Argument against the scientific method

brucep said:
It's not about opinion. The scientific method is a path to consensus. You build a predictive theoretical model, you empirically test every testable detail so that a consensus can be reached by scientists. The reason we go with scientists is because they have the training to perform analysis and they aren't suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree with all of those points. In 100 years everyone will disagree with all of those points, and scientists will be the first to admit that they were wrong. It's just so hard to get through to them with the illusion of all the things that you have said beaming down on them like an angel light.

So Pincho.. if science is wrong prove it with maths... (prove science is wrong with the scientific method.. a paradox)
 
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton said:
Well I disagree with all of those points. In 100 years everyone will disagree with all of those points, and scientists will be the first to admit that they were wrong. It's just so hard to get through to them with the illusion of all the things that you have said beaming down on them like an angel light.

So Pincho.. if science is wrong prove it with maths... (prove science is wrong with the scientific method.. a paradox)
Click to expand...

Do you say math is invalid too? Why?
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Well I disagree with all of those points. In 100 years everyone will disagree with all of those points, and scientists will be the first to admit that they were wrong. It's just so hard to get through to them with the illusion of all the things that you have said beaming down on them like an angel light.

So Pincho.. if science is wrong prove it with maths... (prove science is wrong with the scientific method.. a paradox)
Click to expand...

Who really cares what you think? I might if you weren't scientifically illiterate. Science gave us the computer, and the internet, which you spam with nonsense. Kinda a catch 22? No computer, no internet, no crank spam. So it seems crank spam is here to stay. Probably the 100 years you mentioned.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Do you say math is invalid too? Why?
Click to expand...

Since computers were around we have had the ability to reverse engineer the maths. So for example in GR/SR there are formulas that predict outcomes. A computer however is powerful enough to simulate a particle that creates GR/SR, and therefore recreate the physics from scratch. That's what I do. I get to GR/SR from the opposite direction. I have been too harsh on Einstein however, I thought he was working similar to me with observation. But it turns out he was a mathematician afterall. My anger has been at the lack of Darwinian style observation. I create Darwinian style space-time, I observe everything, and created a particle that has the properties to create GR/SR. I think some of my annoyance has been with the maths not resembling certain laws like Every Action has an opposite reaction. You have X/Y/Z, I have X/Y/Z/-X/-Y/-Z. I always allow the opposite reaction to take place. I even have +Time -Time, which is In/Out. The opposites create sphere that replace waves, and waves are created by infinite sphere. I don't think I am so annoyed by science now that I know it is only using mathematical formulas.. that is quite clever, and I am surprised that it has worked so well. I can however see the points at which it fails. Space-Time is a grain, so like sand it can reshape into something that maths misses out. I start with that grain, so I should end up with all of the correct shapes. My main annoyance though is with 'Attraction'. Grains do not attract. The bending of space-time is more like sand entering the holes in an hour-glass. My particles will always show this effect, and my particles create GR/SR. There are other problems with maths.. like vectors. Grain does not have a straight-line vector, it stacks in a sort of Icosahedron. When you use a vector through grain you skip some natural waves out. The approach of using particles to rebuild GR/SR includes the Icosahedron structure of the grain stacking. It includes an actual weight of the grain structure which can then collapse to create a Black Hole. The Black Hole can then fill again with more grain and you have gravity, and gravity can spin out as magnetism. And the forces in two directions can create sphere. And the sphere can form a pressure inside, and the pressure inside can create a Galaxy.

When people wonder how I come up with my ideas, I am using the opposite Newtons Law to science. Newton's Law of every action has an opposite reaction works in both directions. So my version of science works just as well as science. I start with a physical particle to create the maths, science starts with the maths to create GR/SR and physics.

I didn't realise however until last night what science was doing. I thought that Einstein was a 3D visual genius like me, and was picturing nature. He was using maths. I appreciate the fact that maths has worked this well now that I know what has been done. It is very amazing to know that maths can last so long. It has flaws however. People are not picturing some of the invisible parts of nature properly. The maths has some + signs where there should be - signs. It doesn't alter the maths strangely enough, but it does change what is there. For example.. mass is often backwards...

F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared

Should be...

F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared.

Which doesn't alter the outcome, but it does change convex into concave. Concave is important for gravity. So when you shoot a particle around an electron you get a curve, and you call the curve mass. But you are curving around a concave shape, and the concave shape is -mass. Electron = negative particle = negative mass. Pull = hole.

Anyway.. I am the Coffee, and science is the milk. I am very happy to appreciate science now that I know that it is just maths. Our brains work that way, our maths and 3D physics share the same lobe. So I have what science is missing, the opposite reaction to science's action.
 
Last edited:
@ Pincho:

Yikes. :bugeye:

Suppose I ask this: in math we begin with elementary principles, for example, the simple syllogism If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Do you find this to be backwards, or the product of some gross error by the blind followers of science?
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Since computers were around we have had the ability to reverse engineer the maths. So for example in GR/SR there are formulas that predict outcomes. A computer however is powerful enough to simulate a particle that creates GR/SR, and therefore recreate the physics from scratch. That's what I do. I get to GR/SR from the opposite direction. I have been too harsh on Einstein however, I thought he was working similar to me with observation. But it turns out he was a mathematician afterall. My anger has been at the lack of Darwinian style observation. I create Darwinian style space-time, I observe everything, and created a particle that has the properties to create GR/SR. I think some of my annoyance has been with the maths not resembling certain laws like Every Action has an opposite reaction. You have X/Y/Z, I have X/Y/Z/-X/-Y/-Z. I always allow the opposite reaction to take place. I even have +Time -Time, which is In/Out. The opposites create sphere that replace waves, and waves are created by infinite sphere. I don't think I am so annoyed by science now that I know it is only using mathematical formulas.. that is quite clever, and I am surprised that it has worked so well. I can however see the points at which it fails. Space-Time is a grain, so like sand it can reshape into something that maths misses out. I start with that grain, so I should end up with all of the correct shapes. My main annoyance though is with 'Attraction'. Grains do not attract. The bending of space-time is more like sand entering the holes in an hour-glass. My particles will always show this effect, and my particles create GR/SR. There are other problems with maths.. like vectors. Grain does not have a straight-line vector, it stacks in a sort of Icosahedron. When you use a vector through grain you skip some natural waves out. The approach of using particles to rebuild GR/SR includes the Icosahedron structure of the grain stacking. It includes an actual weight of the grain structure which can then collapse to create a Black Hole. The Black Hole can then fill again with more grain and you have gravity, and gravity can spin out as magnetism. And the forces in two directions can create sphere. And the sphere can form a pressure inside, and the pressure inside can create a Galaxy.

When people wonder how I come up with my ideas, I am using the opposite Newtons Law to science. Newton's Law of every action has an opposite reaction works in both directions. So my version of science works just as well as science. I start with a physical particle to create the maths, science starts with the maths to create GR/SR and physics.

I didn't realise however until last night what science was doing. I thought that Einstein was a 3D visual genius like me, and was picturing nature. He was using maths. I appreciate the fact that maths has worked this well now that I know what has been done. It is very amazing to know that maths can last so long. It has flaws however. People are not picturing some of the invisible parts of nature properly. The maths has some + signs where there should be - signs. It doesn't alter the maths strangely enough, but it does change what is there. For example.. mass is often backwards...

F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared

Should be...

F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared.

Which doesn't alter the outcome, but it does change convex into concave. Concave is important for gravity. So when you shoot a particle around an electron you get a curve, and you call the curve mass. But you are curving around a concave shape, and the concave shape is -mass. Electron = negative particle = negative mass. Pull = hole.

Anyway.. I am the Coffee, and science is the milk. I am very happy to appreciate science now that I know that it is just maths. Our brains work that way, our maths and 3D physics share the same lobe. So I have what science is missing, the opposite reaction to science's action.
Click to expand...

Complete mumbo jumbo nonsense. :) Especially the part about "Anyway.. I am the Coffee, and science is the milk." This constant need to remind us how brilliant you are is the result of a serious 'low self esteem' issue.
 
Last edited:
nietzschefan said:
My layman opinion is, they don't have a very good way of large scale consensus research. Seems like they depend on that nowadays, but don't know how to get it done most of the time.

In the old days one brilliant mind seemed to be able to do so much.
Click to expand...

Brilliant minds do far more today, because they stand on the shoulders of those older brilliant minds. Hawking would not have been able to do what he did without the contributions of Lorentz, Schwartzchild, Einstein, Chandrasekhar etc.
 
brucep said:
Complete mumbo jumbo nonsense. :) Especially the part about "Anyway.. I am the Coffee, and science is the milk." This constant need to remind us how brilliant you are is the result of a serious 'low self esteem' issue.
Click to expand...

Wait until he realizes that you can multiply both sides of any equation by zero and force them to be equal. He'll be claiming he has invented a whole new field of algebra that Einstein might have understood - if he was just a little smarter.
 
Yazata said:
That sounds like you are agreeing with Ughaibu's fundamental point that...



I think that it's almost certainly true that science requires untestable assumptions.

The issue seems to be the question of whether or not science's framework of methodological principles can be justified in the same ways that we try to justify science's content, its observational and theoretical propositions.
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between testability and falsifiability. They are not the same thing. When a scientific explanation is posited, each new piece of evidence tests the hypothesis. We compare hypotheses - the one which best explains the available observations is to be preferrred. Under the view of quite a number of philosophers, that is sufficient - we do not need to disprove (falsify) one of any pair of hypotheses in order to prefer the other.

Rich
 
RichW9090 said:
There is a world of difference between testability and falsifiability. They are not the same thing. When a scientific explanation is posited, each new piece of evidence tests the hypothesis. We compare hypotheses - the one which best explains the available observations is to be preferrred. Under the view of quite a number of philosophers, that is sufficient - we do not need to disprove (falsify) one of any pair of hypotheses in order to prefer the other.
Click to expand...
I dont see how this could be relevant. Are you suggesting that a theory which generates only trivially true hypotheses, can qualify as scientific?
 
ughaibu said:
I dont see how this could be relevant. Are you suggesting that a theory which generates only trivially true hypotheses, can qualify as scientific?
Click to expand...

I would answer this by saying that the Scientific Method is not a method or constraint at all, but an ethic, upon which we universally agree to establish what is true. I would equate these with the method for establishing the theorems of Geometry. Just as Geometry can not be discredited as a false teaching, the Scientific Method can not be discredited either.

As for the specific idea that only certain theory may be qualified as scientific, I would note that the scientific meaning of theory is that the groundwork has already been done to qualify the work behind the theory as scientific. The theory may later be disproven, but by the time it reaches the status of theory, we would call the supporting work scientific work. Usually "study" or "research" convey the idea that the groundwork followed the Scientific Method, and a host of best practices, before publication.

Usually when we hear someone refer to scientific theory, they are merely referencing this meaning of the word, as opposed to the lay sense of the term, which simply means a guess. Since scientific theory is more than a guess, we need only examine that "more" to discover exactly what the Scientific Method entails.

As for whether all truth decomposes into trivial proof, that's an interesting idea. A lot of complexity can be built upon trivial conclusions, so presumably you take just about any finding, reverse it, and end up decomposing it into atoms of trivial hypotheses. This is one reason the sciences sometimes collide, for example, the mathematician need only posit that "1" is a real number to proceed in some proof, but the philosopher may tend to fork into an observation that "1" is not real, but an abstraction. They are both right, under different sciences, different theories, and different definitions.
 
Aqueous Id said:
I would answer this by saying that the Scientific Method is not a method or constraint at all, but an ethic, upon which we universally agree to establish what is true.
Click to expand...
I dont think that's true. It seems to me that science is best characterised as the practice of constructing theoretical models which allow the scientist to predict the probability of making specified observations, given other specified observations.
 
river said:
I reiterate

could not
“ general system theory ”

give a better understanding of the Universe

the scientific method seems to break down objects to their parts , atoms , quantum etc.

yet the understanding , at how all these parts affect the whole , is missing

the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the Scientific Method involves decomposing anything, or that it obviates the need for system theory at all. All of the sciences bring every kind of evidence and tool to the table, and this is the purpose behind a university curriculum in science, that it requires interdisciplinary studies, to make sure the specialist has all of these tools in his box before he is considered to be prepared for the task at hand. And all of those sciences that contribute to systems theory follow the Scientific Method.

Of course understanding the universe is more of a theme than a task, something we say rhetorically without ever meaning we really understand it, or any of countless mysteries that we associate with understanding the universe.

The problem you will encounter when you say "universe" is that we generally tend to assume you are speaking of the physics of cosmology, so, for example, you may bring an innocent observation about some idea concerning the universe and the physicists will respond like Dobermans to an intruder. But that reaction is merely the conditioned response after so many quacks, cranks and trolls have tried to jump the fence, the one that defines preparation for a career in science.

And since cosmology entails analysis that is almost entirely confined to physics, it's hard to imagine how you might understand the universe by any other science. Some folks may try to merge psychology or philosophy with physics, but that's hard to do without crossing over into pseudoscience, and sure to wake the Dobermans! :p
 
Aqueous Id said:
And since cosmology entails analysis that is almost entirely confined to physics, it's hard to imagine how you might understand the universe by any other science. Some folks may try to merge psychology or philosophy with physics, but that's hard to do without crossing over into pseudoscience, and sure to wake the Dobermans! :p
Click to expand...

And I view the attempts, for example, to meld quantum mechanics with psychology or physiology to be an example of such pseudoscience, Aqueous.

Rich
 
RichW9090 said:
And I view the attempts, for example, to meld quantum mechanics with psychology or physiology to be an example of such pseudoscience, Aqueous.

Rich
Click to expand...

I think I had in mind that some leeway is naturally given for all sciences to share common principles. For example, quantum mechanics, psychology and physiology will share the theorems and formulas found in probability theory.

Unfortunately pseudoscience tries to make connections that aren't scientifically justified, and dresses it up as science for the naive listener. They are modern day alchemists and magicians.

And if that doesn't throw a wrench into the impressionable mind, there are the more vocal and usually political folks who attack science as being pseudoscience, such as this idea that the Scientific Method is something used to cover up deception and fraud. They will also claim that we are sheep being herded by false doctrine. They would best be characterized and conspiracy theorists, although I notice they sometimes dabble in pseudoscience to try to advance their ideas.
 
“ Originally Posted by river
I reiterate

could not
“ general system theory ”

give a better understanding of the Universe

the scientific method seems to break down objects to their parts , atoms , quantum etc.

yet the understanding , at how all these parts affect the whole , is missing

the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Click to expand...


Aqueous Id said:
I wouldn't say that the Scientific Method involves decomposing anything, or that it obviates the need for system theory at all.
Click to expand...

I would , because it does

hence the ologies



All of the sciences bring every kind of evidence and tool to the table, and this is the purpose behind a university curriculum in science, that it requires interdisciplinary studies, to make sure the specialist has all of these tools in his box before he is considered to be prepared for the task at hand. And all of those sciences that contribute to systems theory follow the Scientific Method. Of course understanding the universe is more of a theme than a task, something we say rhetorically without ever meaning we really understand it, or any of countless mysteries that we associate with understanding the universe. The problem you will encounter when you say "universe" is that we generally tend to assume you are speaking of the physics of cosmology, so, for example, you may bring an innocent observation about some idea concerning the universe and the physicists will respond like Dobermans to an intruder. But that reaction is merely the conditioned response after so many quacks, cranks and trolls have tried to jump the fence, the one that defines preparation for a career in science. And since cosmology entails analysis that is almost entirely confined to physics, it's hard to imagine how you might understand the universe by any other science. Some folks may try to merge psychology or philosophy with physics, but that's hard to do without crossing over into pseudoscience, and sure to wake the Dobermans! :p
Click to expand...

so in the end all the Universe is , is physics ?
 
Last edited:
when understanding the Universe life should be included as well

for me life is everything , from quantum to the macro , they all have potential in expressing life

its just that life can only exist in certain enviroments

life can only be expressed or become if the enviroment allows this to happen
 
There are some scientists, and quite a few philosophers of science, who have maintained that all phenomena can be "reduced" to the behaviour of elemental particles. In a certain, almost trivial, way, this is of course true. However, most of the interesting things to be found in nature involve the interaction not of elemental particles, but rather of levels of organization much more complex and on a macro scale.

This reductionism would involve completely ignoring things like organismal biology, ecology, paleontology, etc.

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top