Is science based on circular reasoning?

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
When did science surface and the scientific method and the first scientist? Please
Regards

The form of science we know of should've been created as soon as someone started wanting facts on how things worked.
Even if a God was real, spirits existed, the universe was in multiples, there would be a science behind it.
There would be a want to know. Which is much different from wanting to think you know.

One answered more than the questions asked. Kindly attempt at the questions again. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I can be positive. For instance, I'm quite positive you started this thread with what can only be described as a war-crime against the English language, that you've yet to even try and explain.

Don't you read more than what is written? Thanks for the extra-curricular activity.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
You mean the scientific data that is collected to start an experiment its fact are taken on faith. Right?
Regard

Sure. And the axioms (premises, basic assumptions) for science that I listed earlier are taken on faith. Basically, it's like trusting that Euclidian geometry would be the one and only true geometry for space (which is apparently isn't, space is curved). Who knows, maybe some of the physical laws that we see here on Earth don't apply the same way at the edge of the universe? As an example of how local knowledge suddenly are thrown upside down is the evidence of dark matter and dark energy. They're messing with the laws of gravity. But maybe there isn't any dark matter or energy. Perhaps the laws of gravity isn't a simple Newton formula? So we trust that things are uniform, and go from there. But what else should a scientist do? If we can't trust some fundamental axioms of nature and science, then science would be nothing but random ramblings.

Thanks for confirming that the data collected to start an experiment its facts are taken on faith. And facts of the data are borrowed from the nature. Right again? Please
Anybody who differs here.
Regards

 

[Deathbydefault]

paarsurrey said: ↑
When did science surface and the scientific method and the first scientist? Please
Regards

One answered more than the questions asked. Kindly attempt at the questions again. Please
Regards

Science "surfaced" as soon as intelligent life began to wonder about the facts behind their life.
You can easily look up who made the scientific method, and why.
The last part depends on how you define "scientist".
There weren't many official scientists back when science became a thing, but there were many who partook in science.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science "surfaced" as soon as intelligent life began to wonder about the facts behind their life.
You can easily look up who made the scientific method, and why.
The last part depends on how you define "scientist".
There weren't many official scientists back when science became a thing, but there were many who partook in science.

Hasn't one gone too far in the past when nobody knew of science? Just for the sake of argument!?
Regards

 

[Nietzsche]

Don't you read more than what is written?

Only if the written bit is legible to begin with. Maybe you begin to see my dilemma, now.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hasn't one gone too far in the past when nobody knew of science? Just for the sake of argument!?
Regards

Let me give you something of an example here.
Science is knowledge, or the pursuit thereof.
If you purse knowledge, you are preforming science.
So long as it's actual knowledge, that is.

Take some of your personal beliefs for this example.
I'm sure there are a few titles out there that you fit into without even knowing it.
Just because you didn't know that title existed, it doesn't mean you don't classify with it.
I didn't know I was misanthropic until I heard the term, it didn't make me any less misanthropic.

Just because someone may not know they are preforming something scientific, it does not make it any less scientific.
Many old religions were created as a form of science that ended up becoming not science.
God hypothesis are the earliest explanations for everything from weather to the universe.
And as we came to understand more about nature, more about the universe, those hypothesis were replaced by better ones.
Some of which leveled up to theory status.

Science has been around since before it was even a word.

 

[paarsurrey]

Let me give you something of an example here.
Science is knowledge, or the pursuit thereof.
If you purse knowledge, you are preforming science.
So long as it's actual knowledge, that is.
Take some of your personal beliefs for this example.
I'm sure there are a few titles out there that you fit into without even knowing it.
Just because you didn't know that title existed, it doesn't mean you don't classify with it.
I didn't know I was misanthropic until I heard the term, it didn't make me any less misanthropic.
Just because someone may not know they are preforming something scientific, it does not make it any less scientific.
Many old religions were created as a form of science that ended up becoming not science.
God hypothesis are the earliest explanations for everything from weather to the universe.
And as we came to understand more about nature, more about the universe, those hypothesis were replaced by better ones.
Some of which leveled up to theory status.
Science has been around since before it was even a word.

In other words one means everything that humans know is science?
Regards

 

[Parsimony]

Did you mean the following circular Scientific Method?
View attachment 11361

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Sure it is, not only one but two.

Regards

Do you know what circular reasoning actually is? Explain how this diagram demonstrates circular reasoning (and no, "the diagram is a circle" does not make it circular reasoning).

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you know what circular reasoning actually is? Explain how this diagram demonstrates circular reasoning (and no, "the diagram is a circle" does not make it circular reasoning).

Circle is a geometric form like line, angle,triangle, square, rectangle etc. To talk with reason/wisdom is reasoning. Both are simple day to day in use words. Sometimes it is said if one starts from a point and after sometimes reaches the same point one has travelled in a circle, broadly speaking.
Regards

 

[Deathbydefault]

In other words one means everything that humans know is science?
Regards

Yes and no. Sorry to be confusing.
Everything that a human seeks knowledge on is an act of science, yes.
However, humans can learn things without seeking to, especially as adolescents.

 

[Parsimony]

Circle is a geometric form like line, angle,triangle, square, rectangle etc. To talk with reason/wisdom is reasoning. Both are simple day to day in use words. Sometimes it is said if one starts from a point and after sometimes reaches the same point one has travelled in a circle, broadly speaking.
Regards

So you do not mean circular in the sense of the circular reasoning fallacy then?

 

[paarsurrey]

So you do not mean circular in the sense of the circular reasoning fallacy then?

Sorry, I don't deal in fallacies. I am trying to understand life and its different aspects. I know science is useful for humans but it uses circular reasoning in its quest for knowing. And it is not bad. Is it?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes and no. Sorry to be confusing.
Everything that a human seeks knowledge on is an act of science, yes.
However, humans can learn things without seeking to, especially as adolescents.

But sorry, our resident scientists here won't agree with your science. Will they?
Regards

 

[Thief]

Science "surfaced" as soon as intelligent life began to wonder about the facts behind their life.
You can easily look up who made the scientific method, and why.
The last part depends on how you define "scientist".
There weren't many official scientists back when science became a thing, but there were many who partook in science.

naw....superstition came first.

and it took centuries for Man to realize a knee jerk reaction doesn't work.

as for religion....the same.

but it all circles back to God

 

[Deathbydefault]

But sorry, our resident scientists here won't agree with your science. Will they?
Regards

Professionals that perform science have no hold over the definition of science.
I care little if they agree or disagree, their ability to refute my arguments is what is interesting.
Though I doubt many can, as I'm drawing a direct line from the definition of science to how science can be performed.

Any form of correction is welcome. So long as it is a correct correction, lol.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I disagree.

The scientific method precludes the possibility of circular reasoning.

 

[Thief]

Professionals that perform science have no hold over the definition of science.
I care little if they agree or disagree, their ability to refute my arguments is what is interesting.
Though I doubt many can, as I'm drawing a direct line from the definition of science to how science can be performed.

Any form of correction is welcome. So long as it is a correct correction, lol.

but how would you knooooooow?

 

[Deathbydefault]

but how would you knooooooow?

Because they would be forced to prooooooove it.

 

[Ouroboros]

paarsurrey said: ↑
You mean the scientific data that is collected to start an experiment its fact are taken on faith. Right?
Regard

Thanks for confirming that the data collected to start an experiment its facts are taken on faith. And facts of the data are borrowed from the nature. Right again? Please
Anybody who differs here.
Regards

Yes.