Leaving, the Gödel’s discussion aside, the scientific method is, and has been, hacked many times by no other than scientists themselves. Here are 3 examples :
Replication crisis : “According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments)…”
More here : Replication crisis - Wikipedia
P-hacking : “Results from a study can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and p-hacking refers to a practice where researchers select the analysis that yields a pleasing result …” More here : We're All 'P-Hacking' Now | WIRED
Untestable theories / hypothesis : “ My conclusion, as you’d expect, is that string theory is not testable in any conventional scientific use of the term …” Is String Theory Testable? | Not Even Wrong
String theory is just one untestable theory but there are a plethora of them.
So, in my opinion Scientific Method is not the biggest strength of science. The biggest strength of science is it’s ability to self correct and continuously evolve as new data and facts come to light. So it’s the scientific peers and the community of science that keep it alive and well
I know exactly the show you are mentioning, and you probably don’t know that this is the zillionth call the guy has got on slavery, and rational discussion doesn’t work. Often the host tries to get the caller to admit that slavery is a moral wrong, the caller equivocates and goes on in the way you accurately transcribed, and the host (let’s call him Matt ) hangs up. I’ve listened to other hosts who don’t hang up, and it doesn’t go well. At least hanging up moves to another caller.
The point here is not whether god exists, but whether this particular believer has any moral sense, and why he considers a god who endorsed a moral evil a benevolent god.
The first thing to consider when saying there is evidence there is no god is which god? The deistic god who created the universe and then left can have no evidence against him since he has made no visible mark on the universe by definition. The god who created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago and then flooded us out has lots of evidence against him.
Theists admit there is evidence disproving gods - the ones they don’t believe in.
Better to say there is no good reason to believe in any god and good reasons to disbelieve in many.
well some people believe there is no bigfoot or no Loch Ness monster, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence not believing in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster are religions. I don’t think not believing in something makes it a religion.
That particular person clearly knew more than the caller thought didn’t they? Plus I suspect I know the show you are referring to and I contest that the exchange was exactly as you report it here.
You seem to be assuming that the caller is willing to concede the points being made by the host. If this is the show that I think it is you’ll find that any caller being as thoughtful and conciliatory as you imagine above does indeed get treated with respect and credibility.
Is that your belief or a commonly accepted / published definition?
I quote two reputable sources for describing “scientific method” and both have no mention of your belief :
Wikipedia : “ The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises”
Merriam-Webster’s : “ : the process that is used by scientists for testing ideas and theories by using experiments and careful observation”
It is all there in your first definition. I’ve boldened the specifically relevant part for you. I suggest you read the full article and then consider again whether you think self-correction and evolution are not part of the scientific method.
And the word “belief” is irrelevant. I no more “believe” in the scientific method than I “believe” in gravity. Or perhaps more accurately I *believe *in the scientific method to same degree that I *believe *in gravity. i.e. it works.
You should reconsider. There is nothing wrong with Novelty’s Bobble’s definition, I think that’s a very succinct way to describe it in one sentence. A very long definition of the scientific method can consists of many, many pages. There are various disagreements as to what the scientific method should consist of.
Hypothesis, theory and law are some of the basics of the scientific method. Even when something is established as law, it shouldn’t still be considered as absolute, we’ve seen what happened to Newton laws in the quantum world, although they still work quite well in a classical sense. I don’t expect any major upheavals, but there is still some slight tweaking that occurs, there’s been a few dealing with the laws of conservation.
Scientists are always questioning what they know all the time, even when something gets firmly established as laws, some are still exploring with it. Falsifiable testability wasn’t even built into the scientific method until Karl Popper came along in 1930’s. It’s still not universally held, but the majority of scientists think it a very important tool for the scientific method. Placebo controls came along about that time too. Double-blind experiments didn’t start to take hold until a few decades after that.
Look at the history of the scientific method over the centuries, you’ll find it has done just that, evolved, and continues to correct itself as new information deems it necessary to do so. Which is a good thing.
I have copied and pasted the part you bolder here :
**“ and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B]
I suggest you read the full article on Pi-hacking or the Replication Crisis before reiterating the same sentence.
I will try to summarize for you : The replication crisis Or Pi-hacking is not because the published scientists failed to “ **“ refine (or eliminate) the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.”[\B]. They did that. The replication crisis is due to these Scientists lacking integrity or ethics or insight or something on those lines.
This was suspected not because of the individual experimental result but a broad enquiry into a pattern research. The scientific method talks about the individual experimental result and its relation to the individual hypothesis.
am77494, Re-reading some of your posts, looks like we are saying the same things, but still not sure why you object to NB’s succinct definition, when it seems like you agree that’s how science works, but catch up to your other parts later, see if I can see what you’re getting at.
And it also applies to meta-analysis of a wider subject…as it did in those cases you mentioned and those revelations themselves will also be subject to criticism, review and revision.
So I’m fully aware of those issues and have been for many years. I don’t see anything in them that contradicts my assertions that the scientific method does include refinement, correction, evolution etc.
You point to failures to apply the method rigorously or of very human failings with integrity and ethics, my response would be…and? Humans are humans, the reason for the scientific method is as much to stop us fooling ourselves as anything else. It is a method not magic, is an inquisitional toolkit not a universal constant.
Fully agree and exactly my feelings and intent of the post. The scientific method is no panacea of objectivity and it can be hacked just as easily as other constructs. The real heroes are the community of scientists dedicated to the integrity of scientific endeavor.
