Still, I am interested more on the Philosophy of Science, I want to understand more the activity we call Science, why hypothesis like God's existence are not considered scientific. I do not feel confident to read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but, after all, what is actually science? — Jorge
Still, I am interested more on the Philosophy of Science, I want to understand more the activity we call Science, why hypothesis like God's existence are not considered scientific. I do not feel confident to read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but, after all, what is actually science? — Jorge
God's existence is considered not a scientific question, in the sense that the scientific method cannot reach it in order to justify an answer. — alcontali
I mentioned above how that idea is flawed. Any observation has to be interpreted in order to say whether it is evidence of something. — leo
Arbitrary observations cannot be used for the purpose of validating scientific theories. It is not possible to establish causality between input and output without strictly controlling input. — alcontali
Furthermore, other researchers must be able to repeat the experimental tests in order to verify the claim. That is why only observations in a laboratory setting may be used in such experimental test reports. — alcontali
Your views are far outside what is supported by the scientific method. — alcontali
How do you address my comment about subatomic particles, are you implying scientists strictly control subatomic particles? — leo
I don't agree there is such a thing as "the scientific method". — leo
Whatever method you have in mind, there are plenty of examples of scientists who didn't follow that method when they built their theory (yet their theories are considered to be 'scientific'), or there are plenty of examples of theories/practices that follow that method and yet are considered to be 'unscientific'. — leo
Can you link to any particular publication in order to clarify what it is about? — alcontali
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises. — alcontali
I'm saying that by the same criteria the existence of subatomic particles is not a scientific question, — leo
Great, a copy-paste from Wikipedia where some dude has written a definition for "the scientific method". — leo
With this definition of "the scientific method", you can very well consider the existence of God as a scientific question — leo
I say there is no such thing as "the scientific method" in the sense that it doesn't characterize what we call science, because it also characterizes some of what we call non-science. — leo
You're saying we can't observe God — leo
Chemistry makes extensive use of the subatomic structure of electrons, and atom nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons. It is ancient stuff that dates back to the 19th century. It is considered solid stuff at the chemical scale. — alcontali
The closer you get to the Planck scale, the less solid the theories, which are often merely conjectures. However, that does not mean that all subatomic theories are just fantasies that have never been tested experimentally. — alcontali
Propose an experiment that you will carry out and that other people will be able to repeat. If it is possible to do that, then the question is within reach of the scientific method. Otherwise, it isn't. For example, you cannot propose an experiment to figure out in a laboratory in what year Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo took place. That question is simply not within reach of the scientific method. — alcontali
If it can be tested experimentally, then it is science. Can you give an example of a theory that can be tested experimentally and that is not considered science? — alcontali
I did not say that. I just don't see what laboratory-based, experimental test would say anything worthwhile on the matter. — alcontali
the subatomic structure of electrons, and atom nucleus in terms of protons and neutrons — alcontali
Electrons have no subatomic structure in chemistry, they are already subatomic. — leo
Why do you keep talking about a laboratory, the whole universe is a laboratory, astrophysicists and cosmologists don't physically put planets and stars into a box here on Earth to study them, geologists do not put mountains into a laboratory to observe them, observations happen everywhere, they are an essential part of the so-called scientific method. — leo
people associate what is labeled 'unscientific' with fantasies — leo
Any act is an experiment, if you jump and you observe that you fall back to the ground that's an experiment. — leo
How would you figure out what year the battle of Waterloo took place if not through observations and hypotheses? — leo
You can have the theory that the position of planets in the sky has a specific influence on your life that depends on when you were born. You can test experimentally whether what you observe matches what the theory predicts. Is that theory considered science? — leo
Again, scientists decide what they should observe if dark matter exists, and then they carry out experiments to decide about the existence of dark matter. — leo
Then when they say that dark matter exists, that it really is out there — leo
To say that the existence of dark matter is a scientific question but not the existence of God is hypocritical. — leo
In his seminal publication, Science as Falsification, Karl Popper explicitly allows for predictive models in science — alcontali
You still need to write your experimental test report in such a way that another person can repeat your experiment and verify that he obtains the same results. Seriously, there is no experiment if you do not produce a reproducible experimental test report. — alcontali
Claims that historical events really took place are not justified by the scientific method, but by the historical method, which revolves around corroborating witness depositions. There is absolutely no expectation that a third party should be able to reproduce the same event/observation (like in the scientific method):
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
The justification and validation of historical witness reports are dealt with using a very specific, epistemic method: the historical method. I do not see how anybody could confuse this method with the scientific method, which is applied in other circumstances and has other requirements. — alcontali
No, because you must put the planets by yourself in a particular position and measure the quantified impact on your life. Next, someone else must put the planets by himself in a particular position and see if he gets another impact.
You first need to find a way to painstakingly move the planets in any arbitrary position of your choice, before scientific theories could be feasible. — alcontali
At this stage, dark matter is merely a conjecture. It is not a theory backed by experimental testing. — alcontali
No, it is just a hypothesis. It is something that they would like to test experimentally, but they haven't figured out how yet. — alcontali
What both questions have in common, is that you would need to design an experimental test setup in order to turn them into scientific theories. Since there is nothing to test, nor any test to repeat by someone else, in order to validate that they get the same results as in your test, there is no legitimate scientific activity possible in either realm. — alcontali
I don't agree with that, life is a continuous experiment, people didn't need to write reproducible experimental test reports to come up with tools that allowed them to hunt more easily or to start agriculture, they didn't need test reports to make experiments and create technology. — leo
in many cases the experiment doesn't get repeated and scientists assume that they would get the same result if they repeated it. — leo
Scientists are totally inconsistent in the way they label theories as 'scientific' or 'unscientific', they apply the rules they want when it suits them and not when it doesn't, they call 'scientific' the theories they want to keep and 'unscientific' the ones they want to eliminate. — leo
Scientists model the influence of the Moon and Sun on the tides here on Earth, in what way are they moving the Moon and the Sun? — leo
Why would a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on Earth tides be scientific, and not a theory that models the influence of celestial bodies on people's lives? — leo
Example from Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-dark-matter-theory-or/ — leo
But they don't say the theory is falsified, no no, they say it does exist and they need to make some other experiment to detect it. They could keep going like this forever, and still say it exists, and never falsify it, and still call it science. See the hypocrisy? — leo
But precisely they have designed experiments and performed them, look how many there are! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Experiments_for_dark_matter_search — leo
And again they could do the very same thing with God: say what we should observe in such or such experiment if God exists, and carry out the experiment. But they don't, because double standard, they want to believe in a material universe without God, so they frame their research and theories and reasonings in that way, and that way they're sure to always find matter and never God. — leo
That amounts to predictive modelling.
In some cases, I will accept it as serious, but in many cases, I will not. Again, the problem is that you can also do that kind of predictive modelling with the stock market. It is obvious that not all predictive modelling is unserious, but the safe approach is to refuse to grant it scientific status; a status which should be limited to experimental testing only. — alcontali
The one is serious predictive modelling with a real risk associated -- in terms of Karl Popper's article -- while the other is not. In my opinion, neither is science. I consider Karl Popper's definition for science, which includes predictive modelling, to be simply too permissive. — alcontali
I was going to read the article, until I saw its title: "Is dark matter theory or fact?"
Sorry. I am not reading that. Opposing "theory" (bad) to "fact" (good) can only be an exercise in stupidity. — alcontali
Give them time to design an experiment for their conjecture. In the meanwhile, their hypothesis should be considered to be merely an interesting research topic. — alcontali
I have had a look at the Axion Dark Matter Experiment.
The experiment (written as "eXperiment" in the project's documentation) is designed to detect the very weak conversion of dark matter axions into microwave photons in the presence of a strong magnetic field. If the hypothesis is correct, an apparatus consisting of an 8 tesla magnet and a cryogenically cooled high-Q tunable microwave cavity should stimulate the conversion of axions into photons.
The hypothesis is certainly interesting, and most likely an ambitious research topic, undoubtedly worth exploring, but none of the wording suggests that the experiment would be conclusive at this point. — alcontali
Would you want them to use something like an axion haloscope to that effect? The fact that they do not believe that searching for God with an axion haloscope is a suitable approach, does not necessarily mean that "they want to believe in a material universe without God". — alcontali
How do you differentiate predictive modelling from experimental testing? — leo
And how do you differentiate it from comparing observations with what some theory predicts? — leo
Yea I didn't say it was a good article, but it shows that scientists believe dark matter exists, they mostly don't treat it as a hypothesis. — leo
They don't treat it as a hypothesis but as something that exists. — leo
They have never detected it and still they say that it exists, that's the thing. — leo
They could equally assume that God exists and that he has such and such properties which would manifest in such and such ways. — leo
They are choosing to assume the existence of dark matter, not the existence of God, which to me is a sign that they believe in a material universe without God. — leo
In experimental testing, you must be able to strictly control the inputs:
outputs = theoretical_function ( inputs )
When you feed the inputs into the experiment, it will act like a function that maps it on the outputs. Good examples can be found in chemistry experiments.
sodium acetate = f ( vinegar, baking soda)
You strictly control the inputs, i.e. vinegar and baking soda, and then the experimental function will map them onto sodium acetate. Chemistry, with its formula system, allows for rigorously calculating input and output quantities along with energy absorbed or produced.
Without complete input control, you do not have a legitimate experiment, and therefore, you would not be doing science.
Predictive modelling does not require input control. We do not control the forces that generate the weather, but the weather forecast will still model and predict future weather reports. This is not science, because they are not in control of the inputs that go into the weather process in order to output any particular weather. It is merely predictive modelling. No matter how accurate the predictions may be, I do not wish to include it in the scientific method. — alcontali
If it is allowed in, the stock-market charlatans will call their predictions also science. — alcontali
They observe more gravitation in the universe than can be accounted for by the existing total quantity of matter (that they can observe). A lot of things could go wrong in this hypothesis, if only, the accounting of total quantity of matter.
So, now they are looking for something that they believe should cause the excess amount of gravitation that they observe, code-named "dark matter", which is something matter-like, because it causes gravity -- as the standard model believes that matter causes gravity -- but not matter itself, because that would be visible, which it isn't.
What is your problem with these people conducting experiments to figure out where the catch is? Let them try to figure it out, no? — alcontali
Abrahamic religions are adamant that God, creator of the universe, has no physical incarnation, and without which, observations are obviously pointless. Hence, whatever physical phenomenon anybody discovers anywhere, Abrahamic religion is adamant that it will not be a physical incarnation of God, because God is not a physical object or a physical being.
Scientific experiments are exclusively about physical inputs that produce physical outputs. How do you reconcile that with the rule that God does not have a physical incarnation? How could the scientific method ever be able to reach the answer to this question? — alcontali
Honestly I don't think this is a valid distinction. Here you are basically saying that fundamental physics isn't science. — leo
A theoretical function is a predictive model, and your example with sodium acetate is a predictive model too — leo
If the theory doesn't match observations, it's not that the theory is falsified, it's that there is invisible matter everywhere! — leo
If we can't find that matter after dozens of experiments and billions spent then we need to make more experiments! By their own criterion their theory is unscientific, yet they treat it as scientific. — leo
My problem then again, is when scientists say there is evidence of dark matter but not of God. — leo
I gave examples where scientists say that dark matter exists, you keep saying that they treat it as a hypothesis — leo
I explained why we can test predictive models — leo
I explained why experiments won't prove the existence of dark matter, even if they detect what they're trying to detect, you keep saying that they would. — leo
I explained that some people see evidence of God in life or in the universe, that they see evidence of divine creation in what they see, just like some other people see evidence of invisible matter in the motion of stars, you keep ignoring it. — leo
I explained that theories cannot be verified, even Popper said that, you keep implying that the "scientific method" can verify theories. — leo
You're not replying to what I said, you're replying to your own mistaken idea of what I said. — leo
The scientific method can possibly handle the issue of invisible matter -- not sure -- but it cannot handle evidence of God, simply because God has no physical incarnation — alcontali
1) it depends on the deity, some versions do interacti with or even encompass the physical. — Coben
Nearly all have effects on the physical. — Coben
since the physical now covers fields, massless particals, things in superpostion and potentially the rest of the multiverse, as some examples, theologians might say, oh, well, if you expand the physical to such things ... — Coben
it seems to me science sometimes deduces the presence of things that cannot be detected (now). The — Coben
Well, other religions may have physical gods, but the Abrahamic ones, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, clearly don't. — alcontali
Right, though see above. But further we really cannot predict what future science will decide was necessary for creation or what is indicated by, say, things prior to what we can now examine in the Big Inflation time period.The creator of heavens and earth, in his capacity of first cause, is deemed to be the ultimate reason for every physical and non-physical effect in the universe. Therefore, extracting one such effect out of the many does not produce any interesting or useful information. — alcontali
These things, no matter how small, are still physically observable in one way or another. — alcontali
Scientists, not just journalists, take as real things that have not been directly confirmed. They draw conclusions about what happens inside Black Holes due to relativity, since this holds in other places. Most astrophysicists believe in dark matter and energy because the effects have been observed. And in fact a lot of observations are observations of effects. We don't observe quarks or particles in superposition. We observe effects, sometimes effects of effects or machine interpretations of effects.All long as their existence is treated as a hypothesis awaiting the production of a successful experiment that confirms it, there is nothing wrong with such hypothetical research subjects.
The journalists -- sycophants really -- who report on scientific research activity seem to be exceedingly inept at distinguishing between hypotheses and confirmed theories. — alcontali
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.