gnostic
The Lost One
You just have proven that you have absolutely no idea what "circular reasoning" mean.
-
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!
Is science based on circular reasoning?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
cambridge79
Active Member
the spectacular thing is that he proved it trough some circular reasoning
Last edited:
cambridge79
Active Member
science verify its hipotesis in the actual world of reality.
You can predict that the tower you're going tu build will stand up, than the fact that when you've finished it it actually stand up proves that the scientific principles you've put in use to build it are correct.
Evolution theory for example is correct because when scientists find two different skeleton and they often say "these two species are related, there should be a specie in between to link the two" and in the end sooner or later they are able to find that skeleton they've predicted to exist. The tiktaalik is the perfect example of prediction capabilities of that theory. For the tiktaalik they predicted such an animal would have existed in the past and it would have lived in a particular environment. Than they went to dig in a place particularly selected because they've concluded that such place in the era of the tiktaalik would have been the right environment for him to live in. and than they've found exactly what they were looking for exactly were they were looking for.
on the other hand in case of religion you always go circular mostly around the principle that
"my holy book is written by god" therefore my book is special.
"in my special book there's written god exist" therefore i know god exist.
that's circular reasoning.
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Earth isn't perfectly round either.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
This just shows the state of reasoning as modern apologists for revelation face ever more mounting reasoned, scientific evidence against it. And the circular reasoning that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible doesn't make things look any prettier.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
At this point, is that even mildly shocking?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The same way some times or more than that the reasoning of science need not be in perfect circle, it is circular in general terms as is Earth round not a perfectly circular. Everything in the universe is round or in other words tends to be circular.Earth isn't perfectly round either.
I don't think humans could draw a straight line on Earth, however they try it will be in a curve which in other words tends to be circular. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards
McBell
Unbound
but...
It is a circular flat
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
viole said: ↑
Yet, the Universe as a whole seems to be pretty flat.
Ciao
- viole
Regards
Yet, the Universe as a whole seems to be pretty flat.
Ciao
- viole
What is a circular flat? Please elaborate.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is science based on circular reasoning?
Why is it objectionable if one says that science is based on circular reasoning?
The big object in the nature, sun, moon, earth etc are either circular or tend to be circular. Right?
Regars
Why is it objectionable if one says that science is based on circular reasoning?
The big object in the nature, sun, moon, earth etc are either circular or tend to be circular. Right?
Regars
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Well for one it's not correct.
Shape of objects has nothing to do with circular reasoning.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is science based on circular reasoning?
Science sometime or most of the time or always circular. It starts from nature and its findings are checked from nature. This circle moves on. In this sense it uses circular reasoning. Right? Please
Regards
Science sometime or most of the time or always circular. It starts from nature and its findings are checked from nature. This circle moves on. In this sense it uses circular reasoning. Right? Please
Regards
McBell
Unbound
Drawing the scientific method in a circle doesn't make it circular reasoning. Care to share how observation and testing is circular reasoning.
No, not really.
Speaking strictly in logical terms, the sciences start from the principle of intersubjective verifiability.
The notion they start (logically speaking) from nature is misguided, for the logical reason that nature becomes a subject of scientific study is because nature can be reliably intersubjectively verified. If the gods could be reliably intersubjectively verified, they too would be subjects of scientific inquiry.
Consequently, to say "the sciences start from nature" is wrong in the sense that it's not the logical origin of the sciences (albeit it might be the historical origin of the sciences). The sciences, in a logical sense, start from the principle of intersubjective verifiability, not nature.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
An oblate spheroid actually.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
I wonder if he is willing and able to to supply something else on which we should base science on.
Let's see:
Science = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Circular reasoning = a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion.
It's not entirely clear where the original poster is trying to go with this. I think there can be some confusion between these two uses of the word Science:
1) Science as a mental technique, a set of tools used to attempt to classify or give logical structure that which is being observed. We all do it naturally--try to make sense of the world. Whether you believe there is a "physical" world or if you think it's all subjective and internal hardly matters. Science in this regard (in the way scientiests themselves think of it) is just taking the collective striving of many people over a long time and trying to distill the techniques that seemed to do best at structuring the observed phenomena.
2) Some people tend to think of Science as just another religion (set of beliefs), even if they wouldn't state it in such terms themselves. For example, evolution, gravity, structure of the cosmos, etc, are beliefs to be accepted or rejected, just like the beliefs in their own religion.
But science is a kind of training. It structures the mind. It's true that after this training, the mind is more inclined to believe some kinds of things not other kinds of things. It might, for example, balk at the idea of the universe being created in 6 days. It might subsequently ask, 6 of what kind of days? How long was each day? This is just an example of what Science, defined as the training or technique, might prompt a mind to ask. So it's not entirely unfair to see Science as a bucket full of beliefs. Which is probably how a scientist defines a religion.
Since most religions don't do the best job of organizing their beliefs, formally defining terms and concepts, or scrutinizing the origins of those beliefs, it would be natural for a religious person to not understand why science is ALSO a technique, and NOT just a bag full of beliefs. And scientists themselves usually don't buy 100% into any of the prevailing theories. In fact, I would venture to guess that an academic researcher actually hopes the prevailing belief is inaccurate in some way, thus opening the door for them to discover a different belief that is more consistent with observed phenomena (and thereby acquiring fame / accolades for themselves).
Now, I am going to take a guess at the original poster's purpose in writing about circular reasoning. And this is just my personal opinion. When you examine any of the dominant beliefs held by the scientific community, you see that knowledge is kind of like a building or structure, built upon more and more fundamental building blocks of knowledge or theorems. At some point, those ideas bottom out at a piece of fundamental observation that is neither provable nor easily deconstructed.
For example, let's examine the idea that heat is really thermo-kinetic energy. It's been redefined as the degree of movement of molecules comprising a substance. This definition / understanding helps us invent devices that manipulate heat or cold, like refrigerators, air conditioners, heaters, etc.
However, we could easily imagine a naive conversation:
Q: What are molecules?
A: Molecules are composed of atoms.
Q: What are atoms?
A: Atoms are made up of subatomic-particles.
...
This is what I think the original poster was hinting at, or at least how I choose to interpret it. At some point, we reach the edge of what we can easily describe, the envelope of our shared collective knowledge as a scientific community.
But that's not exactly circular reasoning, is it? At least, it's not the term I would have chosen for the idea that our scientific knowledge is built out of smaller pieces until a piece is irreducible or is itself unsupported. A better examples of circular logic might be:
"It is not raining today because no water is falling from the sky."
This is circular because the premise offers nothing really distinct from the conclusion. It's really just re-stating the conclusion.
Somewhat better might be:
"It is not raining today because there are no clouds in the sky."
This is not circular reasoning because it implies a causal relationship between clouds and rain. If we were to delve further into our collective knowledge about clouds and rain, we'd eventually come up against the wall (or edge) of our knowledge I defined earlier.
I'm going to really guess now. I obviously don't know the mind of the original poster (OP from now on). It's almost as if the OP recognizes, at least sub-consciously, the central problem with the world's major religious: they contain a lot of contradictory beliefs. Or at least, beliefs that are not supported by satisfying explanation or further clarification. It's almost like a sort of half-hearted counter-attack to say, "Science is based upon circular reasoning." If you knew the proper definitions for these terms, you'd realize the science practically demands that anything worth writing down must provide something information by way of improved explanatory power or greater consistency among existing well-established observations. Science was a technique that was developed over the ages specifically to counteract the human tendency to answer the question "Why" with "that's just the way it is."
I'm going to leave off with just this one last comment. The educated mind realizes that Science and Religion are not at odds. Science is a technique that tries to make sense of the this experience we call life. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Experience and observation leads most of us to eventually form beliefs. Therefore, science is merely a tool by which one can help oneself choose between competing beliefs, or reject entire subsets of beliefs entirely. These two concepts, Science and Religion, are only ever at odds inside of the lazy mind. Put even more simply, science can help you choose a specific religion, or no religion at all (although everyone believes something, whether it's an established religion or just lazy pop-culture philosophy.)
TLDR: Science is NOT based upon circular reasoning, practically by definition. And science and religion are not opposed, except in the lazy mind.
EDIT: yes, I know that science defines cold as an absence of heat. I specifically wrote it that way to demonstrate how classifying phenomena helps us organize things in our mind in such a way that leads to practical application--like a refrigerator.
Science = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Circular reasoning = a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion.
It's not entirely clear where the original poster is trying to go with this. I think there can be some confusion between these two uses of the word Science:
1) Science as a mental technique, a set of tools used to attempt to classify or give logical structure that which is being observed. We all do it naturally--try to make sense of the world. Whether you believe there is a "physical" world or if you think it's all subjective and internal hardly matters. Science in this regard (in the way scientiests themselves think of it) is just taking the collective striving of many people over a long time and trying to distill the techniques that seemed to do best at structuring the observed phenomena.
2) Some people tend to think of Science as just another religion (set of beliefs), even if they wouldn't state it in such terms themselves. For example, evolution, gravity, structure of the cosmos, etc, are beliefs to be accepted or rejected, just like the beliefs in their own religion.
But science is a kind of training. It structures the mind. It's true that after this training, the mind is more inclined to believe some kinds of things not other kinds of things. It might, for example, balk at the idea of the universe being created in 6 days. It might subsequently ask, 6 of what kind of days? How long was each day? This is just an example of what Science, defined as the training or technique, might prompt a mind to ask. So it's not entirely unfair to see Science as a bucket full of beliefs. Which is probably how a scientist defines a religion.
Since most religions don't do the best job of organizing their beliefs, formally defining terms and concepts, or scrutinizing the origins of those beliefs, it would be natural for a religious person to not understand why science is ALSO a technique, and NOT just a bag full of beliefs. And scientists themselves usually don't buy 100% into any of the prevailing theories. In fact, I would venture to guess that an academic researcher actually hopes the prevailing belief is inaccurate in some way, thus opening the door for them to discover a different belief that is more consistent with observed phenomena (and thereby acquiring fame / accolades for themselves).
Now, I am going to take a guess at the original poster's purpose in writing about circular reasoning. And this is just my personal opinion. When you examine any of the dominant beliefs held by the scientific community, you see that knowledge is kind of like a building or structure, built upon more and more fundamental building blocks of knowledge or theorems. At some point, those ideas bottom out at a piece of fundamental observation that is neither provable nor easily deconstructed.
For example, let's examine the idea that heat is really thermo-kinetic energy. It's been redefined as the degree of movement of molecules comprising a substance. This definition / understanding helps us invent devices that manipulate heat or cold, like refrigerators, air conditioners, heaters, etc.
However, we could easily imagine a naive conversation:
Q: What are molecules?
A: Molecules are composed of atoms.
Q: What are atoms?
A: Atoms are made up of subatomic-particles.
...
This is what I think the original poster was hinting at, or at least how I choose to interpret it. At some point, we reach the edge of what we can easily describe, the envelope of our shared collective knowledge as a scientific community.
But that's not exactly circular reasoning, is it? At least, it's not the term I would have chosen for the idea that our scientific knowledge is built out of smaller pieces until a piece is irreducible or is itself unsupported. A better examples of circular logic might be:
"It is not raining today because no water is falling from the sky."
This is circular because the premise offers nothing really distinct from the conclusion. It's really just re-stating the conclusion.
Somewhat better might be:
"It is not raining today because there are no clouds in the sky."
This is not circular reasoning because it implies a causal relationship between clouds and rain. If we were to delve further into our collective knowledge about clouds and rain, we'd eventually come up against the wall (or edge) of our knowledge I defined earlier.
I'm going to really guess now. I obviously don't know the mind of the original poster (OP from now on). It's almost as if the OP recognizes, at least sub-consciously, the central problem with the world's major religious: they contain a lot of contradictory beliefs. Or at least, beliefs that are not supported by satisfying explanation or further clarification. It's almost like a sort of half-hearted counter-attack to say, "Science is based upon circular reasoning." If you knew the proper definitions for these terms, you'd realize the science practically demands that anything worth writing down must provide something information by way of improved explanatory power or greater consistency among existing well-established observations. Science was a technique that was developed over the ages specifically to counteract the human tendency to answer the question "Why" with "that's just the way it is."
I'm going to leave off with just this one last comment. The educated mind realizes that Science and Religion are not at odds. Science is a technique that tries to make sense of the this experience we call life. Religion is a collection of beliefs. Experience and observation leads most of us to eventually form beliefs. Therefore, science is merely a tool by which one can help oneself choose between competing beliefs, or reject entire subsets of beliefs entirely. These two concepts, Science and Religion, are only ever at odds inside of the lazy mind. Put even more simply, science can help you choose a specific religion, or no religion at all (although everyone believes something, whether it's an established religion or just lazy pop-culture philosophy.)
TLDR: Science is NOT based upon circular reasoning, practically by definition. And science and religion are not opposed, except in the lazy mind.
EDIT: yes, I know that science defines cold as an absence of heat. I specifically wrote it that way to demonstrate how classifying phenomena helps us organize things in our mind in such a way that leads to practical application--like a refrigerator.
Last edited: