Hello.

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

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.

To use an analogy: The laws of logic are true. But we cannot use logic to support the laws of logic. That would again be circular.

Hello. I agree with you that a lot of limitation of the empirical sciences before the modern period was due to a lack of proper measuring tools.

Where’s that video btw? — Ansiktsburk

I think the link got taken off by the moderators haha. But you can search for the following video title on YouTube:
Philosophy vs Science | A Christian Philosophy - Part #2

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

Please clarify your position. How exactly is science guilty of a circulus in probando? Be explicit. Danke.

Hello.

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).

On the other hand, a lot of important and known sciences are missing from the list as I indicated above. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I should have clarified that the list in the OP is not exhaustive - just examples.

I'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.

Scientific success stories (theories) are based on empirical evidence (observational data in re retrodiction & prediction). Remember that it is false to conclude from retrodiction & prediction that scientific theories are true (converse fallacy or fallacy of affirming the consequent). Science is abduction (argument to the best explanation) and explanations either fit/don't it observations. Observations don't prove a scientific theory (circularity is moot).

Where's the circularity you're talking about?

Fine. Thank you for your honest reply.

The methodologies themselves can be verified by the successes — jorndoe

Science involves two major things:
Prediction and verification.
Both are part of the "scientific method".

Essentially, saying "science works" is saying:
1. Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction.
+
2. Prediction + verification leads to higher accuracy of prediction.

If 1 is right, then 2 is easy to verify: Just compare an equal number of new not yet verified predictions VS old previously verified predictions.

But how do we verify 1?
And is it
1. A philosophical claim/principle
Or
2. A scientific claim/principle.


If 2, then it means, "I predict that empirical observation will verify a prediction". But then how can I verify if an empirical observation verifies a prediction? Infinite regress.

Therefore, "Empirical observation is a reliable way to verify a prediction."
Is a philosophical claim or principle.

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

This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer.
Scientism is the confused belief that a hammer doesn't require a hand.

This is true because philosophy is like the hand, while science is like the hammer. — Yohan

Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work?
Or that the hand can do and is useful for a lot of different things while the hammer is used for a specific purpose only?

Does this mean that science left alone is useless because it needs philosopy to work? — Alkis Piskas

At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work.
But there is a difference between using a framework and critically examining the framework or coming up with frameworks.
Many scientists take the epistemological framework methodological naturalism rests on for granted. This can be dangerous, as they may not know the limits of the framework, and think its the "one true effective epistemology", or that everything is reducible to matter.
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.
This is as silly as reducing music to sheet music. Or a book to grammar.

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

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).

Unfortunately. that questionable exclusionary presumption often leaves stalwarts of Sovereign Science unable to articulate the general significance of their abstruse findings*2. Hence, their explanations sometimes take the sole-authority form of "because . . . science". In other words, their proof is based on the authoritative status of the "scientific method", which differs from Philosophy in its use of telescopes, microscopes, and cyclotrons. On the other hand, Philosophy is essentially Science without artificial tools -- using only your god-given reasoning ability : both deductive and abductive.

The distinction you seem to be making is that Scientism tends to lump Philosophy & Religion together as faith-intuition-based reasoning. Whereas, another way to look at those relationships is to view Religion & Science as the offspring of Philosophy. In that case, Science concerns itself with Physics (Matter-Energy), and Religion with Metaphysics (Mind-Soul), while Philosophy covers both aspects of this "blue dot" in the cosmos, inhabited by thinking lumps of matter : Reality & Ideality. :cool:

*1. Einstein's lab is a pencil :
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Note -- a child once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your laboratory?". To which he replied, wordlessly, by holding up a pencil.

Deduction : Literally subtraction of parts from wholes, specific from general, particular from universal ; analysis of integrated systems into isolated components.

Intuition : acquiring knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning ; to know without proof ; instinctive ; holistic insights.
That's OK for the individual. But others may not intuit exactly what you feel "rings true". Hence, the necessity for logical or empirical demonstrations that are not peculiar to a single person. Yet, skeptical sounding may find that the bell is cracked, contrary to faith-based assumptions.

*2. Thus, the many Science-for-Dummies videos on YouTube, such as Science Without the Gobbedygook and Complex Questions Answered Simply.

PS___We can't depend on Empirical Physics to test the validity of Metaphysical beliefs. Skeptical Science may discover little evidence for the physical existence of Jesus (e.g. bones in a cave ; Roman records). But belief in the role of the Christ is predicated upon the axiom of a non-physical Father in Heaven. And the only evidence to support or deny that common concept is metaphysical in (super) nature, hence a Philosophical question.

At the very least science needs an epistemological framework to work. — Yohan

I see what you mean and your approach to the subject.

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

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

Possibly, but that does not describe me, nor colleagues I have known over the years. Perhaps autistic mathematicians.

It seems a notable difference between science and philosophy is the word "vague". Philosophy can be vague, whereas science tries to be non-vague.

There is a difference between collecting natural data, like going out and measuring a tree. This seems true to the etymology of 'science' as knowledge, and doesn't seem so philosophical.

But when science tries to understand the fundamental laws of nature, and to achieve a theory of everything, this sounds a lot like philosophy...so much so that I can't tell the difference.

A "law" is an abstraction, or is it something that can be directly observed? It doesn't seem to be physical. I don't see why a law wouldn't be considered metaphysical, but maybe that's an appeal to etymology.

Shrug

There seems to be a lot of vagueness in our philosophy. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness . Even when we look at something. We may believe we are paying attention to real images, but almost all of our field-of-view is filled with vague images. For instance, when we travel in our car, almost the whole trip is vague images. There is a lot more to the issue of vagueness than what most of us pay attention to - even though we believe we are thinking in scientific terms the whole time.

Science tries to overcome the concept of vagueness by just ignoring it. But I believe the vague issues occupies more of our field of view than focused issues. However, vagueness is difficult to study, and can generally only be studied in philosophy.

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

Do you have something to support this claim? Also, what is abstract about the argument in the video?

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

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.

What is your answer to your own questions? Are you saying it is more reasonable to assume all the unverifiable claims to be false?

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

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. Are you a presuppositionalist?

Observations don't prove a scientific theory — Agent Smith

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).

"Fits" would be the apposite word, not "support". An explanation (how) is the first order of business and only then prediction (why).

You shifted goalposts from norms (re: talking about the scientific method) to claims (re: talking about "talking about the scientific method").

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

Thanks! And I'll read up on that Plantinga fella.

Are you a presuppositionalist? — 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.

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.

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

A succinct way to describe the scientific method. The 3^rd step however doesn't prove the explanation (2) is true (re abduction aka argument to the best explanation) and so circularity is N/A.

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.

I'm repeating myself now, my apologies.

Honestly, I don't agree with you, but I'm not sure it is worth discussing this any further. It's not really relevant to the original topic in the OP. Unless you really want to keep going, how about we leave it here?

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

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.

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

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.

Since now I'll be repeating the same point, I agree, the exchange betwixt us has come to an end. Good day.

Pax. :victory:

Philosophy is the junkyard of the sciences. — Some dude/gal

The nerve! :rage: