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

[KidCatholic1]

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.

The scientific method is the way scientists frame their experiments. It is begun by either making observations or asking questions. One seeks then to create a hypothesis (then followed by the prediction of the results). The scientist then makes an experiment that will test the hypothesis. This is accomplished by making different plans and ways to prove your hypothesis. Afterwards, he collects his data, analyses it and shares it to the scientific community. Note that the system is not linear, it can jump around or repeat steps. It was strongly supported by Francis Bacon and other great thinkers of the Renaissance, and continues to be the staple of scientific experimenting. The reason it is different is because it is a widely used plan for science, and it is unique in its own right. Also, stop being rude to some theists and Catholics on the site.

 

[KidCatholic1]

That quote is not ‘good’, it is one of the most silly arguments that atheism could ever produce. It comes from complete ignorance of the nature of God as seen by classical theism, vs. any other “gods”. But you wouldn’t know, since you don’t care about classical philosophical theism (Thomism is just one variant of it).

If you want to impress us and be taken seriously, you have to do better – much better. That quote is just plain pathetic. There is as little to ponder about it with ‘an open mind’ as there is to ponder about Young-Earth creationism. In both cases we are dealing with blind ignorance, obvious to anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of the issues.

Albert Einstein once said: “Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.” I agree with your statement.

 

[KidCatholic1]

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.

I also agree, science everyday demonstrates the strangely infinite power God has.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Who says you should? Use the ignore feature. I would be delighted if the majority of the people would ignore me. As Dirty Harry said: “go ahead, make my day”.

O.K. Dirty Hee-Zen, I’ll make your day!

 

[Al_Moritz]

I hope they do: “lack of evidence”. That is the common thread among all the “gods”, none of them have a shred of evidence going for them. And that is what the atheists are aware of. And that is what the theists deny. They readily admit the lack of evidence for all the so-called “false” gods, but they refuse to admit that their own “god” suffers from the same problem. Of course it is called “special pleading”.

Wrong again. Yes, obviously the other “gods” lack evidence, but on a philosophical level this is not even the main reason why theists reject them. But you wouldn’t know that, and continue to embarrass yourself with your ignorance of classical theistic philosophy. You reject Thomism (just one, relatively late, expression of classical theism, by the way), but obviously have no clue what it entails.

Go study theism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The grounds are very solid: and called the lack of evidence. Here is a good quote from Steven F. Roberts: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Just ponder this with an open mind.

Even if I pondered this with a sieve of a mind, it wouldn’t stick.

Frankly, Zee_Hen, that you bring up this tired old saw as if it needed to be pondered deeply doesn’t support a case defending your intellectual rigor.

On its face, it claims that every possible concept of God, no matter how uniquely compelling or consistent, will be dismissed by you MERELY because you have found every concept of God thus far wanting.

There is at least one version of a hasty generalization fallacy in there somewhere, but its main issue is that it advocates the antithesis of an “open-mind.” It calls for closing the mind to all arguments whatsoever merely because disappointing reasons have been presented for your consideration in the past.

Ed Feser’s treatment of this might be worth a look - it will save you some embarrassment when you try to present this “proof” to a less congenial audience as a compelling argument.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

 

[Al_Moritz]

Ed Feser’s treatment of this might be worth a look - it will save you some embarrassment when you try to present this “proof” to a less congenial audience as a compelling argument.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

Yes, and in the same essay at Strange Notions he has added a few crucial paragraphs at the end, which get to the philosophical heart of why theists reject the other “gods”:

strangenotions.com/debunking-the-one-god-further-objection/

Sure enough, the philosophical reasons, just hinted at in the essay, can only be fully understood after studying classical theism. That is also why it is worth reading the links that he suggests at the end of his essay at the web location you pointed out.

But perhaps studying Feser’s Aquinas is mandatory to fully understand the argument.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You reject Thomism (just one, relatively late, expression of classical theism, by the way), but obviously have no clue what it entails.

On the very contrary, I reject it, because I know what it is, and because it makes no sense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On the very contrary, I reject it, because I know what it is, and because it makes no sense.

For the same bullet-proof warrant you reject one more God, I take it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

On the very contrary, I reject it, because I know what it is, and because it makes no sense.

No, you obviously have no clue what it is, as I just pointed out. You can continue to deny this, but continued denial does not make it any truer. By using the “one god further” argument you have unwittingly exposed yourself as wholly ignorant of Thomism, or any classical theism, for that matter.

Go study theism – in earnest this time, not just with a cursory glance over the issues which inevitably leads to a facile dimissal when preconceived biases are involved, as is obvious in your case. Study with a truly open mind, in other words.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Ed Feser’s treatment of this might be worth a look - it will save you some embarrassment when you try to present this “proof” to a less congenial audience as a compelling argument.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

Yes, and in the same essay at Strange Notions he has added a few crucial paragraphs at the end, which get to the philosophical heart of why theists reject the other “gods”:

strangenotions.com/debunking-the-one-god-further-objection/

Nothing new there. The God of classical theism, not just an overblown super-human, it is a ridiculously overblown super-human, whose attributes are partially nonsensical, partially mutually exclusive and partially contradicted by the observed physical reality. Being itself? Actus purus? What kind of nonsense is that? Acting without change? Timeless, yet active existence? Non-corporeal existence which is able to interact with the physical realm? These are not just physical nonsense, but also philosophical nonsense.

Yet, there is something in common in all the god-concepts ever presented. There is not one iota of evidence for them. There is no epistemology presented which would enable someone to discover that there is an “immortal” soul - actually, there is no consensus of what the “soul” might be. An “animating principle”? Or the “form” of the body - which “form” is not the shape? Or some “supernatural” whatchamacallit which is undefined?

Before you wish to present a concise argument, you should come to a consensus among yourselves, just what your “terms” mean? And how do we determine if those terms are correct or not. So, in other words, you should agree upon your metaphysics and your epistemology. Otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Hee_Zen]

For the same bullet-proof warrant you reject one more God, I take it.

It is the same as “I reject the existence of married bachelors, because they are logically impossible”. As I already elaborated, “perfect justice” and “perfect mercy” are mutually exclusive. “Justice” is to act according to what the other party merits (it could be a reward or a punishment) and “mercy” is to forgive a trespassing or give a reward which is NOT merited. So they cannot happen at the same time in the same instance.

 

[tdgesq]

I never said that the are. The scientific method GREW out of empiricism.

So the scientific method and empiricism are different. Great. If the scientific method grew out of empiricism, then I sure hope empiricism gives us knowledge of objective reality! Or did the scientific method grow out of something that doesn’t give us knowledge of objective reality?

Here is what you claim as the first step of the scientific method:

Then we make observations of the objective reality and find something “new” and we attempt to find an explanation for that phenomenon. So the first step is “observation”.

So is this “something new” we observe (empirical knowledge) in the first step of the scientific method objective reality? I sure hope it is, because if it isn’t, then nothing that follows using the remaining steps of the scientific method is going to give us knowledge of objective reality. In fact, the one using the scientific method is required to make multiple observations (empirical knowledge) in the testing phase as well. Are these observations knowledge of objective reality?

Of course it MIGHT be inaccurate. As I grow older, I discover that my memory is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are many things that I cannot recall, and when others refer to those events, I cannot recall them.

If you don’t find your own memory reliable, then you can’t possibly find the scientist’s memory of his multiple empirical observations reliable.

Of course all this quibbling about the past is irrelevant. I already agreed that the past is NOT subject to observation (which is part of the scientific method). So what is your problem?

It’s not my problem, it’s your problem. And your problem is that the scientific method relies upon observation of past objective reality to conclude what is presently existing reality! I’m afraid that’s not quibbling. That’s the heart of your problem.

You seem to have overlooked what I said: “science is the arbiter of the proposition about the objectively existing external reality”. But the past does not exist any more!

Actually that’s not what you said at all. Go back and look at your posts. You only added “existing” as a qualifier recently. We both agree the past doesn’t exist anymore, yet scientists use their past observations of objective reality to conclude what is existing objective reality. That’s the entire power of the scientific method, which you’ve managed to eviscerate by questioning the reliability of all those scientists’ memories.

You missed the point again. The proposition “Bob ate a ham sandwich for lunch yesterday” may have a truth value to it, but how are you going to substantiate it?

The same way the cosmologist observed redshift phenomena yesterday. The same way the geneticist observed a particular dna sequence yesterday. The same way the biologist observed white swans yesterday. Hey, maybe they are in the middle of a scientific study while doing this, so they don’t even qualify as instances of the scientific method yet. We can’t know that any these past instances of empiricism are reliable because the scientist’s memory could be faulty, according to you anyway.

It’s just a bit ironic that I’m trying to save the epistemic value of the scientific method as you unwittingly go about destroying it.

 

[Al_Moritz]

it is a ridiculously overblown super-human,

You continue to embarrass yourself. Good job.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It’s just a bit ironic that I’m trying to save the epistemic value of the scientific method as you unwittingly go about destroying it.

Well, he’s doing more than one thing unwittingly lately…

 

[Hee_Zen]

So the scientific method and empiricism are different. Great. If the scientific method grew out of empiricism, then I sure hope empiricism gives us knowledge of objective reality!

Yes it does. You hit your finger with a hammer, and you learn that it leads to unwanted pain, so you stop it.

So is this “something new” we observe (empirical knowledge) in the first step of the scientific method objective reality? I sure hope it is, because if it isn’t, then nothing that follows using the remaining steps of the scientific method is going to give us knowledge of objective reality. In fact, the one using the scientific method is required to make multiple observations (empirical knowledge) in the testing phase as well. Are these observations knowledge of objective reality?

Obviously. Though individuals may interpret the “raw” data incorrectly.

If you don’t find your own memory reliable, then you can’t possibly find the scientist’s memory of his multiple empirical observations reliable.

The operating word here (which you omitted) is SOMETIMES.

Actually that’s not what you said at all. Go back and look at your posts. You only added “existing” as a qualifier recently.

I did not elaborate on the obvious. Mea culpa, I am sure.

We both agree the past doesn’t exist anymore, yet scientists use their past observations of objective reality to conclude what is existing objective reality. That’s the entire power of the scientific method, which you’ve managed to eviscerate by questioning the reliability of all those scientists’ memories.

For the short term it is probably correct. But can you remember what happened to you when you were a few months old?

The same way the cosmologist observed redshift phenomena yesterday. The same way the geneticist observed a particular dna sequence yesterday. The same way the biologist observed white swans yesterday. Hey, maybe they are in the middle of a scientific study while doing this, so they don’t even qualify as instances of the scientific method yet. We can’t know that any these past instances of empiricism are reliable because the scientist’s memory could be faulty, according to you anyway.

They can be ascertained TODAY.

It’s just a bit ironic that I’m trying to save the epistemic value of the scientific method as you unwittingly go about destroying it.

No, I am merely pointing out the unreliability of being dependent only on memory and the “testimonials”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You continue to embarrass yourself. Good job.

No, your omission to reflect on the “meat” of my post embarrasses “you”. Of course you could overcome this negative assessment, if you would be able to present an epistemological method which allows the unbelievers to ascertain the veracity of you claims about “immortal souls” and other associated claims.

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, your omission to reflect on the “meat” of my post embarrasses “you”. Of course you could overcome this negative assessment, if you would be able to present an epistemological method which allows the unbelievers to ascertain the veracity of you claims about “immortal souls” and other associated claims.

Well, you could not even present credible arguments for free will as an emergent property under naturalism. Why don’t you start answering Peter Plato’s posts #88 and #89 on the thread “does science prove God’s existence”, as I must have asked you at least three times before, while you were always evading a response? Here they are for your convenience:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12442098&postcount=88
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12442102&postcount=89

Then perhaps, just perhaps, we might start talking about the related topic of an immaterial soul (which implies immortality).

 

[Al_Moritz]

No, your omission to reflect on the “meat” of my post embarrasses “you”. Of course you could overcome this negative assessment, if you would be able to present an epistemological method which allows the unbelievers to ascertain the veracity of you claims about “immortal souls” and other associated claims.

And by the way, I cannot reflect upon the “meat” of your post, which I suppose should be about the evidence for God, as long as you reject any possibility that the classical theistic concept of God has any merit. No wonder, you have repeatedly proven that you don’t even understand it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, you could not even present credible arguments for free will as an emergent property under naturalism.

The libertarian concept of “free will” is rather simple. It refers to exactly three requirements. **One **is that the “locus of decision” is with the agent. **Two **is that the decision must have at least two different possibilities (that there are at least two possibilities to choose from) and **three **that there are no external factors that would determine our choice - though obviously the external factors will influence out choice. It says NOTHING about the INTERNAL methodology of HOW the decision is reached. The choice is free if it is not determined by the external factors.

Why don’t you start answering Peter Plato’s posts #88 and #89 on the thread “does science prove God’s existence”, as I must have asked you at least three times before, while you were always evading a response?

I am simply not interested in his (name removed by moderator)ut. Sometimes I take exception and read his posts, but that is an exception and not the rule.

And by the way, I cannot reflect upon the “meat” of your post, which I suppose should be about the evidence for God, as long as you reject any possibility that the classical theistic concept of God has any merit. No wonder, you have repeatedly proven that you don’t even understand it.

You are mistaken if you equate “understanding” with “acceptance”. I understand what you say, but I reject it. The so-called “classical concept of God” is loaded with self contradictory attributes, which you can try to reconcile with reality by arbitrarily redefining them.