Whither Goest Thou, O Science!

[IndigoChild5559]

You'll find a whole load of scientists and philosophers of science who would disagree with you on that point.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend.

I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.

What a crock. The teacher was right. Students need to learn what scientific method is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I googled "Scientific Methods":

What are the 5 Scientific methods?
What are the 6 scientific methods in order?
What are the 8 scientific methods?
What are the 3 types of scientific methods?

The Different Types of Scientific Methods:

· Analytic-Synthetic Method. The analytic-synthetic methods refers to the analysis and synthesis processes. ...
· The Inductive-Deductive Method. ...
· Hypothetico-Deductive Method. ...
· Historical-Logical Method. ...
· The Genetic Method. ...
· An Analogy and Analogical Method. ...
· Modeling Method. ...
· The Systemic-Functional Method.

Right friend, please?

Regard

And all of them are based on the basic outline that I gave you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps it would be best to take a more poetic approach. Let's imagine that what we know and understand about the world is a figurative jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle has no boundary or straight edge pieces, so we can't just start with those to give us the scope and breadth of the figurative picture of reality. From the moment we are born, we begin to observe the world and start to put the pieces together. The picture we piece together of reality as we grow into adulthood is pretty much the same as everyone else on the macro-environmental level. When we compare the completed portions of our figurative puzzle pictures that we create from the biological senses we are born with, we are in consistent agreement about the objects we see in our environment, the effect of gravity, visible light, and temperature., etc. But this incomplete picture puzzle does not tell us how all this began or why. That information is scattered among all the pieces yet to be placed in the puzzle. And worse still, new pieces are only revealed gradually as we build our picture of reality outward.

Unfortunately, we human beings are not patient and get quite uncomfortable not knowing how the full puzzle picture of reality is going to turn out. So we begin to speculate, guess, and imagine what the full picture will be. Our long history of religious belief, starting with our animistic Paleolithic ancestors, are humanities guesses as to the complete picture. We human beings then, begin to live our lives based on the guesses and stop trying to actually complete the puzzle. Unfortunately, there are those who keep diligently working on the puzzle. As the picture continues to grow and become clear, some of religion's guesses do not fit with the actual picture. This causes conflicts between those who were happy with their religious assumptions of the complete picture, and those who are still working on the puzzle. As we look throughout history, as the completed picture of reality continues to grow, more and more religious ideas no longer fit or represent the direction in which the picture is developing. In this figurative analogy, scientists are those who are diligently working on the puzzle, specializing on a particular section depending on their discipline. They step back periodically to ensure what they are working on fits with the whole. There are others who just look over the shoulders of all those working on the puzzle to make sure everything is fitting properly and making a coherent picture.

This is how we build the picture of reality. We can speculate and imagine what the full picture will be, but we cannot be bound or dependent on that speculation. As the picture grows we must be willing to readily abandon those ideas and imaginings that no long fit or clearly represent the actual picture.

Scientific inquiry is what allows us to complete the puzzle.

Sorry, I disagree with the contents of one's post.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?

It's not clear what you are asking. What is your definition of the word "science". What does that word mean to you?

Friend @MikeF !
Please feel free to read definition of Science as I understand it vide post #76 for the purposes of this discussion:
"My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?"
Can one now reflect on whether "Scientific Method" is approved/evidenced by the "Scientific Method" itself or it has not been approved/evidenced by it, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

MikeF ↑
It's not clear what you are asking. What is your definition of the word "science". What does that word mean to you?
Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?

Friend @MikeF !

Paarsurrey wrote:

Please feel free to read definition of Science as I understand it vide post #76 for the purposes of this discussion:
"My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?"
Can one now reflect on whether "Scientific Method" is approved/evidenced by the "Scientific Method" itself or it has not been approved/evidenced by it, please. Right, please?

Anybody, please.

Regards

 

[MikeF]

MikeF ↑
It's not clear what you are asking. What is your definition of the word "science". What does that word mean to you?
Did Science approve these Methods, please? If yes, which natural discipline of Science did approve it and on what basis, please? Please quote in this connection, please?

Friend @MikeF !

Paarsurrey wrote:

Please feel free to read definition of Science as I understand it vide post #76 for the purposes of this discussion:
"My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?"
Can one now reflect on whether "Scientific Method" is approved/evidenced by the "Scientific Method" itself or it has not been approved/evidenced by it, please. Right, please?

Anybody, please.

Regards

I am not sure how best to answer your question. You seem to be asking how are scientific findings verified as being true or accurate. To start, I would say you need to forget about "Scientific Method". The question is how do we really know anything that we know. It is not just about the hard sciences. How do we verify any conclusion or observation we make, or anyone else makes? We do this by comparing many observations, by many people, over time. However, the conclusions we are able to draw are only as good as the amount of data we have on a question, and the quality of analysis performed on that data. Without sufficient information, we cannot make accurate or valid conclusions.

Let me give you an historical example. Aristotle attempted to explain the stratification of earth, water, and air by saying that objects move toward their natural place. Things of the earth move towards the earth and so forth. He further stipulated that objects that move toward earth do so at a rate proportional to their weight. That is, a heavier object will move faster than a lighter object. This idea held sway for 2,000 years. However, Aristotle did not consider all of the variables involved when an object is falling through the air. He did not account for the effect of friction, or resistance exerted by the air molecules that the objects were falling through. It was not until Galileo devised an experiment in which he rolled different weighted balls down long tracks to show that the objects of different weight accelerated at the same rate while "falling to earth". Galileo was able to control for the effect of friction and draw a more accurate conclusion on the rate at which objects fall. The Law of Gravity would not be theorized until Sir Isaac Newton connected the similarities to motion experiments done on earth with the observations of the movements of celestial bodies.

And how do we know Galileo was right? Because anyone can repeat his experiment and see for themselves. And this is how the puzzle pieces are put together. Someone makes an observation that does not fit with our expectations or assumptions, and then everyone is free to try and repeat the observation, or prove that it is not repeatable. Once Galileo's idea of motion was accepted, Newton was able to make another observation, to complete another piece of the puzzle. and everyone was free to verify his observation.

This is the process that allows us to build understanding of the world around us. The more observations we make, the more information, or data, we have to make sound conclusion. When we learn something new, we have to rethink or reanalyze our previous conclusions to make sure they still hold true.

If you are interested, I would strongly encourage you to find a good book on the history of science. Perhaps getting a good overview of how the pieces of our knowledge have been put together, as well as the mistakes and false starts, will give you more confidence in scientific discovery, as well as an appreciation of when things are still beyond our understanding because we do not have enough information to draw a conclusion. The trap to avoid is the desire to give the unknown an explanation without sufficient evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a tool, whether there is "progress" or "regress" is not within its remit; so science is not "taking" us anywhere. There is no fate to it. We can develop antibiotics AND we can develop weapons of war.

We are ordinary persons, the countries are ruled by politicians who decide on their own for us, they don't act on the advice of ethically. morally and spiritually strong scientists/economists/engineers etc. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey wrote:
#76 for the purposes of this discussion:
"My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?"
Can one now reflect on whether "Scientific Method" is approved/evidenced by the "Scientific Method" itself or it has not been approved/evidenced by it, please. Right, please?

I am not sure how best to answer your question. You seem to be asking how are scientific findings verified as being true or accurate. To start, I would say you need to forget about "Scientific Method". The question is how do we really know anything that we know. It is not just about the hard sciences. How do we verify any conclusion or observation we make, or anyone else makes? We do this by comparing many observations, by many people, over time. However, the conclusions we are able to draw are only as good as the amount of data we have on a question, and the quality of analysis performed on that data. Without sufficient information, we cannot make accurate or valid conclusions.

Let me give you an historical example. Aristotle attempted to explain the stratification of earth, water, and air by saying that objects move toward their natural place. Things of the earth move towards the earth and so forth. He further stipulated that objects that move toward earth do so at a rate proportional to their weight. That is, a heavier object will move faster than a lighter object. This idea held sway for 2,000 years. However, Aristotle did not consider all of the variables involved when an object is falling through the air. He did not account for the effect of friction, or resistance exerted by the air molecules that the objects were falling through. It was not until Galileo devised an experiment in which he rolled different weighted balls down long tracks to show that the objects of different weight accelerated at the same rate while "falling to earth". Galileo was able to control for the effect of friction and draw a more accurate conclusion on the rate at which objects fall. The Law of Gravity would not be theorized until Sir Isaac Newton connected the similarities to motion experiments done on earth with the observations of the movements of celestial bodies.

And how do we know Galileo was right? Because anyone can repeat his experiment and see for themselves. And this is how the puzzle pieces are put together. Someone makes an observation that does not fit with our expectations or assumptions, and then everyone is free to try and repeat the observation, or prove that it is not repeatable. Once Galileo's idea of motion was accepted, Newton was able to make another observation, to complete another piece of the puzzle. and everyone was free to verify his observation.

This is the process that allows us to build understanding of the world around us. The more observations we make, the more information, or data, we have to make sound conclusion. When we learn something new, we have to rethink or reanalyze our previous conclusions to make sure they still hold true.

If you are interested, I would strongly encourage you to find a good book on the history of science. Perhaps getting a good overview of how the pieces of our knowledge have been put together, as well as the mistakes and false starts, will give you more confidence in scientific discovery, as well as an appreciation of when things are still beyond our understanding because we do not have enough information to draw a conclusion. The trap to avoid is the desire to give the unknown an explanation without sufficient evidence.

In other words, does one acknowledge here that though Science has done wonders for us humans (notwithstanding the arsenal/nuclear weapons it has produced to eliminate) nevertheless "Scientific Method" has never ever gone through the mill of the "Scientific Method" exactly, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[MikeF]

Paarsurrey wrote:
#76 for the purposes of this discussion:
"My understanding of science is here that which has gone through the mill of the Scientific Method. Right friend, please?"
Can one now reflect on whether "Scientific Method" is approved/evidenced by the "Scientific Method" itself or it has not been approved/evidenced by it, please. Right, please?


In other words, does one acknowledge here that though Science has done wonders for us humans (notwithstanding the arsenal/nuclear weapons it has produced to eliminate) nevertheless "Scientific Method" has never ever gone through the mill of the "Scientific Method" exactly, please?
Right, please?

Regards

I'm sorry, but no. All I can say is your question indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how we know what we know. There is no one "Scientific Method". Methods used to investigate phenomena are varied and specific to the question being investigated. Scientific conclusions "go through the mill" of repeating experiments and skeptical peer reviewed analysis. Any scientific conclusion can be challenged and reevaluated at any time, by anyone. That is the beauty of science. We can continually adjust and revise our understanding of the world as we continue to solve pieces of the puzzle we call reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm sorry, but no. All I can say is your question indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how we know what we know. There is no one "Scientific Method". Methods used to investigate phenomena are varied and specific to the question being investigated. Scientific conclusions "go through the mill" of repeating experiments and skeptical peer reviewed analysis. Any scientific conclusion can be challenged and reevaluated at any time, by anyone. That is the beauty of science. We can continually adjust and revise our understanding of the world as we continue to solve pieces of the puzzle we call reality.

" There is no one "Scientific Method". Methods used to investigate phenomena are varied and specific to the question being investigated."

I understand one's point as one mentioned in one of one's earlier post that there are Scientific Methods but others said that all those methods could be sort of reduced to one Method. Right friend, please?

So, no "Scientific Method" has gone under the mill of "Scientific Method" itself.
I ask another question that will explain it further, I understand:

Has "Atheism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?
If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[MikeF]

" There is no one "Scientific Method". Methods used to investigate phenomena are varied and specific to the question being investigated."
I understand one's point as one mentioned in one of one's earlier post that there are Scientific Methods but others said that all those methods could be sort of reduced to one Method. Right friend, please?
So, no "Scientific Method" has gone under the mill of "Scientific Method" itself.

I ask another question that will explain it further, I understand:

Has "Atheism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?

If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.

Right friend, please?
Regards

As I have said, it is not methods that you are looking for, it is scientific principles and standards. Forget about "The Scientific Method". Think instead about how the scientific community ensures the integrity and reliability of any conclusions that are drawn from all the available data.

Instead of me explaining it, I am going to provide you this link:

https://www.nap.edu/read/1864/chapter/4

And this excerpt from the above link:

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence.

Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given observed phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.

An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.

A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts.

Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.

Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence.

In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.

Science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted.
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council(1984), pp. 8-11.

Citation: "SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1864.



As for Atheism, I still see a lack of fundamental understanding. Atheism is not a positive belief statement. In other words, it does not express a belief in something. All one is saying when they apply the label Atheist to themselves, is that of all the thousands of theistic belief systems and religious practices, currently and throughout human history, none hold true under logical scrutiny or agree with common sense. And anyone, including you, can evaluate their reasoning using scientific principles and standards and make your own determination as to whether they are justified in their rejection of all religious assertions, both past and present. It is as simple as that.

I hope you find this information useful.

 

[paarsurrey]

As I have said, it is not methods that you are looking for, it is scientific principles and standards. Forget about "The Scientific Method". Think instead about how the scientific community ensures the integrity and reliability of any conclusions that are drawn from all the available data.

Instead of me explaining it, I am going to provide you this link:

https://www.nap.edu/read/1864/chapter/4

And this excerpt from the above link:

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence.

Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given observed phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.

An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.

A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts.

Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.

Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence.

In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.

Science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted.
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council(1984), pp. 8-11.

Citation: "SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1864.



As for Atheism, I still see a lack of fundamental understanding. Atheism is not a positive belief statement. In other words, it does not express a belief in something. All one is saying when they apply the label Atheist to themselves, is that of all the thousands of theistic belief systems and religious practices, currently and throughout human history, none hold true under logical scrutiny or agree with common sense. And anyone, including you, can evaluate their reasoning using scientific principles and standards and make your own determination as to whether they are justified in their rejection of all religious assertions, both past and present. It is as simple as that.

I hope you find this information useful.

MikeF wrote," Forget about "The Scientific Method"."

Let one change the model with Agnosticism and observe the result:

Has "Agnosticism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?
If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[MikeF]

MikeF wrote," Forget about "The Scientific Method"."

Let one change the model with Agnosticism and observe the result:

Has "Agnosticism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?
If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.
Right friend, please?

Regards

Agnosticism is the same thing as Atheism. All one is saying when they apply the label Agnostic to themselves, is that of all the thousands of theistic belief systems and religious practices, currently and throughout human history, none hold true under logical scrutiny or agree with common sense. And anyone, including you, can evaluate their reasoning using scientific principles and standards and make your own determination as to whether they are justified in their rejection of all religious assertions, both past and present. By using the term Agnostic, one is expressly acknowledging that it is a logical fallacy, an Argument from Ignorance, to say gods are impossible. But Atheists and Agnostics are in full agreement as to the credibility of current theistic belief, and that with our current knowledge it is a fallacy to claim the existence of gods.

And I see you are not going to set your "Scientific Method" phrasing aside.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sunstone said: ↑
Just imagine science yoked to an Orwellian state and making possible unimaginably effective technologies of oppression!

I'm not sure we need to imagine that.

I disagree with one. Now we have seen that one of the biggest democracies of the world has been headed by a person who is/was a most unpredictable person. Right, please?

Regards

 

[sayak83]

So far as I've been told, we mostly owe the Victorians for the notion that society, in alliance with the sciences, is fated to evolve or progress towards a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.

Now, it is sometimes said that the Victorians were merely borrowing their notion of progress from Christianity. Specifically, the Christian idea that the world is evolving or progressing towards a post-Apocalyptic Golden Age of humanity. However, mythologist such as Mircea Eliade and others have long pointed out that the notion humanity is progressing towards a Golden Age is quite widespread, usually has nothing to do with Christianity, and apparently dates back to time immemorial.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that the concept of progress is deeply rooted in us -- encoded somehow in our DNA. Perhaps my main reason for thinking progress is an inherent concept is because it is a key and essential component of narratives, and narratives are ubiquitous to humans. That is, we are a story-telling animal. Everywhere on earth, regardless of the local culture and customs, we are a story-telling animal. How best to explain that fact than to at least suspect story-telling is rooted in our genes?

Yet, if story-telling or narrative is rooted in our genes, then so is -- in one form or another -- the concept of progress, for without some kind of progression, there is no such thing as a story. All you would have are a string of facts or events.

Hence, when we speak of 'the Victorian Concept of Progress', we must be careful to understand that the Victorians did not actually invent the notion of progress, nor did the Christians before them, but rather, they cast or shaped the concept in a more or less uniquely Victorian way by (1) conceiving of science as force driving progress and (2) by conceiving of the outcome of progress as a future characterized by (among other things) rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing.

Now, it does not take a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to know what's 'iffy' about the Victorian notion. Namely science -- and those things associated with science (e.g. rationality) -- do not necessitate, do not guarantee a future of rationality, human well-being, happiness, and human flourishing. Indeed, they seem capable of leading to quite the opposite! Just imagine science yoked to an Orwellian state and making possible unimaginably effective technologies of oppression! Such is actually within the realm of possibility.

But here's the tricky part: Some people appear to have simply flipped the coin. Instead of saying science guarantees a rosy future, they say science guarantees a nightmare future.

So, is there any more merit to the later view than there is to the former? Or, more to the point: Whither is science taking us? And is it somehow fated to take us there?

Science is primarily funded by nation states and corporations, so it goes where their interests lie.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is a tool, whether there is "progress" or "regress" is not within its remit; so science is not "taking" us anywhere. There is no fate to it. We can develop antibiotics AND we can develop weapons of war.

The tool of Science must be used, I understand, under the guidance of the "Religious Method" which deals the human, ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of life ,please. Right friends, please?

Regards

 

[ppp]

The tool of Science must be used, I understand, under the guidance of the "Religious Method" which deals the human, ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of life ,please. Right friends, please?

Regards

Religions may attempt to deal with human ethical and moral aspects of life, yet they are notoriously unethical and immoral in their doctrines and their dealings. So even if science were not a tool for such dealings, religions would still be inadequate for the job.

 

[paarsurrey]

As I have said, it is not methods that you are looking for, it is scientific principles and standards. Forget about "The Scientific Method". Think instead about how the scientific community ensures the integrity and reliability of any conclusions that are drawn from all the available data.

Instead of me explaining it, I am going to provide you this link:

https://www.nap.edu/read/1864/chapter/4

And this excerpt from the above link:

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
In broadest terms, scientists seek a systematic organization of knowledge about the universe and its parts. This knowledge is based on explanatory principles whose verifiable consequences can be tested by independent observers. Science encompasses a large body of evidence collected by repeated observations and experiments. Although its goal is to approach true explanations as closely as possible, its investigators claim no final or permanent explanatory truths. Science changes. It evolves. Verifiable facts always take precedence.

Scientists operate within a system designed for continuous testing, where corrections and new findings are announced in refereed scientific publications. The task of systematizing and extending the understanding of the universe is advanced by eliminating disproved ideas and by formulating new tests of others until one emerges as the most probable explanation for any given observed phenomenon. This is called the scientific method.

An idea that has not yet been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence. Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science, if no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis—one that is not fruitful; such hypotheses fail to stimulate research and are unlikely to advance scientific knowledge.

A fruitful hypothesis may develop into a theory after substantial observational or experimental support has accumulated. When a hypothesis has survived repeated opportunities for disproof and when competing hypotheses have been eliminated as a result of failure to produce the predicted consequences, that hypothesis may become the accepted theory explaining the original facts.

Scientific theories are also predictive. They allow us to anticipate yet unknown phenomena and thus to focus research on more narrowly defined areas. If the results of testing agree with predictions from a theory, the theory is provisionally corroborated. If not, it is proved false and must be either abandoned or modified to account for the inconsistency.

Scientific theories, therefore, are accepted only provisionally. It is always possible that a theory that has withstood previous testing may eventually be disproved. But as theories survive more tests, they are regarded with higher levels of confidence.

In science, then, facts are determined by observation or measurement of natural or experimental phenomena. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of those facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has gained wide acceptance because it has survived rigorous investigation of its predictions.

Science accommodates, indeed welcomes, new discoveries: its theories change and its activities broaden as new facts come to light or new potentials are recognized. Examples of events changing scientific thought are legion. Truly scientific understanding cannot be attained or even pursued effectively when explanations not derived from or tested by the scientific method are accepted.
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council(1984), pp. 8-11.

Citation: "SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND RESEARCH PRACTICES." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1992. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1864.



As for Atheism, I still see a lack of fundamental understanding. Atheism is not a positive belief statement. In other words, it does not express a belief in something. All one is saying when they apply the label Atheist to themselves, is that of all the thousands of theistic belief systems and religious practices, currently and throughout human history, none hold true under logical scrutiny or agree with common sense. And anyone, including you, can evaluate their reasoning using scientific principles and standards and make your own determination as to whether they are justified in their rejection of all religious assertions, both past and present. It is as simple as that.

I hope you find this information useful.

MikeF wrote," Forget about "The Scientific Method"."

Kindly don't shout as one's using large font indicates, it doesn't make one's argument strong, please. Right friend, please?

Let one change the model with "Skepticism"* and observe the result:

Has "Skepticism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?
If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
*Buddha spoke vehemently against Skepticism agnosticism

 

[MikeF]

MikeF wrote," Forget about "The Scientific Method"."

Kindly don't shout as one's using large font indicates, it doesn't make one's argument strong, please. Right friend, please?

Let one change the model with "Skepticism"* and observe the result:

Has "Skepticism" been put to the mill of "Scientific Method", please?
If yes, please indicate the discipline of science that took it up, please.
Right friend, please?

Regards
_____________
*Buddha spoke vehemently against Skepticism agnosticism

My sincerest apologies on the large font. It is never my intention to shout. I am a newbee when it comes to posting in forums. I was trying to provide contrast between my words and what I was quoting. I shall endeavor to do better in the future.

As to your question, I earnestly would like to avoid talking past each other. You have the word Skepticism in quotes. I would have to know how you specifically describe or define Skepticism before I can begin to give you an answer. You also have to explain what it means for something to be "put through the mill". And last, what does "Scientific Method" mean to you?

Once we are on common ground, have a common understanding of what is being discussed, then I can begin to tackle your question.

 

[paarsurrey]

Whither Goest Thou, O Science!

Science is on the right path if it remains positively in service of humanity. Right, please?

Regards