What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hee_Zen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hee_Zen

Guest
Please explain what do you mean by this phrase? What does it entail, and how is it different from some “other” methods? What are the precise steps one must take to find out if a proposition about the external reality is true or not? What are its alleged limitation?

Please be specific. Thank you.
 
DaveBj said:
For starters, Wikipedia is your friend:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Click to expand...
Indeed, I would have given the same answer. But then I decided that Hee Zen’s question was a troll question. After all, as an atheist with a ‘scientific’ worldview wouldn’t he exactly know what the scientific method entails? I suppose he does.

But it is obvious that some of his fellow atheists, despite their ‘scientific’ worldview, have no idea how the scientific method really works. In response to the claim that scientific evidence pointed towards an eternal universe, based on mathematical models, I posted the following reply:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12503808&postcount=225

A scientist colleague of mine with whom I discussed this agrees with my statements.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Indeed, I would have given the same answer. But then I decided that Hee Zen’s question was a troll question. After all, as an atheist with a ‘scientific’ worldview wouldn’t he exactly know what the scientific method entails? I suppose he does.

But it is obvious that some of his fellow atheists, despite their ‘scientific’ worldview, have no idea how the scientific method really works. In response to the claim that scientific evidence pointed towards an eternal universe, based on mathematical models, I posted the following reply:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12503808&postcount=225

A scientist colleague of mine with whom I discussed this agrees with my statements.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think about this, but if I had, I would probably have posted the same link, albeit with a touch of snarkasm.

Ain’t it da trut’! :rolleyes: Good response on the “eternal universe” question.
 
And by the way, no such thing as a ‘scientific worldview’ exists. Naturalism is a philosophy, just like theism is.

It may be an extrapolation from science, but this extrapolation in itself is not scientific, as it would be if it were part of the scientific domain proper, part of scientific observation proper. And obviously, this extrapolation is not the only one that can be drawn from science. On the contrary, science only enriches my faith in God, since it shows the awesome complexity and vastness of creation. That this complexity evolved — was able to evolve based on very special laws of nature – only shows even more how great the planning of the Creator was.
 
Al_Moritz said:
And by the way, no such thing as a ‘scientific worldview’ exists. Naturalism is a philosophy, just like theism is.

It may be an extrapolation from science, but this extrapolation in itself is not scientific, as it would be if it were part of the scientific domain proper, part of scientic observation proper. And obviously, this extrapolation is not the only one that can be drawn from science. On the contrary, science only enriches my faith in God, since it shows the awesome complexity and vastness of creation. That this complexity evolved — was able to evolve based on very special laws of nature – only shows even more how great the planning of the Creator was.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Hans_W said:
Great to have a contributor of TalkOrigins on board on this forum.
I always get upset if science is seen as equivalent to atheism.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Although scientism is often seen by many as inclusive of atheism. 😉

Roger Bacon was an early “scientific type” in the 13th century and Francis Bacon wrote a pioneering treatise on the scientific method, Novum Organum, in the early 17th century. Modern science and technology have produced a great treasury of gifts and curses. Whether the gifts will exceed the curses is anybody’s guess at this point.
 
jeannetherese said:
Hello Hee_Zen,

I wonder if you might find the works of Thomas Kuhn interesting as you engage with this question?
A link to his : The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is below.
May God bless you.
jt

lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
Click to expand...
That’s quite a long and heavy read!
I suggest getting a brief overview on history and philosophy of science, starting with induction, logical positivism, Karl Popper (falsification), Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, methodological naturalism, etc.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Agreed. Although scientism is often seen by many as inclusive of atheism. 😉
Click to expand...
The word “scientism” is often used as an extreme form of science worshipping. It is a caricature of science and has nothing to do with doing real science.
 
Hans_W said:
The word “scientism” is often used as an extreme form of science worshipping. It is a caricature of science and has nothing to do with doing real science.
Click to expand...
It is not a caricature of real science. It is a philosophy of science that is a caricature of real philosophy. 😃
 
Oh, my. Looks like no one has actually read and understood the question in the OP. (Par for the course, I am sad to say.)

Of course I know what the scientific method is. I was asking WHAT do YOU mean when you use that phrase? What are the steps as YOU understand them? In what respect do YOU consider it as “deficient”?

I am interested in YOUR understanding, not what some external source might say about the subject.
 
The question you raise is too large and complex to be handled readily in this forum, which may be why so many are declining your invitation to explain the entire scientific method if that’s what you’re looking for.

Various sources have been suggested by which you can do your own homework, and those sources ought to be adequate for your purposes, unless you are writing a master’s thesis or a doctorate paper, in which case you are probably already miles ahead of the rest of us. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The question you raise is too large and complex to be handled readily in this forum, which may be why so many are declining your invitation to explain the entire scientific method if that’s what you’re looking for.

Various sources have been suggested by which you can do your own homework, and those sources ought to be adequate for your purposes, unless you are writing a master’s thesis or a doctorate paper, in which case you are probably already miles ahead of the rest of us. 🤷
Click to expand...
You STILL don’t get it. I am asking about your views, not a treatise on the subject. You guys are very ready to start accusations about the limitations of the “scientific method” but it looks like that you cannot explain what is this “scientific method” you complain about.
 
Hee_Zen said:
You STILL don’t get it. I am asking about your views, not a treatise on the subject. You guys are very ready to start accusations about the limitations of the “scientific method” but it looks like that you cannot explain what is this “scientific method” you complain about.
Click to expand...
Seems to me this is a strawman of the complaints made regarding the use of the scientific method.

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. It it certainly not contrary to any Church doctrine.

One of the problems complained about here is the it becomes a code word for materialism and claims that the only knowledge worth anything is that which gained from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top