Definition of religion
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Yes it is. All science is evidence based.
The scientific method is the basic method, guide, and system by which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields.
Science is fundamentally method, for its method is what produces the bodies of reliable knowledge.
Science is a tool, the method is design.
No, science is not evidence based. The assumptions are evidence based, the arguments are evidence based. Science is merely a tool that searches for the truth. And the truth is whatever has not been falsified. Yet.
No, science is not evidence based. The assumptions are evidence based, the arguments are evidence based. Science is merely a tool that searches for the truth. And the truth is whatever has not been falsified. Yet.
Science is the complete method of problem solving and decision making.
Wait, you just contradicted yourself
. Science is much more than just a tool, it is a complete set of methodologies and explanations, all grounded on empiricism. All designed to attempt to best explain reality. The assumptions and arguments are all included in it.
Just because something isn't falsified doesn't make it true (Argumentum ad ignorantum fallacy)
Science is designed to always be a work in progress, constantly correcting it's fact. Unlike most religions.
And yet, that is your evidence for everything you consider to be true. Or do you have some other?
Nope, that's not right either. The evidence itself is just another word for facts and observations about the universe (yes, it is a FACT that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, that evolution occurred, that light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, 1+1=2, etc)
Falsification, on the other hand, is quite different and requires a lot of work. It can happen in any of the ways:
1) said theory/assumption doesn't conform to the evidence (e.g. FACTS)
2) said theory/assumption is logically inconsistent
It is entirely possible that there are phenomenon that we are not aware of. But such things are listed the banner of speculation, i.e. we don't know. Finding out the truth isn't something that you can come up with on a whim (whether human or divine). We are very well aware that all of our scientific theories are incomplete, but they all conform to FACTS. That's how we know they are plausible, and very much so. The same can't be said with supernatural deities and their associated prophets, on the other hand.
You mean its a fact because it has not been falsified yet and so you believe it to be true.
Which requires you to know the set of all possible outcomes, which, if they occur, would reject the null hypothesis.
That's not how facts work. I think you are confusing facts with theory. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and is true for all time. It is a fact that things fall down on their respective bodies, and that has been true for all time (or at least for as long as the current universe has existed). And that fossils exist, and so on. This is all we really know to be true. They can be proven to be true as well.
A scientific theory, on the other hand, takes those facts and models them. So not only does it explain how or why things are, but they make predictions. For example, we might use it to find a new truth/fact about the universe. If the predicted outcome doesn't come, then we either discard it or modify it. General Relativity has done just that, to give an example (e.g. it predicted with accuracy how much light will bend around a star). The scientific method decides whether the explanation is correct, not the facts themselves. But, scientific theories can be used to find out/predict new facts we didn't know before.
All a scientific theory is, is an explanation, made with a large collection of facts about the universe.
And, if there were no well defined facts, then your computer wouldn't work. In fact, nothing would.
You mean reasoning inductively that inductive reasoning works and hence it is right is not circular reasoning? I'm addressing the main points you make. Is there any reasoning why I should write a thesis on it?
I'm just addressing the point that for someone who believes the merit of an idea is evidence, you have a very poor notion of what exactly evidence entails. Or what the basic root of the method you use is. As you said, ad ignorantiam fallacy, it works hence its true.
e.g.
I'm just addressing the point that for someone who believes the merit of an idea is evidence, you have a very poor notion of what exactly evidence entails. Or what the basic root of the method you use is. As you said, ad ignorantiam fallacy, it works hence its true.
e.g.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're wrong and we've had this exchange before. There is a vast difference between reasoned faith and unreasoning faith. My wife has stood by me faithfully for more than thirty years. So I have a reasoned faith in her, based specifically on a mountain of evidence. That's quite different from having an instinct-based hunch in the existence of something for which there is absolutely zero evidence.
What an odd viewpoint. You've certainly been taught some strange stuff. It is succinctly put that the fundamental statement upon which all science is based is, "I don't know."
A fairly rude statement to make to a community of scientists. I wonder where you learned that one.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between an assumption and a hypothesis. Where exactly did you learn science??? We're taught carefully to distinguish the one from the other. The mnemonic device we're all taught these days is: "To ASSUME is to make an ASS of U and ME."
But a reasoned faith. Since there is a (presumably) infinite set of false hypotheses, if you don't have some evidence to guide you, you can spend your entire scientific career testing hypotheses that always end up falsified.
No no no. Good grief, you people who come and post on my Linguistics board are definitely not the most rigorous scientists on this website!(somebody else) said:
The scientific method is devoted to testing a hypothesis. It is neutral in its expectations, but if some supporting evidence is indeed discovered, the testing generally focuses on attempts to find evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. Unless, of course, you're working in corporate science, and the less said about that the better.Remember, a scientific theory can never be proven true (unlike mathematical theories, which are entirely about abstractions rather than nature). It can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (to borrow the language of the law since the language of science is horrible for communicating with laymen). Even once a theory achieves that status and becomes part of the scientific canon, efforts continue indefinitely to find contradicting evidence. That's how we ended up finding new evidence that required revising Newton's Laws, and hot on the heels of that discovery we found even newer evidence that required revising Relativity.
A scientist does not assume that his beloved hypothesis is true. He suspects, hopes, dreams of it, but he does not assume until it has been tested so thoroughly as to achieve canonical status.
And to clarify the language, it is only a hypothesis until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Then and only then does it become a theory. I know the words are used interchangeably in colloquial language and even scientists get sloppy. But properly used, a hypothesis is still being tested, whereas a theory has survived all the tests.
In any case, the scientific method does not work with assumptions, except in the abstract. E.g., "Assuming the system is at Standard Temperature and Pressure..."
The fact that your nose is permanently buried in whatever interpretation of the Quran you use to rule your worldview, undermines your ability to synthesize facts, hence your ill-informed assessment is irrelevant.