Is science based on circular reasoning?

[paarsurrey]

No, that is religion.
Where somebody tells you that God wants you to believe something because it says so in scripture. It says so in scripture because God wants you to believe it.
Tom

The topic is about science, not religion.
Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The topic is about science, not religion.

It doesn't appear you are capable of recognizing the latter nor distinguishing either.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not circular, but it is based on some fundamental axioms or premises that we have to assume to be true (have "faith" in? ).
For instance, uniformity. That the same things we can see and test here or at one place in the universe, would be the same even if we tested it somewhere else. In other words, that the world works the same way over there as it does here.
Another one is that things in nature are happening because of natural causes or things. If we didn't assume this, we wouldn't be able to test anything.
Also, that we can test things in nature and be able to deduce how nature works from those tests.

So science starts from faith and ends with faith?
That makes circular reasoning. Isn't it?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is based on the human want for knowledge.

Is it the only aspect of science?
Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of course we are. You are external to me, and I'm to you, so by extension we're both part of nature to each other.

Phew! you got out of that one nicely

Because they're essentially the same. Without something that is assume to objectively exist outside of yourself and your mind, there's no world to be investigated. Maybe we can add one more assumption or premise to science: reality exist, objectively, and that's nature.

But the world is to be investigated.
And what then is reality, what nature, what natural? If i say it is supernatural, I would have a host of replies asking for an answer. I just pose the question to you. Do you accept, Sir?

 

[paarsurrey]

The things and events that exist in nature. The things that we see and experience when we look around us or the things we cana feel with touch.

Say, if one is blind and cannot see. Does it change nature?
Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

No. You'd just be defining natural as supernatural. If you proposed that supernatural causes which you defined were necessary for what we observe, then I'd ask why we should seek for such causes.

If everything comes from something natural because everything is natural, I just want to know what this natural is. That is it. What is it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Supernatural would only be another form of natural.

And what would that be? It appears to me that God must be explained because he is said to be supernatural, but natural isn't. Yet something must form the multiverse/universe, and I am asking what 'thing' is. How do you vision it?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And your scientific evidence that science does not use circular reasoning?
Regards

Why would I need to provide scientific evidence that science doesn't use circular reasoning? You can't test concepts of language. That's like asking somebody to test a noun.

 

[Parsimony]

Science is based on circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
Regards

Do you actually have some kind of argument or evidence or are you just expecting us to accept your claim as it is?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If everything comes from something natural because everything is natural, I just want to know what this natural is. That is it. What is it?

By definition, that from which everything comes. I don't discount the supernatural (I've worked as a research consultant in studies on what is generally regarded as pseudo-science). I simply don't see the merit in dividing what we regard as natural to what exists in science fiction, religious beliefs, etc., and then interpret extensions of the former as somehow anything that speaks to the latter.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not at all.

You mean science is flat or straight or linear or some other geometrical form? How would you describe it? Please
Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

By definition, that from which everything comes. I don't discount the supernatural (I've worked as a research consultant in studies on what is generally regarded as pseudo-science). I simply don't see the merit in dividing what we regard as natural to what exists in science fiction, religious beliefs, etc., and then interpret extensions of the former as somehow anything that speaks to the latter.

Your definition could be described as a God

And if everything comes from "that", what is "that"?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your definition could be described as a God

True. It could also be described as the Wizard of Oz.

And if everything comes from "that", what is "that"?

That whence everything comes. At some point you might wish to consider a model of causation in which either one or the both of the following hold:
1) Events exists which are uncaused
2) There exists no cause for causality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Deathbydefault said: ↑
Science is based on the human want for knowledge.

But so is folklore.

A good point. I like it.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Robert.Evans said: ↑
No, WHAT is nature/natural. If I say everything is supernatural, you would want an answer, wouldn't you?

Supernatural would only be another form of natural.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Science is based on circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
Regards

I think it certainly can be
Eddington referred to it as a scientific fishing net- designed to catch as much of the easiest fish as possible, and concluding that everything else doesn't exist

You mean the following?

The astronomer Arthur Eddington once told a parable about a fisherman who used a net with a three-inch mesh. After a lifetime of fishing he concluded there were no fish shorter than three inches. Eddington’s moral is that just as one’s fishing net determines what one catches, so it is with conceptual nets: what we find in the ocean of reality depends on the conceptual net we bring to our investigation.​

http://www.uni.edu/coe/jrae/spring2002/geisertspring2002.htm
or something else.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think you mean religion?

The topic of the thread is about science, not about religion, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is true of all religions that rely on scripture as the word of God.
Is that circular enough......

Which religion says it is speaking about circle/s?
Circle is mentioned in Geometry, and it is a subject of science not of religion. Right?
Regard

 

[paarsurrey]

The earth is not actually round, but rather approximately spherical with uncountably many deformations, ergo science is not based on circular reasoning according to the above.

If one draws a straight line on earth, it would be as circular as the earth is? Correct me if I am wrong.
Regards