Argument against the scientific method
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
river:
So, when do you plan to bin your cell phone, throw out your plasma screen, turn off all the electricity in your house, stop going to the doctor, and going back to scratch to see if you can rediscover electricity, modern medicine and the like without using science?
What is general system theory? That's a scientific-sounding name. Are you saying it isn't science?
Life, by the way, is studied by science. Perhaps you have heard of things like medicine and biology?
So, when do you plan to bin your cell phone, throw out your plasma screen, turn off all the electricity in your house, stop going to the doctor, and going back to scratch to see if you can rediscover electricity, modern medicine and the like without using science?
What is general system theory? That's a scientific-sounding name. Are you saying it isn't science?
Life, by the way, is studied by science. Perhaps you have heard of things like medicine and biology?
JamesR already gave general evidence that the scientific method is correct, and RichW9090 also pointed out the pitfalls of reductionism.
As for your belief that in 2012 "we know better", you fail to take notice that almost all empirical knowledge is acquired through the Scientific Method. In 2012 any person, any place in the world, at any age, can engage in scientific discovery, for free, and without having to labor through the very difficult and tedious work of field and laboratory confirmation.
Contrary to your belief, it is evident that we will soon reach the era in which science will become one of the universal languages spoken by lay people, not just academics and professionals.
So it's exactly the opposite of what you imagine.
I personally think that science and technology in the next 100 years will be so unprofitable that industry will leave them. Why?
Because if you take into account how much is spent, how much it costs and how much is invested you get the right number, innovations, science and technology is not profitable because you invest into more complex machines, computers to solve more complex problems, unsolved mysteries and you would need more and more teams of scientists combined and after more or less 100 years in the future the industry will leave both science and technology (only weapon technology will be there healthcare and similar). And as more and more complex problems and questions arise no matter how many scientists work as hard as they can they will upper limits in understanding and explanation despite all the technology like simulations super-computer who all work together as one net of all super-computers in the world, all kinds of hyper-complex experiments on hyper-powerful machines like CERN and etc...
However, so far scientific method did the best job for today's modern living, but it's visible it does have its limits in both understanding and methodologies.
Cheers.
Because if you take into account how much is spent, how much it costs and how much is invested you get the right number, innovations, science and technology is not profitable because you invest into more complex machines, computers to solve more complex problems, unsolved mysteries and you would need more and more teams of scientists combined and after more or less 100 years in the future the industry will leave both science and technology (only weapon technology will be there healthcare and similar). And as more and more complex problems and questions arise no matter how many scientists work as hard as they can they will upper limits in understanding and explanation despite all the technology like simulations super-computer who all work together as one net of all super-computers in the world, all kinds of hyper-complex experiments on hyper-powerful machines like CERN and etc...
However, so far scientific method did the best job for today's modern living, but it's visible it does have its limits in both understanding and methodologies.
Cheers.
Last edited: