Is science based on circular reasoning?

[idav]

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

I think your misinterpreting. What I explained is what Newton thought vs what Einstein found. If Einstein really assumed Newton was right, or if thats how science worked, then nobody would have gotten passed Newton and would have just assumed he is right, which he wasn't. The calculations say time is relative. Lets not conflate an individual having an opinion with what science deals with.

I just watched a physicist explain something very similar, that he doesn't believe anything unless there is evidence to support it. Nothing is assumed in science but people are very welcome to have opinions and what not, but opinions are not scientific.

Science doesn't and shouldn't care what the facts end up being, science is simply a method for finding facts through trial and error.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think your misinterpreting. What I explained is what Newton thought vs what Einstein found.
...

yes, sure ..
Are time and space fixed or not?
Do the basic definitions assume that they are or not?

 

[idav]

yes, sure ..
Are time and space fixed or not?
Do the basic definitions assume that they are or not?

Definitions are simply a means of communication. There are several definitions of time for example. The nature of time cannot be truly described without evidence from experimentation, so again, it isn't assumed what space-time is fixed or relative without the evidence.

All experimentation for the passed hundred years continue to verify the nature of time according to the theories general and special relativity. Science makes no assumptions on which theories are correct. Why should science care, it doesn't, science is a methodology in which, not assuming, is a big part of that methodology.
.
If I were to say I think Einstein is correct about space-time its because of the passed 100 years of experiments which corroborate the notions without needing to assume anything.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Definitions are simply a means of communication. There are several definitions of time for example.

I refer to the SI definitions that are used in calculations.
You appear to be avoiding the issue.

What does it mean that the universe is billions of years old?
These calculations depend on the SI definitions of time and space, so any conclusions we may reach should bear in mind that these definitions are not qualified (meaning that they are not guaranteed to be valid within those parameters)

This is not circular reasoning as such, but ignoring that these are man-made definitions in some kind of proof may well be

 

[idav]

I refer to the SI definitions that are used in calculations.
You appear to be avoiding the issue.

What does it mean that the universe is billions of years old?
These calculations depend on the SI definitions of time and space, so any conclusions we may reach should bear in mind that these definitions are not qualified (meaning that they are not guaranteed to be valid within those parameters)

This is not circular reasoning as such, but ignoring that these are man-made definitions in some kind of proof may well be

I doubt any calculations can be used with decent accuracy without already having a solid theory backing it. Its not like people just use the maths arbitrarily. Maths may be more in the realm speculation but math is more of a tool used by science, however if the maths are correct they predict what scientific experimentation finds to be true. Otherwise the math is just wishful thinking, ideally math should be representing something in reality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

...
Otherwise the math is just wishful thinking, ideally math should be representing something in reality.

But surely "reality" is what we observe .. is there anybody around now who has observed what happened billions of years ago? Obviously not..
Yet many people are convinced that 'science' has shown exactly what happened billions of years ago. I have just shown you why there confidence is misplaced .. they assume that the basic scientific definitions used in the math are unquestionable .. but as I have just shown, they are not necessarily valid within that time span

That 'smells' like circular reasoning to me .. and if it 'smells' like it..

 

[paarsurrey]

Is science based on circular reasoning?

Science starts from faith in science and ends in faith and so one reaches a point where one started to start with and that way a circle gets completed. In this sense it is circular. Then somebody starts another circle, so science moves in circles, more than the truthful religion is perceived. It is one aspect that the truthful religion defines the path that believers have to tread as a straight-path:
[1:5] Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.
[1:6] Guide us in the right* path
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=1
*straight

Like I am traveling say on the equator from West to East, while I go on the straight path, people on sides or on the poles get the wrong impression that I am moving in a circle, while it is not correct. Right? Please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

Science starts from faith in science and ends in faith and so one reaches a point where one started to start with and that way a circle gets completed. In this sense it is circular.

Stop making up definition.

Circular reasoning has nothing to do with science, PERIOD!

Look it up for goodness sake.

Here, Circular reasoning

Read. Understand. Learn from your mistake and stop making a fool of yourself, making up its meaning. Only a fool would persist in this nonsense.

Are you completely incapable of admitting you are wrong and learn from your mistake?

 

[Hawkins]

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

Science is experiment based. In order to do experiments you need to physically go to the place where you want things to be scientifically proved. However you can't go to a place/space called spiritual realm to do experiments. Yet atheists demand that spiritual things must be scientifically proved in order to be acceptable. They thus make science circular as much as earth is round.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

No, it is religion which is based on circular reasoning. That and confirmation bias.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What then is "nature"?

Look around you!

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it is religion which is based on circular reasoning. That and confirmation bias.

The same is true for science, please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is experiment based. In order to do experiments you need to physically go to the place where you want things to be scientifically proved. However you can't go to a place/space called spiritual realm to do experiments. Yet atheists demand that spiritual things must be scientifically proved in order to be acceptable. They thus make science circular as much as earth is round.

You get the point friend! Please
Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

The method itself isn't, but most pop science is. Courtesy of the peer pressure review system,

99% of astrologers, climastrologers, paranormal investigators and evolutionary biologists believe in;

astrology, global warming, ghosts and evolution respectively

And they should know because they're the experts!

 

[paarsurrey]

The method itself isn't, but most pop science is. Courtesy of the peer pressure review system,
99% of astrologers, climastrologers, paranormal investigators and evolutionary biologists believe in;
astrology, global warming, ghosts and evolution respectively
And they should know because they're the experts!

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

One may like to read :
"The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead, But Can't Prove It" Nicholas Kardaras Ph.D.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...c-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is

Regards

 

[McBell]

One may like to read :
"The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead, But Can't Prove It" Nicholas Kardaras Ph.D.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...c-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is

Regards

Nothing but a "shift the burden" ploy.

 

[idav]

But surely "reality" is what we observe .. is there anybody around now who has observed what happened billions of years ago? Obviously not..
Yet many people are convinced that 'science' has shown exactly what happened billions of years ago. I have just shown you why there confidence is misplaced .. they assume that the basic scientific definitions used in the math are unquestionable .. but as I have just shown, they are not necessarily valid within that time span

That 'smells' like circular reasoning to me .. and if it 'smells' like it..

This doesn't show how the confidence is misplaced because scientists didn't just wake one day and assume the universe is billions of years old. It took years of study and experimentation to come to those conclusions.

One may like to read :
"The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead, But Can't Prove It" Nicholas Kardaras Ph.D.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...c-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is

Regards

That blog starts off by saying "scientists have to be atheists". It uses a generalization fallacy to declare science a fallacy. Scientists can have whatever beliefs they want and scientists being atheists has little to do with actual science, thats a conflation issue the blog has. Nobody can use science to declare god dead, maybe incognito, elusive perhaps but not dead or non-existent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This doesn't show how the confidence is misplaced because scientists didn't just wake one day and assume the universe is billions of years old. It took years of study and experimentation to come to those conclusions.

You seem to miss the point .. what do these 'billions of years' represent?
They aren't necessarily equivalent to 'years' as we measure today. Our scientific definitions are not qualified over billions of years .. they are definitions of convenience so we can describe relationships between different physical phenomena

 

[paarsurrey]

You seem to miss the point .. what do these 'billions of years' represent?
They aren't necessarily equivalent to 'years' as we measure today. Our scientific definitions are not qualified over billions of years .. they are definitions of convenience so we can describe relationships between different physical phenomena

I agree with one. "Day and years" are relative terms to denote time for convenience. Please
Regards