To clarify my point: The scientific method works. No disagreement here. The only thing I want to point is that since x cannot be used to support x, so the scientific method cannot be used to support the scientific method. To keep it simple, the scientific method is verification by empirical evidence. Those success stories you mention are all forms of empirical evidence. Therefore those success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.But then the methodologies are sort of self-verifying because of successful models. The success stories are the evidence. Otherwise the methodologies (and science) would have been thrown out. — jorndoe
I think the link got taken off by the moderators haha. But you can search for the following video title on YouTube:Where’s that video btw? — Ansiktsburk
I agree, and that's because there is empirical evidence that it works. I'll wait and see where you are going with this, but I worry we will run into circular reasoning again — A Christian Philosophy
Yes. I should have clarified that the list in the OP is not exhaustive - just examples.On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. — Alkis Piskas
The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes — jorndoe
This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer.On the other hand, we can talk --and this is quite interesting and promising-- about how science can and is already used in philosophy. (Not the other way around.) — Alkis Piskas
Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work?This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer. — Yohan
At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work.Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work? — Alkis Piskas
Yes. Those thought-experiment tools (logic, etc) are used to extract general or universal meaning from personal & local experience. As a matter of fact, theoretical & mathematical physicists (e.g. Einstein & Tegmark) are actually doing philosophy, leaving the messy hands-on mechanic-work to others*1. Ironically, some believers in Scientism act as-if the reductive & empirical methods of modern Science, have eliminated the need for the ancient holistic & intuitive methods of Philosophy. Which also provided the illuminating metaphors that inform the various worldviews of Religion (e.g. Plato's LOGOS vs John's Logos).You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning). — A Christian Philosophy
I see what you mean and your approach to the subject.At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work. — Yohan
Right. As a programmer, I don't see my work as just coding and creating programs, but mainly about finding solutions.This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation. — Yohan
This can happen with mathematicians too, that are so used to observing the mathematical side of things, that they think everything can be reduced to math equation. — Yohan
Do you have something to support this claim? Also, what is abstract about the argument in the video?You also don't seem to understand that it works best when dealing with concrete subjects. It is less reliable when dealing with in the abstract. — ThinkOfOne
Given the condition that all claims come from the same source and were derived in a similar way (e.g., divine revelation, fortune-telling, etc.), then I am buying. For the same reasons as before: Given that all the verifiable claims are verified to be true, it is reasonable to infer that the source or method is reliable. Note that this is similar to the other discussion occurring in this thread: The scientific method is reliable because it can predict outcomes accurately.Some years ago, a friend of mine used a similar argument for reincarnation: The verifiable claims of Buddhism are true, therefore it is reasonable to believe that reincarnation is true. Are you buying? Why or why not? — ThinkOfOne
ll try, but I admit I am running out of ways to explain myself.
I've numbered the propositions below so it is easier to refer to them.
1. x cannot be used to support x. This is circular reasoning.
2. The scientific method is, simply put, verification by empirical evidence.
3. All success stories resulting from the scientific method are types of empirical evidence.
4. Therefore, these success stories cannot be used to support the scientific method.
To be extra clear: The scientific method is a correct method. It is not inherently circular. What is circular is to attempt to defend the scientific method by appealing to the scientific method. To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic. — A Christian Philosophy
If I understand you correctly, you make a distinct between proof and support; i.e., observations do not prove theories but support the best theory that fit them? In which case, circularity remains: x cannot be used to support or defend x. Any empirical evidence cannot be used to defend the scientific method (whose claim is that empirical evidence can be used to defend a claim).Observations don't prove a scientific theory — Agent Smith
Thanks! And I'll read up on that Plantinga fella.I think you've explained it pretty well. Alvin Plantinga would be proud of you. You've famed a formation argument for reformed epistemology in an accessible way. — Tom Storm
I don't believe so - I have never heard the term until now haha. Just looking for principles and trying to avoid circularity when possible.Are you a presuppositionalist? — Tom Storm
Sure. So the order is: (1) make observations; (2) conceive an explanation that best fits the data; (3) Validate the explanation by making predictions and verify with further data. The third step is the verification by empirical evidence and is essential to the scientific method — A Christian Philosophy
Yep, I agree with that. Verification by falsification does not make explanations certain but makes them the most reasonable. To add my 2 cents - these principles of "novacula occami (simplicity) & beauty & elegance" are founded on the more fundamental principle of Sufficient Reason. I describe that principle in my video Part #4, if interested.I tagged you in another thread where I said that explanatory theories can be assumed true until falsified. A subtle difference but an important one in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith
I think I could keep going, but I'm not sure it is worthwhile. How about we leave it here? Sounds like we are almost in agreement anyways haha.The 3rd step however doesn't prove the explanation (2) is true (re abduction aka argument to the best explanation) and so circularity is N/A. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.