Secret Chief
Very strong language
See post #5
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whither Goest Thou, O Science!
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That's great that you noticed that. I think a lot of people who are not actively involved in scientific pursuits do not have I firm idea of what science and the term scientific method of inquiry actually means. Science is from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge. If you think about it broadly, we are all scientist from the moment we are born. We are all trying to gain knowledge about the world around us, initially so that we can meet our basic needs to survive, but beyond that, we seek knowledge to make our lives easier and anticipate events that may impact us. Like any discipline or skill, there are those who pursue it academically or professionally. The professional disciplines of seeking knowledge we have broadly labeled the Sciences, and those who pursue it Scientists.
There is no one method we use to gain knowledge. There are many and varied ways in which we do this. When we talk about scientific method, method in this case does not mean procedures, but rather adherence to a set of professional standards and principles. These principles help us identify and control for all the ways we human beings (which scientists are) can make mistakes and errors in the pursuit of knowledge, errors in collecting data or information about a topic or subject, and errors in the way we analyze or think about the data or collected information.
And so, since people have misperceptions about what science is and how it works, I make the word "method" plural to highlight that science uses many different procedures or methods to achieve the goal of acquiring knowledge. If one is serious about wanting to understand how we human beings and the entire cosmos works, then I strongly encourage them to become a scientist!
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Not correct, please:
"I found this: The word Mathematics was first used in English in 1581, coming from the Latin word Mathematica. Since the -a suffix in Latin denotes a plural, the word was automatically pluralised when translated to English, even though the word itself is always used as a singular. The abbreviation "Math" came first."
Why is "math" always pluralized in British English but singular ...
Right, please?
Regards
Right.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So, one agrees that practically the nature of a subject/discipline changes the Methodology or the Method, and naturally/reasonably so. There is "no master key" sort of Method as long as it is systematic, it is OK.
Right friend, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Whither Goest Thou, O Science!
It is not science, it is we humans who are mislead by the illusions and go astray to ruin ourselves, please. Right friends, please?
Regards
It is not science, it is we humans who are mislead by the illusions and go astray to ruin ourselves, please. Right friends, please?
Regards
I would say that the use of the term "illusion" is more on the poetic side, but yes, for many reasons, we can be susceptible to wrong or incomplete information, and engage in faulty or incomplete reasoning, including faulty reasoning with good information. Hence the necessity for some type of quality control on any conclusions we may draw.
Yes, there are a wide variety of methods, and some methods are discipline specific (not all questions require a graduated cylinder to answer them). However, any method must meet specific standards to ensure the quality of the conclusions drawn. This is what professional science investigation is about, ensuring the quality of our conclusions to the best of our abilities.
Be carefully with the term systematic. One can be systematically and continually wrong.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Let's hope that it was a typo on their part. Scientific method is not a plural. It is singular. The following is scientific method:
1. Observe
2. Form a hypothesis
3. Test the hypothesis
4. Record the results
5. Form a conclusion
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
MikeF wrote, "Scientific methods "
One has written scientific methods in plural, isn't it singular "Scientific Method", please?
Friend, there was no typo mistake, one may like to read post #62 where the poster appreciated my observation and presented his evidence/information/reasoning in this connection, please. Right, please?
Regards
MikeF wrote, "Scientific methods "
One has written scientific methods in plural, isn't it singular "Scientific Method", please?
Friend, there was no typo mistake, one may like to read post #62 where the poster appreciated my observation and presented his evidence/information/reasoning in this connection, please. Right, please?
Regards
It's not clear what you are asking. What is your definition of the word "science". What does that word mean to you?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What I articulated was scientific method, and the only scientific method.
Augustus
…
You'll find a whole load of scientists and philosophers of science who would disagree with you on that point.
Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:
Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend.
I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I googled "Scientific Methods":
What are the 5 Scientific methods?
What are the 6 scientific methods in order?
What are the 8 scientific methods?
What are the 3 types of scientific methods?
The Different Types of Scientific Methods:
· Analytic-Synthetic Method. The analytic-synthetic methods refers to the analysis and synthesis processes. ...
· The Inductive-Deductive Method. ...
· Hypothetico-Deductive Method. ...
· Historical-Logical Method. ...
· The Genetic Method. ...
· An Analogy and Analogical Method. ...
· Modeling Method. ...
· The Systemic-Functional Method.
Right friend, please?
Regard
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?
My point was that if Scientific Method(s) is the only true/accurate method for everything then it must also go through the drill of the same Scientific Method and be approved for its being true or otherwise. Right friend, please?
Further, if the Scientific Method is to be tested for its accuracy, naturally, some specific discipline of Science must test it to which it pertains, what discipline has tested it and put it for the drill/mill ?
My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?
Regards
Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?
Friend!
My point was that if Scientific Method(s) is the only true/accurate method for everything then it must also go through the drill of the same Scientific Method and be approved for its being true or otherwise. Right friend, please?
Further, if the Scientific Method is to be tested for its accuracy, naturally, some specific discipline of Science must test it to which it pertains, what discipline has tested it and put it for the drill/mill ?
My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
Whither Goest Thou, O Science!
It is not science, it is we humans who are mislead by the illusions and go astray to ruin ourselves, please. Right friends, please?
For removing scientific illusions the truthful religion helps to create balance, I understand, please. Right friend, please?
Regards
Whither Goest Thou, O Science!
It is not science, it is we humans who are mislead by the illusions and go astray to ruin ourselves, please. Right friends, please?
Well poetry did in the past/does affect human life very much and as long as we have sentiments and emotions we will always be affected by it till such time the humans for their own destruction transfer our entire intelligence to the robots (AI). And then we will be inhuman just machines without sentiments and poetry and music and arts and beauty. Right friend, please?
For removing scientific illusions the truthful religion helps to create balance, I understand, please. Right friend, please?
Regards
If it is your belief that all that ails humanity is caused by "science", and, in your view, the continued "illusion of science" will only result in all humanity turning in to robots, there is nothing I can say in a single post that will dissuade you.
Reasoned skepticism about scientific conclusions is a good thing, and is a fundamental principle held by those who participate in scientific disciplines. To be skeptical that scientific study has any value whatsoever, or that we can be confident in what we think we know without adhering to scientific principles as a means of providing the needed quality control over our boundless imaginations, will leave one susceptible to being trapped in a fictional understanding of reality.
I agree, science doesn't take us anywhere. It's a tool to help validate what we think we know. What we do with that knowledge is up to the folks with the wherewithal to make use of it.
Perhaps it would be best to take a more poetic approach. Let's imagine that what we know and understand about the world is a figurative jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle has no boundary or straight edge pieces, so we can't just start with those to give us the scope and breadth of the figurative picture of reality. From the moment we are born, we begin to observe the world and start to put the pieces together. The picture we piece together of reality as we grow into adulthood is pretty much the same as everyone else on the macro-environmental level. When we compare the completed portions of our figurative puzzle pictures that we create from the biological senses we are born with, we are in consistent agreement about the objects we see in our environment, the effect of gravity, visible light, and temperature., etc. But this incomplete picture puzzle does not tell us how all this began or why. That information is scattered among all the pieces yet to be placed in the puzzle. And worse still, new pieces are only revealed gradually as we build our picture of reality outward.
Unfortunately, we human beings are not patient and get quite uncomfortable not knowing how the full puzzle picture of reality is going to turn out. So we begin to speculate, guess, and imagine what the full picture will be. Our long history of religious belief, starting with our animistic Paleolithic ancestors, are humanities guesses as to the complete picture. We human beings then, begin to live our lives based on the guesses and stop trying to actually complete the puzzle. Unfortunately, there are those who keep diligently working on the puzzle. As the picture continues to grow and become clear, some of religion's guesses do not fit with the actual picture. This causes conflicts between those who were happy with their religious assumptions of the complete picture, and those who are still working on the puzzle. As we look throughout history, as the completed picture of reality continues to grow, more and more religious ideas no longer fit or represent the direction in which the picture is developing. In this figurative analogy, scientists are those who are diligently working on the puzzle, specializing on a particular section depending on their discipline. They step back periodically to ensure what they are working on fits with the whole. There are others who just look over the shoulders of all those working on the puzzle to make sure everything is fitting properly and making a coherent picture.
This is how we build the picture of reality. We can speculate and imagine what the full picture will be, but we cannot be bound or dependent on that speculation. As the picture grows we must be willing to readily abandon those ideas and imaginings that no long fit or clearly represent the actual picture.
Scientific inquiry is what allows us to complete the puzzle.