The Unscientific Foundations of the Scientific Method

[tdgesq]

Let me start off by giving a very basic definition of the scientific method. Some of you who are up on the philosophy of science might have some problems with it, but I think it works for our purposes here:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

Notice the last sentence. Once sufficient testing is conducted to where we can say that there is an adequate scientific theory, that theory is supposed to be able to predict future outcomes of experiments conducted under the same conditions. The primary function of the scientific method is its ability to predict an outcome without having to do a new experiment each time. Here’s an example used by Wiki.

We know from countless repeated experiments that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea-level. The scientist as well as the general public know this so well that it is assumed in everyday applications without the need for any further experimentation. In other words, by means of induction it is said that we can *know * that in the future water will always freeze at zero degrees Celsius at sea-level. The assumption is that nature is uniform so that the results of the future will be the same as the results of the past. The question is: does the scientific method have any basis for it’s claim that the future will be like the past such that we can predict outcomes? Put another way, can we through the scientific method demonstrate that the scientific method itself is a reliable predictor of future outcomes?

I submit that the answer is “no.” The scientific method can show us that it has been able to predict outcomes, but not that nature will remain uniform such that it can continue to do so in the future. If I am correct, then what is the justification for the scientific method? Can Catholics provide an answer?

 

[1st_Exploration]

What is wrong with the scientific method? Of course the universe has not been like it is now. At t=0.000000000001 s for example, atoms likely did not exist at the start of the big bang. Today and in our lifetimes, I do not think things like the speed of light in a vacuum will change; the properties of the universe are pretty much universal by the power of God. We can estimate what the gravity is on other planets based off what we know about our own, I do not know any other way we can do that besides basing our predictions off of what we know now. Deductive reasoning is what we have and it works pretty well. Unless you have mystical revelation, which the last time that happed was when? Fatima? And do you think the Blessed Virgin Mary will spend her time telling us the correct value of Planck’s constant? Or should we live in a world where we assume that we cannot assume? I say we have faith and assume things can be known, after all this universe has already been thought out.

 

[1st_Exploration]

The justification for the scientific method is simply that we do not have anything better. No one can predict the future unless you are a profit or received divine revelation. The last profit was John who died around 95 A.D… I think the scientific method is the best way to defend and explain the faith to its skeptics. All apologist should use this method whenever possible.

 

[RobNY]

We know from countless repeated experiments that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius at sea-level. The scientist as well as the general public know this so well that it is assumed in everyday applications without the need for any further experimentation. In other words, by means of induction it is said that we can *know * that in the future water will always freeze at zero degrees Celsius at sea-level. The assumption is that nature is uniform so that the results of the future will be the same as the results of the past. The question is: does the scientific method have any basis for it’s claim that the future will be like the past such that we can predict outcomes? Put another way, can we through the scientific method demonstrate that the scientific method itself is a reliable predictor of future outcomes?

Isn’t this the classic Humean objection to induction?

-Rob

 

[AgnosTheist]

The scientific method can show us that it has been able to predict outcomes, but not that nature will remain uniform such that it can continue to do so in the future.

the scientific method is just a method of predicting outcomes. if nature is not uniform then the method can predict that too.

If I am correct, then what is the justification for the scientific method?

the justification? look around you. your computer. your t.v. your electric lamp. space travel.

 

[SoCalRC]

There seems to be a little mixup in cause and effect. In science, the goal is understanding. We test theories by using them to predict outcomes of experiments. The more successful a theory is in consistantly predicting actual results, the more credibility it accrues. In modern science, we are loathe to declare even an extremely successful theory a “law”.

We basicly learned our lesson from things like “Newton’s Laws” and “Laws of thermodynamics”. Incredibly successful theories though they are, we know from observation and experiments that they do not predict the universe as it is when looking at the very large and the very small.

If one is used to thinking in theological terms, the distinction I am making can be hard to grasp. But it is an issue of emphasis. In faith, beliefs are central. In science, the measurements are central, not any beliefs that are formed. In fact, much of standard scientific practices (double blind, peer review of data, etc.) is intended to thwart a very human tendancy to put belief in one’s theories ahead of the actual data measured.

One would think that the difference in focus would lead to more collisions, but there is fundementally very little conflict. Normally when someone talks about science ‘threatening God’, what they are really saying is that science threatens a particular understanding of God.

 

[RobNY]

the scientific method is just a method of predicting outcomes. if nature is not uniform then the method can predict that too.

But wouldn’t this only be the case if nature was uniform in its lack of uniformity?

the justification? look around you. your computer. your t.v. your electric lamp. space travel.

I think his question is the question Hume raises in his Enquiry, namely, that we can never know that because something has happened in a certain way that it will happen in a certain way.

Of course, Hume believes that we have no idea of cause and effect.

I think this might be a good place to target a refutation, because if we can know cause and effect then we can predict what will happen in the future.

-Rob

 

[SoCalRC]

But wouldn’t this only be the case if nature was uniform in its lack of uniformity?

Look at quantum physics. Science is able to accomodate the concept of utter uncertainty.

Of course, Hume believes that we have no idea of cause and effect.

In science, a theory does not have to address “WH” questions to be useful. Quantum Electrodynamics would be a good example. It is a spectacularly successful theory, and of direct practical use in modern engineering. But it makes no presumption of explaining WHY the natural world acts as it does, it only postulates a way of predicting, with tremendous accuracy, how the natural world will behave.

In the context of Hume, QED is also important in that it would appear to disprove his assertion that science is only useful for the utterly deterministic. QED only produces probabilities, that is, it presumes a reality which is predictable, but not certain.

 

[RobNY]

Look at quantum physics. Science is able to accomodate the concept of utter uncertainty.

I agree. I was just trying to play devil’s advocate to AgnosTheist’s position.

In science, a theory does not have to address “WH” questions to be useful. Quantum Electrodynamics would be a good example. It is a spectacularly successful theory, and of direct practical use in modern engineering. But it makes no presumption of explaining WHY the natural world acts as it does, it only postulates a way of predicting, with tremendous accuracy, how the natural world will behave.

I agree. Definitely.

But the question that I’m asking is not, “why” the natural world behaves as it does (I’m not sure scientific method can answer that), but rather, how does it behave (with regard to cause and effect). And I surely think that that is something our natural sciences should tackle.

In the context of Hume, QED is also important in that it would appear to disprove his assertion that science is only useful for the utterly deterministic. QED only produces probabilities, that is, it presumes a reality which is predictable, but not certain.

Does Hume have this position? I’m only partway, actually, though my reading of his Enquiry. It seems that natural science now is great chiefly because it is so darn useful, so I have no bone to pick there.

(I’m not a ‘Humean’ by the way.)

-Rob

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… In fact, much of standard scientific practices (double blind, peer review of data, etc.) is intended to thwart a very human tendancy to put belief in one’s theories ahead of the actual data measured…

There are two poles to science: theory (the math) and observation (the measurement).

Think of science also as a series of problems and solutions to those problems.

We go along in history with a certain set of assumptions which work for us. Those assumptions are based on what we are able to observe and are CULTURALLY determined.

Then one wiseguy travels to China and is able at first to see nothing different, but stops being brilliantly successful at survival. This is a problem.The need to survive forces him to see what is actually there and that turns out to be different from what he is used to seeing.

Thus observation forces him to come up with a new theoretical model; a new equation. This is the solution.

The history of science has – as you rightly pointed out – been about people clinging to what they already think they know. They don’t want problems.

But it is also about people bucking the system, challenging what people think they know. This is a problem.

Extraordinary claims have always required extraordinary proofs. Extraordinary proofs are solutions.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Look at quantum physics. Science is able to accomodate the concept of utter uncertainty.

Hawking resolved that uncertainty. The double slit experiment no longer is about uncertainty.

Heisenberg + LSD = Stephen Hawking’s Flexiverse

 

[SoCalRC]

Hawking resolved that uncertainty. The double slit experiment no longer is about uncertainty.

Heisenberg + LSD = Stephen Hawking’s Flexiverse

No, Hawking and Hertog have a theory which is, by the way, not entirely new and not entirely their own. FWIW the article is a little fast and loose this way multiple times, for example, Feynman would have been the first to acknoweldge that QED was certainly not his and his alone either - the Nobel prize was rightfully shared three ways. And I’m not just saying that because his lovely wife Gwenn once damaged my car in Pasadena. I’m just trying to make a point about how science generally really works.

When you first try to explain quantum mechanics to a lay person, many find it disturbing. A surprising number of them will then quote Einstein about God and dice. But what they don’t realize was that Einstein disliked the theories even as he worked on them. In fact, his nobel prize was for his work on QM, not relativity. Further, his principle objection was eventually tested at CERN, once computers and lasers, etc., made the experiments possible. Einstein was wrong, Bell’s Theorem fell the other way when tested.

We don’t currently give Hawking and Hertog’s theory much weight because we can’t make measurements of the sort needed to test it, at least not yet. The same is true of other interesting theories, like modern string theory, which is mathmatically beautiful (at least to me).

Personally, I don’t find it appealling. It seems a lot like ‘throwing in the towel’ to me as well. But I’ve been spectacularly wrong about such things in the past.

 

[SoCalRC]

Does Hume have this position? I’m only partway, actually, though my reading of his Enquiry. It seems that natural science now is great chiefly because it is so darn useful, so I have no bone to pick there.

That is how I interpret him, but I’d be interested in your take when you finish.

Devil’s advocate is good - in science! I hope you didn’t take my comments as harsh or critical, because that was not my intent.

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you for all of the thought provoking replies. Rob is correct that I am using one of the versions of Hume’s problem of induction and applying it specifically to the scientific method. The scientific method has and I believe will continue to provide accurate predictions of future events. But belief doesn’t constitute knowledge. Even if it is true that the scientific method will continue to make accurate predictions about the future, there has to be some justification for that belief to qualify as knowledge. The question is how we know that, not necessarily the"why"it comes about, although it could be helpful to have an explanation for that as well.

By the way, probabilities are necessarily based upon the observable past. We can use statistics to categorize those observations and to make predictions with a certain degree of confidence. At least we’ve always been able to in the past, which begs the question as to whether we can expect that to be the case in the future. I think that injecting probabilities into the discussion actually elucidates the problem. How do we know that what we have observed in the past will continue to hold in the future to any degree of statistical probability? Can we even say that there is any reason at all to believe it?

Maybe the apparent indeterminacy that we see in some areas of quantum physics has bearing on these questions. I don’t know, but I’d like to hear more.

 

[tdgesq]

the scientific method is just a method of predicting outcomes. if nature is not uniform then the method can predict that too.

I know what the scientific method claims. It is contained in my opening post on this thread. The issue is whether there is any justification for that claim.

the justification? look around you. your computer. your t.v. your electric lamp. space travel.

You mean the justification is that in the past it’s always worked. In the past we’ve always observed that water freezes at 0 degrees C. Okay. How does that make it one whit more likely that the next time water is cooled to that temperature it will freeze? Because it has every other time we’ve observed it? This doesn’t prove the uniformity of nature, it assumes it. It assumes that if I just do enough experiments that all end with the same result, that the same result will always occur under those same conditions. So the basis for the predictions of science is one that begs the question - a logical fallacy. Is that your position?

 

[AgnosTheist]

This doesn’t prove the uniformity of nature, it assumes it.

It is scientifically proven that nature is not uniform. For example the flow of time and space varies. The scientific method only predicts what will happen UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SoCalRC:

No, Hawking and Hertog have a theory which is, by the way, not entirely new and not entirely their own. FWIW the article is a little fast and loose this way multiple times…

There are as you know different levels to come in on a discussion such as this one. I came in with a challenge to your assertion. To successfully dispel my challenge, you would have to give far more detail than you have.

In any case, it is an enlarging article to consider, n’est-ce pas?

btw, we have already had some exceptionally engaging banter about on the Big Bang thread on the flexiverse and on the multiverse, losing some folks and gaining some along the way.

SoCalRC:

…I’m just trying to make a point about how science generally really works.

So was I. You seem to fall on the side of observation. I am happy on the swing.

SoCalRC:

When you first try to explain quantum mechanics to a lay person, many find it disturbing. A surprising number of them will then quote Einstein about God and dice.

Any wonder?

SoCalRC:

But what they don’t realize was that Einstein disliked the theories even as he worked on them.

True, but what is the relevance of saying this? We are never truly satisfied with our hypotheses because we have yet to reach the Grand Unified Theory. That does not undermine the usefulness and beauty of a hypotheses in any way.

SoCalRC:

In fact, his nobel prize was for his work on QM, not relativity. Further, his principle objection was eventually tested at CERN, once computers and lasers, etc., made the experiments possible. Einstein was wrong, Bell’s Theorem fell the other way when tested.

OK. For the benefit of the non-Thomists here, please set this out in recognizable form. Those of us who started asking for a philosophy forum last Spring, found that some ground rules were helpful. One ground rule is ‘showing your work’ just like we had to in high school algebra.

SoCalRC:

We don’t currently give Hawking and Hertog’s theory much weight because we can’t make measurements of the sort needed to test it, at least not yet.

People are likely to misinterpret this statement. It is true that measurement needs to confirm Hawking’s calculations. This is how science progresses. Hawking comes up with a hypotheses. Observation has to confirm it.

For example with the black holes. Originally Hawking thought that blackholes violated the – oh golly I have brainfreeze – either the Conservation of Energy or the Laws of Thermodynamics. I’m going into a meeting and don’t have time to delve this right now.

But eventually he realized – theoretically – that there must be some sort of energy released, energy that we could not yet see. Observation proved him right. And black holes were back in the family again.

So at first black holes were thought to be a point where physics is broken. Then physics were restored to grace. So with all this talk about boundary conditions of the universe and before the big bang and so on – points at which physics is said to break – hah! I am skeptical.

People make extraordinary claims about Heisenberg’s double slit experiment. I am skeptical about those too. Just exactly how uncertain can ‘uncertainty’ be? Is the universe uncertain or just the observers of the universe?

SoCalRC:

The same is true of other interesting theories, like modern string theory, which is mathmatically beautiful (at least to me).

Yep. Let’s see what the measurements show.

SoCalRC:

Personally, I don’t find it appealling. It seems a lot like ‘throwing in the towel’ to me as well. But I’ve been spectacularly wrong about such things in the past.

The Philosophy Forum is the right place to be then. There have been spectacularly wrong posts before yours, notably my own – with Truthstalker and cpayne jockeying for position. D-oh! I better skedaddle before they catch me taking their names in vain.

whistle whistle … hidey-ho, hidey hum…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…By the way, probabilities are necessarily based upon the observable past…

Our ability to observe changes.

When the Euros first came to NA, the First Nations could not see them. Why? Because of the big ships. The FN had no experience of big ships. As soon as the Euros came down into small boats, the FN could see them.

Equally, the Euros could not see bison because they had no experience of bison.

Some degree of acclimatization seems necessary as well as some degree of problem identification.

But the problem has to be perceived as a problem before a solution is possible. Both observation and theory – in their technical scientific senses – are solutions to problems.

The math tells us one thing. And then the observation guys get busy inventing a new means of observation to test out the mathematical hypothesis. Then we see what was predicted.

Then we see something that does not fit into the mathematical equation: something that was not predicted. So the math guys get busy figuring out a new equation.

 

[tdgesq]

It is scientifically proven that nature is not uniform.

This is so bad for you in so many ways. First, the whole question is whether in the first place science is reliable given the problem of induction. When you claim “it is scientifically proven,” you have already assumed that science can tell us when and whether nature is uniform - but that is the very question to which we need an answer. I already know what science claims. It is the justification for those claims that is required.

Second, assuming that what you say is true, that it has been proven that nature is not uniform; wouldn’t that also apply to the scientific method and the predictions that follow from it? You very badly want uniformity when it comes to the scientific method and its results, but then do a 180 when it comes to what science allegedly tells us about the uniformity of nature - that it isn’t always uniform. Haven’t you just contradicted yourself?

For example the flow of time and space varies. The scientific method only predicts what will happen UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

I’ve always maintained that the same conditions must exist. Show me where I’ve argued anything other than that. Under the same conditions, you have given no justification for the proposition that the predictions of the scientific method will continue to hold. Yet that is exactly what is claimed. The scientific method very clearly makes predictions about the future. It’s why engineers have confidence that the material strength of a bridge they built yesterday will hold up when you drive your car across it tomorrow. Why?

 

[jman507]

I submit that the answer is “no.” The scientific method can show us that it has been able to predict outcomes, but not that nature will remain uniform such that it can continue to do so in the future. If I am correct, then what is the justification for the scientific method? Can Catholics provide an answer?

The justification of the Scientific Method is that it is practical and useful, but it would be hard to know it’s exact relation to what is True without knowing science’s exact relationship to what is True.