t our degree of confidence overwhelmingly in favor of science?
It’s one thing to jokingly call myself obtuse, but speaking for myself, I don’t really care for being called obtuse or uncivil by you. Provide examples if you must persist.
I think that was just careless phraseology. In the scientific method, not every single circumstance needs to be tested; however, it’s not enough to conduct some tests of a method and say, “Aha! It doesn’t work, but science does!” There may be untested circumstances wherein science does not work, but other methods do.
No, it wasn’t a valid example. It provided no specifics for how the hypothesis could be tested. Saying, “Well, we must generate a set of tests” is exceedingly vague, and ultimately worthless.
Nobody’s saying that we can’t have confidence in science, so that point is irrelevant.
We can be confident in science, but that’s a FAR, FAR cry from saying that we can experimentally determine whether any other methods produce the truth. I’ve already provide examples of situations wherein truth is determined through other means (e.g. axioms and direct experience) – situations which can not be scientifically tested.
I should have been more clear, I was using confidence in the statistical sense of the word, where you prove something to be true (say by the sampling I mentioned earlier), but it is only assured within a certain confidence interval. I didn’t intend to suggest that anyone participating here lacked confidence [using traditional sense of the word] in science.
Direct experience is equivalent to anecdotal evidence; not to be dismissed out of hand, but it will yield to more thorough experimentation. An axiom is just a term for a law or commonly held belief; it must still be arrived at in some fashion.
Could you do us all a favor and define “science?” Since the statement that “science is the only path to the truth” is either true or false, it seems obvious that either this (if true) or its inverse (if false) is part of “the truth.”
Hence, if science is a path to the truth, then the truth value of the original statement must by definition be within the purview of science (and hence fails to be self-contradictory). But if science is a path to only PART of the truth (or none of it), then the statement as given is (unless you define science in a rather bizarre way) not a statement made by science in the first place, and again hence not self-contradictory.