Nitro the Guru said:
Is the Scientific Method foolproof and flawless in it's design? In either case, what is it that validates it so as to lead us to believe that anything passing through it would be considered factual?
Well, yes it is factual. You can take any proven theory or law and conduct your own tests using the scientific method and they will always be consistent. That is what a law is; something that we know for certain- something that is always consistent, i.e. never changes. Example: gravity.
It’s all very simple:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If it weren’t for these four basic steps we would still think the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. We would point at the wind gods and curse them when tears fall from the heavens.
Is it because the majority of society (be it a wide margin) accepts it as a feasible method?
I highly doubt the majority of
our society knows about this method, although we are
supposed to be taught it in grade school.
You said that I would have to release my method to the public. Now if I came with the same credentials as those from a scientific society, and the people bought it, what then?
Then that would be great. We could then look into the GURU METHOD, analyze it, conduct our own tests and see if your findings/methods are consistent.
I'm not doubting this method, it seems as though it has yet to be reckoned with. My only concern is that the same people who created it are using it to validate their own research.
Ok, once again, it’s not like a group of scientists invented this method to pass along their secret agendas. It is used by the science community as a whole: mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, computer scientists, meteorologists, geophysicists, engineers, etc. This very basic formula applies to all aspects of science or the pursue of gaining knowledge. The same scientists who believe in God or I.D. use this formula.
Do you have faith in Science?
I do not have faith in anything. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, REASON. To embrace faith is to abandon reason. Science is nothing more than factual evidence based on logic, reason and methodology.
How do you know you havent been eating up a bunch of garbage?
Because when I drop a pencil it falls….every single time. In all of my life, never have I dropped a pencil and it fell towards the sky. Never in my life has 2+2 equaled anything other than 4.
Lastly, do you understand why I'm questioning this? Or do you believe that I am being obnoxious, seeing past all of the answers..
I know you’re not trying to be obnoxious and that you’re trying to make a point; however I hope you see the points I am trying to make with my unbending attitude towards logic, reason, science and of course the scientific method. You can try and try to argue the accuracy of the S.M but in the end you will only come down to the silly question of “how do you know this is real? How do you know anything is real?” which of course is a waste of time.
Even if I were to bend and say the S. M. could be inaccurate, it would not prove anything because in the end, there still isn’t any method available for any human to test the theory of a God or creator. Nothing other than
your belief in the unknowable. No logic, no proof, no evidence…nothing…only assumptions.
I’d also like to point out that I am not necessarily denying the existence of god, I am simply stating that there is no evidence as of yet that supports the claim of the existence of god. In other words; it is illogical to believe in something without some kind of proof or evidence.
If tomorrow, a scientist announces he/she found evidence or proof of the existence of god, I would look at this evidence, analyze it and use a logical way of thinking to determine if his claims have any merit. Until then, I have not seen any logical arguments that support the existence of god and I will remain Atheist.
BaSICCally said:
exactly Nitro. The fact of the matter is the scienfitic community has put this standard on the rest of society. Except the scientfic community has not come up with any scientific method to validate it's claim. So how can we accept it as absolute truth when science, can even live up to its own standards...
The scientific community does not and cannot discriminate against the evidence or findings their research uncovers. Because the scientific community shares their findings with all those interested (Universities, laboratories, the public etc.), thousands of people research and analyze the data. Remember, there are literally hundreds of different kinds of scientists, all with a specific fields and each individual has his/her own personal beliefs. Don’t you think that the discovery of a God or possible evidence of a supernatural being that exists outside of our known universe would be completely astonishing and exciting to most scientists?!?
If scientfic method is the superior way to view the world then where is the scientfic proof?
*sigh*
In the results of scientific method.
