|
|
Post by dahduh on Nov 30, 2009 19:09:22 GMT
Here's a challenge to those of you who believe in the scientific method.
But first, let's begin with a challenge to theists. You agree with the statement "God exists". Now suppose I were to find a way that incontrovertibly proved that God does not exist; no wriggle-room left at all. How would you feel about it? Rate yourself on the following scale:
1. I can’t even imagine it; I can’t possibly be wrong.
2. It would absolutely awful, it would ruin my life.
3. It would be upsetting, but I would survive.
4. I would just accept it and move on.
5. What a relief! I hope I am wrong!
Well, if you chose anything other than 4 you are susceptible to confirmation bias. It means that you are emotionally invested in the idea that God exists, and any reasoning you engage in on the subject is likely to be subject to that bias and therefore questionable.
Now while all the non-theists are feeling smug, let's pose the following question to you. Almost certainly you subscribe to the following statement: "I believe evidence and reason lead us to an understanding of the world." Now suppose someone came up with incontrovertible proof that this was not so - for example, there really was a deity fiddling with the trajectory of every atom. Go back to the list and rate yourself: is it something other than 4? Be honest!
If it is not, then you are not really a good scientist. Science if fundamentally a pragmatic exercise: we don't use the scientific method for some profound philosophical reason, we use it because it works. And if someone finds a better way, then fantastic. Let's do it that way instead.
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Nov 30, 2009 20:13:22 GMT
Here's a challenge to those of you who believe in the scientific method. But first, let's begin with a challenge to theists. You agree with the statement "God exists". Now suppose I were to find a way that incontrovertibly proved that God does not exist; no wriggle-room left at all. How would you feel about it? Rate yourself on the following scale: 1. I can’t even imagine it; I can’t possibly be wrong. 2. It would absolutely awful, it would ruin my life. 3. It would be upsetting, but I would survive. 4. I would just accept it and move on. 5. What a relief! I hope I am wrong! Well, if you chose anything other than 4 you are susceptible to confirmation bias. It means that you are emotionally invested in the idea that God exists, and any reasoning you engage in on the subject is likely to be subject to that bias and therefore questionable. I find questions like this very challenging. If I would answer honestly I would say I would answer 1-4. 2 through 4 would no doubt be a process of grieving. Maybe I would never even reach stage four, I'm not sure. This gets back to the question of objective reality. The reason I can give answer #1 is because I don't think of God in terms of objective/subjective. In fact I cannot really even conceive of God in any objective way. I draw a blank if I try. God simply exists as a part of my internal experience. That is not something I can be wrong about. The question does remain as to whether my internal experience arises on its own or is the result of an outside agent. Everything I have experienced has led me to believe the latter. But the precise nature and form of that agent is not something I can objectively describe except in very vague terms. |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymonkey on Nov 30, 2009 21:21:46 GMT
I'd say 2 or 3 depending on what type of God it turned out to be. On the available evidence I'd say 3 bordering on 4 because he seems to act exactly as if he doesn't exist so if he stays true to form I assume very little if anything changes.
This question is a weird sort of WWSD instead of WWJD. I think you may be trying to conflate a process and a person. Should the idealized scientist act and feel only according to the bounds of the scientific method? I'm not sure that I appreciate the idea of SM thought police any more than I like the idea of religious ones. I value the right to be thrilled at some findings and pissed off with others. I am human after all and so are all scientists, the scientific method is for trying to ensure that one's being human doesn't ultimately cause us to come to wrong conclusions (amongst other things) but I would hate to see it used as some kind of proxy moral code.
|
|
lcash
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by lcash on Dec 1, 2009 1:16:28 GMT
I wouldn't say any of these. The scientific method demands that all your hypothesis be checked and your experiments be replicated by others. I would seek flaws in your theory until the theory is exhausted. Only then would I say you are right.
That's the way we work problems in my field and it has served us well.
Lcash
|
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 3:06:50 GMT
Dandah, in that case, the scientific method wouldn't work and thus there would be no such proof.  |
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Dec 1, 2009 9:53:31 GMT
cheeky, lcash and ydoa; I think you may have missed the point. The scientific method is not some set of rules laid down like the ten commandments; it is a provisional method that has been evolved in our attempt to understand how the world works. If we find something that works better - that is, a method that improves our ability to anticipate the world - then we should be prepared to modify that method.
For example, naz discovers God's phone number, and all you have to do is call God up and say "Hey God, what's the mass of the Higgs?" And God tells you, and by golly he's right every time. That's not conventional science. Would you ignore that source of information just because it isn't, even if it is proven to work?
|
|
|
|
Post by cheekymonkey on Dec 1, 2009 11:16:46 GMT
Ah but the only way to assess whether it works is via the scientific method. In your example God just becomes a really kick arse source of hypotheses but they still have to be tested to see if they work. How do you test them? Voodoo?
|
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Dec 1, 2009 12:17:56 GMT
Ah but the only way to assess whether it works is via the scientific method. In your example God just becomes a really kick arse source of hypotheses but they still have to be tested to see if they work. How do you test them? Voodoo? ;D Sure, if Voodoo was also proven to be a reliable model of reality! It's just all about modelling. Science is very likely to be always be pretty reliable method of modelling no matter what else comes along, like Newtonian gravity remained a reliable theory even after general relativity arrived. If God made lots of statements that contradicted our other models of reality (as happens in the bible), then a model incorporating God as a source of information about the world wouldn't be reliable. |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymonkey on Dec 1, 2009 12:51:39 GMT
To me there still seems to be something wrong with your characterisation of science but maybe I'm missing the point. The SM is a process of evaluating models, theories, hypotheses. To me it doesn't matter if the model came from voodoo or God's telephone, you still have to test it don't you? The method is, as I understand it, form hypothesis, test hypothesis, publish, have others test hypothesis, depending on the results the hypothesis may be accepted, rejected or modified. The hypothesis can come from my imagination, under a rock or God's own mouth but it would still have to go through the scientific method to be accepted, surely? Am I missing something here?
|
|
naz
Full Member
SYNTHEIST
Posts: 245
|
Post by naz on Dec 1, 2009 17:06:45 GMT
What makes you think I don't already have it?
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 17:19:22 GMT
cheeky, lcash and ydoa; I think you may have missed the point. The scientific method is not some set of rules laid down like the ten commandments; it is a provisional method that has been evolved in our attempt to understand how the world works. If we find something that works better - that is, a method that improves our ability to anticipate the world - then we should be prepared to modify that method. For example, naz discovers God's phone number, and all you have to do is call God up and say "Hey God, what's the mass of the Higgs?" And God tells you, and by golly he's right every time. That's not conventional science. Would you ignore that source of information just because it isn't, even if it is proven to work? If it's proven to work, then it IS scientific. |
|
|
|
Post by dahduh on Dec 1, 2009 17:34:26 GMT
If it's proven to work, then it IS scientific. Zigackly! |
|
|
|
Post by ydoaPs on Dec 1, 2009 17:45:23 GMT
If it's proven to work, then it IS scientific. Zigackly! I think I lost you. |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymonkey on Dec 1, 2009 22:21:58 GMT
Ok we may have to tighten up the language to get to the bottom of this. Firstly let's drop 'proven' and say 'demonstrated to work'. How do you demonstrate something works? The method of seeing if something works is the scientific method. Sure the SM is a bit more formalized but to say something 'works' is to say there is empirical evidence for such and such process at all times under the same conditions. Everything else voodoo, God's word, a book, a forum post, that's just some guy's opinion. The only meaningful way to say something 'works' is through appeal to testability, replicability, you know, the SM.
|
|
|
|
Post by drpepper on Dec 2, 2009 16:40:37 GMT
Ah but the only way to assess whether it works is via the scientific method. In your example God just becomes a really kick arse source of hypotheses but they still have to be tested to see if they work. How do you test them? Voodoo? ;D Sure, if Voodoo was also proven to be a reliable model of reality! It's just all about modelling. Science is very likely to be always be pretty reliable method of modelling no matter what else comes along, like Newtonian gravity remained a reliable theory even after general relativity arrived. If God made lots of statements that contradicted our other models of reality (as happens in the bible), then a model incorporating God as a source of information about the world wouldn't be reliable. The problem using Gods or any supernatural entities in determining how things work is that you cannot assume anything. Gods can change the rules on a whim. The scientific method requires that the physical laws be more or less constant through time and space. Gods can alter time and space as well as physical laws. All known theories are up for grabs. New life forms can just pop into existence. It can rain 40 days and 40 nights. Your mother-in-law can come back to life. |
|
