-
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!
Are there any good arguments for God?
- Thread starter Tiberius
- Start date
Blastcat
Active Member
If you don't defend strange ideas.. we just ignore
I'll repeat:
“Around the middle of the 20th century, the Scientific Method was offered as a template for teachers to emulate for the activity of scientists (National Society for the Study of Education, 1947). It was composed of anywhere from five to seven steps (e.g., making observations, defining the problem, constructing hypotheses, experimenting, compiling results, drawing conclusions). Despite criticism beginning as early as the 1960s, this oversimplified view of science has proven disconcertingly durable and continues to be used in classroom today”
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.
“One of the most widely held misconceptions about science is the existence of the scientific method. The modern origins of this misconception may be traced to Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620/1996), in which the inductive method was propounded to guarantee ‘‘certain’’ knowledge. Since the 17th century, inductivism and several other epistemological stances that aimed to achieve the same end (although in those latter stances the criterion of certainty was either replaced with notions of high probability or abandoned altogether) have been debunked, such as Bayesianism, falsificationism, and hypothetico-deductivism (Gillies, 1993). Nonetheless, some of those stances, especially inductivism and falsificationism, are still widely popularized in science textbooks and even explicitly taught in classrooms. The myth of the scientific method is regularly manifested in the belief that there is a recipelike stepwise procedure that all scientists follow when they do science. This notion was explicitly debunked: There is no single scientific method that would guarantee the development of infallible knowledge (AAAS, 1993; Bauer, 1994; Feyerabend, 1993; NRC, 1996; Shapin, 1996).” (emphases added)
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
"The model of ‘scientific method’ that probably reflects many people’s understanding is one of scientific knowledge being ‘proved’ through experiments...That is, the ‘experimental method’ offers a way of uncovering true knowledge of the world, providing that we plan our experiments logically, and carefully collect sufficient data. In this way, our rational faculty is applied to empirical evidence to prove (or otherwise) scientific hypotheses. This is a gross simplification, and misrepresentation, of how science actually occurs, but unfortunately it has probably been encouraged by the impoverished image of the nature of science commonly reflected in school science." (emphasis added)
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the Scientific Research Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science (Science & Technology Education Library Vol. 37). Springer.
"a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods" (emphasis added)
Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
There is no scientific method in the set that there is no linear sequence, no set of steps, and no procedure that accurately describes even a simplistic model of scientific inquiry. The Scientific Method as such is a myth:
“Myth of 'The Scientific Method’
This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no single ‘‘Scientific Method’’ that would guarantee the development of infallible knowledge. Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate, hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual, or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone ‘‘certain’’ knowledge”
Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
“A key myth...is a belief in a universal scientific method. As with many myths, those who hold to it are startled when they discover its inaccuracy; those who know it is a myth are surprised by its persistence in textbooks, curricula, and lesson plans. I've seen teachers become visibly shaken when they learn the scientific method is a myth. I've also heard aspirants to a teacher education program say they studied the scientific method in preparation for their application interviews. Somehow the myth of the scientific method lives on and not only within the realm of the science classroom. The persisting mythology of a scientific method is viewed as a problem within educational research (Rowbottom & Aiston, 2006) as well as for those who teach science.”
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461-467.
What's amazing is that the criticisms of this presentation of a single method of "steps" (e.g., formulate hypothesis, develop a way to test it, try to prove it wrong, if confirmed it becomes "theory") are almost as old as the notion itself:
“Nothing could be more stultifying, and, perhaps more important, nothing is further from the procedure of the scientist “than a rigorous tabular progression through the supposed ‘steps’ of the scientific method, with perhaps the further requirement that the student not only memorize but follow this sequence in his attempt to understand natural phenomena"
Harvard Committee. (1945). General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
I've already cited many dozen sources (actually hundreds in this thread alone), and this apart from my own writings and summaries. These may be "strange ideas" to you, but I have been a researcher for years and a consultant in research methods for almost as long (and, just to be clear, I mean research in the sciences, not academia more generally). Research simply isn't the product of The Scientific Method, which is a created myth intended to be a simplified model of our process that was recognized as an abject failure many decades ago, not long after it was invented.
If science doesn't use "the scientific method" what method does it use? Are there several "non-scientific" methods in use by science or are there several "scientific methods"?
We use methods. Gun to my head, I'd say that our approach consists of tests of our theories/theoretical frameworks using logic to formulate experimental paradigms (including the combinatorics of experiments) and logic to test them (including statistical analysis, discriminant analysis, etc.), and both theory and logic to interpret the findings. It works differently for different experimental paradigms, many of which are particular to particular sciences. But there is no singular "method". This is laughably and ridiculously misinformed. Even such broad works as Probability Theory: The Logic of Science which attempts to formulate all scientific inquiry within a particular approach doesn't even hope to begin to define scientific inquiry in terms of singular method. This notion is laughable. Methods in biological are foreign to particle physicists, medical research is almost wholly unique to medicinal research, and there is more similarity between computational neuroscience & climate science then there is between nanotechnology and particle physics (and more between nanotechnology and neuroscience than between particle physics and climate science).
So there are several scientific methods instead of just one? They must have something in common to be called "scientific". What is that?
Yes.
Mostly the use of logic applied to empirical analyses. Of course, this isn't an entirely clear demarcation. For example, the empirical requirement renders many theories from physics unscientific (supersymmetry, M-theory and string theory more generally, inflationary models, even gravitation!). Meanwhile, non-scientific fields such as historiography often apply logic to empirical data even though they aren't sciences. The demarcation isn't particularly clear when it comes to the finer distinctions between the sciences and other academic inquiries. But, in general, it is the nature of the empirical data used by scientists as opposed to that used by other academics (or non-academics, for that matter) subject to logical analysis, inference, and theory-construction that separate the sciences from other fields (and both, generally, from common-sense inquiry).
So "the scientific method" is using a specific kind of empirical data and subject them to logical analysis, inference and theory construction?
No. Because there isn't any such method. As the great scientist and president of Harvard said so long ago, "[t]here is no such thing as the scientific method. If there were, surely an examination of the history of physics, chemistry and biology would reveal it." That was from Conant's Science and Common Sense. In the decades since it and other, popular works by Conant, this has become more evident since Conant's day.
Empirical data is simply that: empirical. The term "empirical" describes the nature of data. It is why Aristotle and the Greeks didn't develop any sciences: they couldn't connect the logical models of inquiry they developed (which we depended on for science to emerge) with empirical data. They didn't find it important, relevant, or even sensible to apply the logical framework developed to sense-data//empiricism. The systematic application of logic and logical frameworks to empirical inquiry didn't start until the 17th century. This application is what defines the sciences. But it also defines many a field of research outside of the sciences, and fails to encapsulate some scientific fields. Again, the divide doesn't behave nicely when fine demarcations are applied. The sciences utterly devoid of empiricism and until the 20th century considered the ultimate science was mathematics, which lacks any experimental tests or scientific investigations altogether. It is not usually regarded as a science today, although there are plenty of arguments to the contrary.
It is really the application of logic to empirical study that define the sciences. But this demarcation would, by itself, describe fields outside of the sciences and FAIL to encapsulate scientific fields. We are better equipped, however, to determine what fields are scientific then we are to try to rely on some primary school notion of "The Scientific Method" that was from the beginning intended for children and has (almost since its inception) failed according to practicing scientists and other (hence
“Nothing could be more stultifying, and, perhaps more important, nothing is further from the procedure of the scientist “than a rigorous tabular progression through the supposed ‘steps’ of the scientific method, with perhaps the further requirement that the student not only memorize but follow this sequence in his attempt to understand natural phenomena"
Harvard Committee. (1945). General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.)
↑
Are you a scientist yourself?
Define scientist. What is it that defines him as a scientist?
The above line of discussion was left dangling.... he he.
Let me ask, why exactly you require this proof? Driven by what motivation you are seeking proof for God and what will you achieve by rejecting all arguments?
Blastcat
Active Member
So, you prove to yourself that scientists use no method, and that science is "an abject failure".
I have evidence to the contrary.
Put your head in the sand as much as you like.
Science works by WAY of strict methodology, and the application of those methods yield very reliable results.
You seem to be a science denier.
I call that a "nutcase".
He did not say scientists use no method and he did not say 'science is an abject failure'.
I'm a scientist. I regard science as an enormous success. I use methods, as do all scientists. What I despise, and what I find that those scientists most interested in communicating the nature of scientific inquiry to the public also despise, is the notion that there exists some "recipe" for a stepwise procedure whereby all scientific research is conducted- The Scientific Method. This isn't just a fantasy, but something that fundamentally mischaracterizes my work, the work of my colleagues, and the work of scientists in fields that are unrelated to my own. It is nonsense, it distorts the issues that real scientists actually face, it ignores the actual nature of scientific research, it mischaracterizes scientific process, and perhaps most importantly is misleads would be proponents of the sciences by teaching them an idealization of scientific practice of the 18th and 19th centuries.
No, you don't. Because you don't understand my position and you are using primary school summarizations of scientific methods to misunderstand my points.
Most of the greatest results in the sciences haven't been due to the application of any particular methodology beyond the application of logic to empirical tests. And even this is simplifying, as it ignores the role of chance in e.g., Milliken's intuition that led him to confirming electron charge by ignoring contrary evidence or the accidental exposures (literally) that led to the discoveries of x-rays and other similar particles/processes (not to mention the ways in which hypotheses do not become theories so much as they are generated, tested, and the findings interpreted by them). That said, it is certainly true that the methods employed by researchers in given fields are very successful. However, there is no singular methodology employed by scientists in general apart from the application of logic to empirical results (and even then, there are successes in the sciences that are not the result of these, such as modern relativity, matrix mechanics, generative linguistics, information theory, the better part of all cosmology, M-theory, etc.).
When, in actuality, I am a research consultant and practicing scientist. What I "seem to be" is apparently better understood by a lack of understanding on your part as to how we actually conduct research and the nature of the scientific endeavor.
Matthew Jordan
Member
there is light, and i have eyes to see, need an incalculable list of examples be given?
"where there are so many coincidences. something must be true". if not by intelligent design. then perhaps, its time we reevaluate or definition of intelligence
"where there are so many coincidences. something must be true". if not by intelligent design. then perhaps, its time we reevaluate or definition of intelligence
NewChapter
GiveMeATicketToWork
Agnostic and atheist are two different things, Sir.
To answer the question, God reveals Himself to whom He pleases when He pleases.
JustWondering
Jerk
If you don't believe in Zeus you're also an atheist.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Are you claiming to know better than Tiberius what Tiberius believes?
Perhaps you are claiming to have some sort of authority over the terms "atheist" and or "agnostic"?
Rather interesting how so many of gods followers are the most active in making god out to be an arrogant egotistical prude.