In Science We Trust

[Augustus]

Not to be pedantic, but we only have sufficient evidence that one of those resorted to doping. Now please don't make an appeal to ignorance fallacy, I am not making a contrary claim, merely cautioning that correlation is not sufficient here.

Rank average cyclist about to be released from a team (famous for their meticulously thorough approach) as they saw no long term potential suddenly transforms into greatest stage racer of his generation in his late 20s.

I know what the evidence suggests in these situations and it isn't "he just tried harder".

Anyway, we have evidence all 3 doped.

 

[Augustus]

You might want to edit this
to explain that it's a myth.
Scientific method - Wikipedia

That article covers the problems with the term

 

[Revoltingest]

That article covers the problems with the term

"Problems" don't mean non-existence.

 

[Augustus]

"Problems" don't mean non-existence.

If the problems include that scientists don't follow "the scientific method" then it might well do...

 

[Sheldon]

the methods of science are far less effective in some domains than others.

"The scientific method" doesn't exist, it is a simplification taught to children.

Well that a method has to be applied by very fallible humans is certainly a weakness, but it's not simply that.

The methods work far better in non-complex domains than complex ones

You don't think biology is a complex domain?

 

[Sheldon]

"The scientific method" doesn't exist,

If the problems include that scientists don't follow "the scientific method" then it might well do...

Also you're now repeating an argument I just offered, and that you just dismissed in the last ten minutes, which is odd?

 

[setarcos]

You don't think biology is a complex domain?

Too complex if you ask me for a blind, mindless, process to produce. But heck I may be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the problems include that scientists don't follow "the scientific method" then it might well do...

So some don't follow the method/methods well.
Science, scientists, & the scientific method(s) still exist.

 

[Augustus]

the scientific method(s) still exist.

Methods exist yes.

 

[setarcos]

So some don't follow the method/methods well.
Science, scientists, & the scientific method(s) still exist.

Yes! Science is merely a tool. And as a tool it is limited by the abilities of scientists to use it. I think Scientists are mistaken who think that it is the only tool we have to learn about existence though.

 

[Sheldon]

Too complex if you ask me for a blind, mindless, process to produce. But heck I may be wrong.

That doesn't really matter, what matters is that your claim is entirely unevidenced, it's an argument from incredulity fallacy, and of course your claim is entirely at odds with all the overwhelming objective evidence. Complexity does not evidence sentience, as the fact of species evolution amply demonstrates.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes! Science is merely a tool. And as a tool it is limited by the abilities of scientists to use it. I think Scientists are mistaken who think that it is the only tool we have to learn about existence though.

I think that is a strawman fallacy, that you have assigned to "scientists" without any pretence of evidence. However if there is a better more successful method, I'm wondering why it isn't producing the kinds of successes scientific endeavour has?

 

[Augustus]

No inconsistencies there

Read again.

Also you're now repeating an argument I just offered, and that you just dismissed in the last ten minutes, which is odd?

Wrong again. Read again.

If it helps, it means even good science often isn't done according to 'the scientific method".

I did provide quotes earlier from Einstein, Heisenberg and Weinberg to illustrate but you ignored them.

You don't think biology is a complex domain?

It is which is why, for example, the medical sciences have terrible replication rates and why we keep revising our ideas about nutrition, medicine etc.

 

[Sheldon]

Wrong again. Read again.

Oh I think it was correct, and mere hand waving won't change that sorry.

If it helps, it means even good science often isn't done according to 'the scientific method".

The scientific method that doesn't exist you mean?

If as you claim the method, (the one you claim doesn't exist) struggles with complex systems, and biology is a complex system, are you saying species evolution through natural selection is unreliable? Isn't all medical research predicted on the fact of species evolution and shared ancestry?

Oh, how do we know these replication rates are poor, we wouldn't be repeated the excrement to test the conclusions would we? Only again that sounds like part of the scientific method to me, and again it sounds like it wasn't properly applied in the first instance, or in the peer review process if it passed, but then that was what I asserted might be the case earlier, and you rejected, but then immediately made a similar claim yourself to another poster, which you have now dismissed with hand waving?

 

[Sheldon]

No inconsistencies there

↑
the methods of science are far less effective in some domains than others.
↑
"The scientific method" doesn't exist, it is a simplification taught to children.
↑
Well that a method has to be applied by very fallible humans is certainly a weakness, but it's not simply that.

On the contrary.

 

[setarcos]

I think that is a strawman fallacy, that you have assigned to "scientists" without any pretence of evidence. However if there is a better more successful method, I'm wondering why it isn't producing the kinds of successes scientific endeavour has?

? Strawman fallacy? Are you saying there is no other way of learning about reality other than through the scientific method?
How about....science has allot to say about the past but has no scientific experiments which it can perform to prove its conjectures. How about, ironically, the establishment of scientific laws such as Newtons laws of thermodynamics have NO PROOF OF NECESSITY. They are made laws simply by the unscientific method of assuming that the next experiment to gather data on the laws will be the same as the earlier ones. That's simply probabilistic faith.
Better? More successful method? Science is good at what its good at. And that is collecting data in a uniform manner. Science doesn't do the thinking for us. So what do you mean by better? We're not in some sort of mutually exclusive contest to determine the better method. The methods are in different classes all together aren't they?
Someone gets thumped in the head with a rock which fell from the sky but some scientist says that's impossible, rocks don't fall from the sky and heavier than air objects can't float in air, then science proves otherwise and takes the person seriously. That doesn't invalidate the persons experience until science proves it now does it. Yet that person had knowledge of reality before scientists using the scientific method proved it possible. I'd say experience in that sense trumps experimentation. And scientific experimentation is always prey to evolving interpretation.
I'm certainly not saying that science is hooey and not useful. That's ridiculous.
What I am saying though is that scientists are often subject to unscientific intuitive incites which point them in the right direction towards breakthroughs. And those scientists who refuse to behave unscientifically from time to time miss out on allot of information about reality.
By the way, you do realize that the scientific method was born in religion don't you?

 

[Augustus]

Oh I think it was correct, and mere hand waving won't change that sorry.

Well you are impervious to correction so that's no great shock

Anyway, the difference is method v methods.

There are scientific methods, but no singular scientific method that demarcates science from "not science" as you claim. I must have repeated this 10 times to no avail.

Also still managing to avoid answering the question of why you think you know more than Einstein, Heisenberg and Weinberg on this I see. No shock there

On the contrary.

It still escapes you...

If as you claim the method, (the one you claim doesn't exist) struggles with complex systems, and biology is a complex system, are you saying species evolution through natural selection is unreliable? Isn't all medical research predicted on the fact of species evolution and shared ancestry?

Again your reasoning is fallacious.

Struggles does not mean "is always wrong". That medical sciences have terrible replication rates obviously does not mean all medicine is bogus.

As an aside, major aspects of evolution are still significantly debated within the scientific community in terms of gene selection (Dawkins) v multi-level selection (Wilson) etc. Who do you think is right?

Oh, how do we know these replication rates are poor, we wouldn't be repeated the excrement to test the conclusions would we? Only again that sounds like part of the scientific method to me, and again it sounds like it wasn't properly applied in the first instance, or in the peer review process if it passed, but then that was what I asserted might be the case earlier, and you rejected, but then immediately made a similar claim yourself to another poster, which you have now dismissed with hand waving?

Again you imperviousness to correction reappears.

The point was that much good science doesn't follow "the scientific method" because "the SM" is a simplification rather than an accurate representation of all scientific processes.

It was not that bad science is the result of people not following "the scientific method".

Is that simple enough?

I did provide some quotes from very well regarded scientists for you, but you have studiously avoided addressing that point 10 or so times.

11th time lucky?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I think that is a strawman fallacy, that you have assigned to "scientists" without any pretence of evidence. However if there is a better more successful method, I'm wondering why it isn't producing the kinds of successes scientific endeavour has?

Strawman fallacy? Are you saying there is no other way of learning about reality other than through the scientific method?

No, not remotely what I said?

? Strawman fallacy? Are you saying there is no other way of learning about reality other than through the scientific method?
How about....science has allot to say about the past but has no scientific experiments which it can perform to prove its conjectures. How about, ironically, the establishment of scientific laws such as Newtons laws of thermodynamics have NO PROOF OF NECESSITY. They are made laws simply by the unscientific method of assuming that the next experiment to gather data on the laws will be the same as the earlier ones. That's simply probabilistic faith.
Better? More successful method? Science is good at what its good at. And that is collecting data in a uniform manner. Science doesn't do the thinking for us. So what do you mean by better? We're not in some sort of mutually exclusive contest to determine the better method. The methods are in different classes all together aren't they?
Someone gets thumped in the head with a rock which fell from the sky but some scientist says that's impossible, rocks don't fall from the sky and heavier than air objects can't float in air, then science proves otherwise and takes the person seriously. That doesn't invalidate the persons experience until science proves it now does it. Yet that person had knowledge of reality before scientists using the scientific method proved it possible. I'd say experience in that sense trumps experimentation. And scientific experimentation is always prey to evolving interpretation.
I'm certainly not saying that science is hooey and not useful. That's ridiculous.
What I am saying though is that scientists are often subject to unscientific intuitive incites which point them in the right direction towards breakthroughs. And those scientists who refuse to behave unscientifically from time to time miss out on allot of information about reality.
By the way, you do realize that the scientific method was born in religion don't you?

 

[Sheldon]

Well you are impervious to correction so that's no great shock

Or you're just bad at it.

 

[Augustus]

Or you're just bad at it.

Your "zinger" belies a failure to grasp basic grammar:

the methods of science are far less effective in some domains than others.
↑
"The scientific method" doesn't exist, it is a simplification taught to children. [singular]
↑
Well that a method has to be applied by very fallible humans is certainly a weakness, but it's not simply that. [indefinite article]

Simple enough for you now?

Do you accept that there is no singular "scientific method" that demarcates science from "not science" btw?