Is science based on circular reasoning?

[muhammad_isa]

...
TLDR: Science is NOT based upon circular reasoning, practically by definition..

Maybe not .. but it relies on a whole heap of assumptions

Take the scientific definition of the metre - it's defined in terms of velocity and time
Hmm .. better be careful about some of our conclusions, as space-time is constantly expanding

..but we have to make definitions, otherwise there IS no mathematical science .. But don't forget that we made them .. they aren't God-given

 

[Milton Platt]

Science is based on circular reasoning as much as earth is round.
Regards

Support your assertion or withdraw it.....

 

[gnostic]

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.
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

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

Over 140 replies, paarsurrey, and still you don't know what "circular reasoning".

Your inability to educate yourself or to learn from your mistakes, never cease to amaze me. People have been replying to you, trying to educate you, trying to help you with understanding what people means by circular reasoning, but you keep repeating yourself with ignorant mistakes.

You repeatingly ask people to correct you if you are wrong, but apparently you cannot learn from your errors.

Circular reasoning has nothing to do with circles in geometry, paarsurrey. Stop using earth as sphere to prove your points, because you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

 

[paarsurrey]

Over 140 replies, paarsurrey, and still you don't know what "circular reasoning".
Your inability to educate yourself or to learn from your mistakes, never cease to amaze me. People have been replying to you, trying to educate you, trying to help you with understanding what people means by circular reasoning, but you keep repeating yourself with ignorant mistakes.
You repeatingly ask people to correct you if you are wrong, but apparently you cannot learn from your errors.
Circular reasoning has nothing to do with circles in geometry, paarsurrey. Stop using earth as sphere to prove your points, because you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

Does one mean that circle in geometry is different from the one in science? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Does one mean that circle in geometry is different from the one in science?

Good grief.

For crying out loud, paarsurrey, "circular reasoning" has nothing to do with geometry or with science.

Your example of comparing circular reasoning with the roundness of the earth, borders on the absurdities. Why do you persist on using such a silly ignorant example?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

You love using and quoting Wikipedia articles (about Islam) when it suit you, but are so incompetent that you cannot look up "circular reasoning", read and educate yourself as to what it mean?

Someone had earlier given you a wiki link, but surely you know how to search for circular reasoning for yourself.

You are sounding very ignorant by posing such silly question to me, and you seem too stubborn to learn from your mistake.

 

[paarsurrey]

Good grief.

For crying out loud, paarsurrey, "circular reasoning" has nothing to do with geometry or with science.

Your example of comparing circular reasoning with the roundness of the earth, borders on the absurdities. Why do you persist on using such a silly ignorant example?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

You love using and quoting Wikipedia articles (about Islam) when it suit you, but are so incompetent that you cannot look up "circular reasoning", read and educate yourself as to what it mean?

Someone had earlier given you a wiki link, but surely you know how to search for circular reasoning for yourself.

You are sounding very ignorant by posing such silly question to me, and you seem too stubborn to learn from your mistake.

"Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy."

Did I mention it as a logical fallacy? I never did. Please
I made no such reference. Please
Regards

 

[McBell]

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

Did I mention it as a logical fallacy? I never did. Please
I made no such reference. Please
Regards

and that is the problem.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is science based on circular reasoning?

As there are "logical fallacies in reasoning”, so there are “scientific fallacies in science”. Science is a human construct, it is never 100% correct, just as logic is never 100% correct. Wherever the humans will be involved one must beware of the human errors reflecting in the human affairs.
Science is useful as a human tool, for everyday use if it works, nobody denies but with its limitations that must not be ignored. Please
Regards

 

[Brickjectivity]

Science is useful as a human tool, for everyday use if it works, nobody denies but with its limitations that must not be ignored.

You claim Science to be based on circular reasoning, but you claim it is useful.

Imagine that your child dies, but you want to believe your child is alive. Science will not confirm this for you. It will not protect your feelings or heal you. It will confirm what you can see in ever increasing detail. As you examine death you will see all of its small details. Your tears in the microscope will confirm that you are sad, and your tears will have tiny chemicals in them that prove your feelings. This is not circular. This is increasing detail.

 

[idav]

Is science based on circular reasoning?

As there are "logical fallacies in reasoning”, so there are “scientific fallacies in science”. Science is a human construct, it is never 100% correct, just as logic is never 100% correct. Wherever the humans will be involved one must beware of the human errors reflecting in the human affairs.
Science is useful as a human tool, for everyday use if it works, nobody denies but with its limitations that must not be ignored. Please
Regards

I've heard of logical fallacies. I have not heard the term 'scientific fallacy' that doesn't really make sense. If your trying to say science makes use of logical fallacy I would love to hear some examples. I have yet to see what your talking about 150 posts later.

 

[McBell]

so there are “scientific fallacies in science”.

Please be so kind as to present an example or two of these alleged "scientific fallacies".

 

[muhammad_isa]

If your trying to say science makes use of logical fallacy I would love to hear some examples. I have yet to see what your talking about 150 posts later.

I've already pointed out that scientific definitions are based on many assumptions. This is because without defining anything, we are unable to mathematically describe things.
However, many people come to conclusions with mathematical science, such as "the age of the universe", thinking that these assumptions are 100% correct, or are even unaware that these assumptions exist!

 

[idav]

I've already pointed out that scientific definitions are based on many assumptions. This is because without defining anything, we are unable to mathematically describe things.
However, many people come to conclusions with mathematical science, such as "the age of the universe", thinking that these assumptions are 100% correct, or are even unaware that these assumptions exist!

The only assumption I can think of coming from science is that what we observe is reality. That is science may assume we are not in some sort of matrix dream state. There are no assumptions about the age of the universe, unless you wish to discredit simple observation.

 

[Sunstone]

The only assumption I can think of coming from science is that what we observe is reality. That is science may assume we are not in some sort of matrix dream state.

Actually science does not necessarily assume that what we observe is reality. See Methodological Naturalism.

 

[idav]

Actually science does not necessarily assume that what we observe is reality. See Methodological Naturalism.

I guess that was my assumption then. I assume any reality has potential to be observed. Thas something different maybe, I was leaning towards science methodology. Observe, document and report.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The only assumption I can think of coming from science is that what we observe is reality.
...

I think you need to re-read my post .. scientific definitions are based on many assumptions

I refer to the basic building blocks/quantities, often called dimensions..
..such as length and time, for example

It is well known that the universe is expanding, but it's assumed for definition purposes that they are constant

Ah!

 

[idav]

I think you need to re-read my post .. scientific definitions are based on many assumptions

Can't say I know what you mean.

It is well known that the universe is expanding, but it's assumed for definition purposes that they are constant

No thats not assumed. Assuming requires just guessing without any work, which isn't how science works.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
No thats not assumed. Assuming requires just guessing without any work, which isn't how science works.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how we know that the definitions of length and time hold true from the beginning of time until now .. we can only observe the present.

..so to me, that means that we assume that they are..
In other words, our definitions are not fully qualified. This is normal .. we HAVE to make these definitions, otherwise we can not make calculations, for example

 

[idav]

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how we know that the definitions of length and time hold true from the beginning of time until now .. we can only observe the present.

Through experimentation which confirm general and special relativity. It isn't constant, time is relative. I think absolute time has been debunked through experimentation which shows space-time to be one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It isn't constant, time is relative. I think absolute time has been debunked through experimentation which shows space-time to be one.

Precisely!
It follows therefore, that talking about something that happened 'billions of years ago' does not mean what one would assume it means ie. it's misleading
Why? Because those calculations assume that time and space are fixed, and you just agreed that in reality, they are not