Discussion: The Scientific Method is useless

[Dywyddyr]

You can not distinguish between these, if there are no rules.

Wrong.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED:

an invalid criticism can be shown as such by actually demonstrating that the criticised point is correct.

I can say "that is wrong". It will be more effective if I stick my nose in the air and act important. If I do not tell the reasons I say it was wrong, can you tell whether I am pretending to understand, or whether I know something but don't wish to share? You can't tell motivation or whether this is credible or not. You are left in limbo.

Yeah and if someone states something to be so WITHOUT GIVING REASONS they're doing exactly the same.

Without rules for criticism, pretense and cynicism is the simplest way to practice, since the same tactic can be applied anywhere. If I had to explain my criticism, it will require specialty work on my part for each question. An explanation for my criticism can also turn the tables on me, since by offering an assertion, I can become vulnerable to critics who pretend. I may have to answer the question with a question as a defensive tactic.

A good analogy is a food critic saying the food is not to his liking. That can be done with completely with pretense to get free meals. If the chef came out of the kichen and said, OK, come in my kitchen and cook the meal to prefection you prefer, so I can see, the critic would be seen as a sack of hot air. But since he can avoid this, he can linger on.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I used to fight the atheist religion

What "atheist religion"? You see? YET ANOTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIM.

Now I don't give any credibilty to critics who will not back up their negative claims.

And you don't have any credibility for making claims that aren't backed up: you avoid, divert or simply refuse to support your assertions. This leads others to conclude that you do not, in fact, have any supporting rationale for them.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

God is the ultimate science cheat.

I have read of a universe which creates a new universe.

I have read of a singularity, and Gravity which pop out like a pot Noodle.

I have read how a photon avoids action at a distance by being everywhere at once.

I have read how a photon can be both a wave, and a particle at the same time.

I have read how we need two forms of physics.. Quantum Physics, and Physics.

I have read that we need at least 10 dimensions to create a Universe.

All of the above are science cheats, but God is the easiest way out of them all. Don't bother with science.. God created everything. I know that mankind is still at an early stage in evolution, but please.. start talking sense!

 

[Creeping Death]

God is the ultimate science cheat.

I have read of a universe which creates a new universe.

I have read of a singularity, and Gravity which pop out like a pot Noodle.

I have read how a photon avoids action at a distance by being everywhere at once.

I have read how a photon can be both a wave, and a particle at the same time.

I have read how we need two forms of physics.. Quantum Physics, and Physics.

I have read that we need at least 10 dimensions to create a Universe.

All of the above are science cheats, but God is the easiest way out of them all. Don't bother with science.. God created everything. I know that mankind is still at an early stage in evolution, but please.. start talking sense!

look who's talking!

 

[Pincho Paxton]

look who's talking!

My theories are based on particle interactions. Particles that have no high level of cause to effect. Just overlap volume. A very simple set of rules.

 

[just me]

a

 

[just me]

actually the scientific method is useful as the means of achieving many technological advances.

 

[Dennis Tate]

How stupid to challenge somebody else to a debate and then to forfeit after only two posts.

I don't think there are many debates in this forum that are of lower quality than this one. (No offence to GeoffP, who made the most of what he was handed.)

Are you at all interested in anybody taking very much the opposite position to the title of this thread.........
I am of the opinion that if my belief has some validity that Intelligence occurred first in Energy from Quantum Vacuum and / or
fundamental energy then............

...... if there is evidence of there not really being any "unsuccessful universes" in which there is no life......
due to electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear force not being tuned properly for life..........

then......... this would have some pretty interesting implications both for science but even for parapsychology and even theology.


I believe that the first Intelligence is first and foremost a Scientist and Inventor and we should see evidence for the scientific approach
all over the spectrum wherever we happen to look?

Or would doing this be somewhat like "hijacking" this thread?

 

[Dennis Tate]

It's not actually about winning and losing.

True....... to my thinking the important thing is for people across the scientific and philosophical spectrum to begin to come together in agreement on what is really important so that we can improve life on earth for all eight billion humans and also for animals and even for plants, insects and fish.

Wow... this discussion got over thirty thousand hits!

 

[Cenderawasih]

Personally, rather than argue that The Scientific Method is useless, which at least implies its reality if not its efficacy, I would argue that there is no such thing.

That is to say, there is no single, timeless unique method used by all scientists and only by scientists.

It used to be scandalous to suggest as much; these days scientists themselves can often be heard echoing similar sentiments. E.g.

"I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work. Still, under the general heading of scientific method, we can understand that there is meant a commitment to reason, often though not necessarily crystalized as mathematics, and a deference to observation and experiment. Above all, it includes a respect for reality as something outside ourselves, that we explore but do not create."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

And before I get beaten to a pulp lol, I am not suggesting for a moment that science is useless; just that it posssesses no unique "method".

The Beatles seemed to get by just fine without a "Beatles Method". If there existed such a beast, I'd be following the steps right now and making millions. Perhaps they were just four uncommonly talented lads.

Now substitute "scientists" for "Beatles" and see what happens . . .