ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[Azrael Antilla]

But Augustus just pointed out that even scientists repudiate that there is one such method.

Most of science is tinkering and seeing what works, really; a lot of it is blind.

Aigustus is full of crap. There is only one scientific method. I dare anyone to show otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is only the scientific method. Which is set in stone. Nothing nebulous or ambiguous about it.

I hope you have a good life in real life. I am sincere. But that runs against all we know about the history of the evolution of knowledge including science.

 

[Rival]

Because social Darwinism is not a testable empirically evidenced scientific theory. It is not a science. It is a pseudoscientific attempt to justify unscientific notions of racial supremacy. Et al. You need to understand. That science is the scientific method. Not populist bull****.

But scientific racialism wasn't populist; it was the accepted theory of the day, along with phrenology and so on. As far as the scientists of the time were concerned, it was scientific and based on what they considered evidence and logical conclusion. As was the former geocentric model of the cosmos etc.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

But Augustus just pointed out that even scientists repudiate that there is one such method.

Most of science is tinkering and seeing what works, really; a lot of it is blind.

Science is not blind. The scientific method is a tool. An instrument. It cuts like a knife.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

But scientific racialism wasn't populist; it was the accepted theory of the day, along with phrenology and so on. As far as the scientists of the time were concerned, it was scientific and based on what they considered evidence and logical conclusion. As was the former geocentric model of the cosmos etc.

Its not a scientific theory. I don't care if every scientist in the world held the opinion. It will still be unscientific. You're appealing to perceived authority.

The scientific method is golden. You guys got nothing.

Besides it's academic. Today we know that social Darwinism is Nazi mating calling. Dressed up as science.

 

[Rival]

Aigustus is full of crap. There is only one scientific method. I dare anyone to show otherwise.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) see 6.1.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But Augustus just pointed out that even scientists repudiate that there is one such method.

Most of science is tinkering and seeing what works, really; a lot of it is blind.

Don't use Wikipedia as nothing but a place to start.
But this one show that it is not that simple:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

And yes, you are right. Science as a method is not set in stone.

 

[Rival]

Its not a scientific theory. I don't care if every scientist in the world held the opinion. It will still be unscientific. You're appealing to perceived authority.

The scientific method is golden. You guys got nothing.

Besides it's academic. Today we know that social Darwinism is Nazi mating calling. Dressed up as science.

So would you argue that the geocentric model is not science, even though it was based off the best of human knowledge at the time?

 

[Rival]

Its not a scientific theory. I don't care if every scientist in the world held the opinion. It will still be unscientific. You're appealing to perceived authority.

Those scientists didn't pull it out of their behinds, though. They did what they considered studies, tests and so on. They were not frauds or pseudoscientists in their day. We shouldn't just say it's not science because we think it's wrong in our days. I would agree that racialism is nonsense, but not that it's not science in the sense it was considered to be at the time.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You started with an egregious misrepresentation of what I said based on a post you admitted you hadn't even read.

Why should I think you are an honest broker interested in good faith discussion rather than a clown?



Hehe the absolute clincher of cognitive dissonance

A rationalist dismissing the very concept of providing scholarly evidence in support of a claim.

Even fundies have the intellectual honesty to make **** arguments against the scholarship that shows them to be wrong, it's only "rationalists" on RF who have to dismiss actually being ables to cite academic sources in support of your position as"copy/paste" and thus invalid. It's actually called quotation and is a standard part of academic discourse buttercup

Usually, being able to refer to diverse sources beyond wikipedia and the first page of google is actually seen as evidence you have bothered to research before opining on an issue.

The "rationalist", who personally understands they have read nothing substantial on the topic, still has to pretend they are being rational in dismissing scholarship out of hand though. If you can't argue against it just disparage reading and evidence itself.



"The Nobel Prize winning physicist you quoted obviously knows less than me about science. He obviously doesn't have a modicum of understanding about the scientific method and its practical and theoretical applications"



"I have repeatedly said you are wrong without argument or evidence in response to your peer reviewed scholarship. I have thus handed you your *** with my immense rationalism. Have at ye varlet!"


Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Cheerio

You're a tedious person with nothing of value to say. Good day to you.

 

[Rival]

@Azrael Antilla Science is blind in the sense that a lot of what we know was achieved by accident, such as penicillin or gravity. We didn't go looking for these things, we just came upon them and the investigation came after the fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those scientists didn't pull it out of their behinds, though. They did what they considered studies, tests and so on. They were not frauds or pseudoscientists in their day. We shouldn't just say it's not science because we think it's wrong in our days. I would agree that racialism is nonsense, but not that it's not science in the sense it was considered to be at the time.

The problem is that if something set in stone, most of us know that it can't be science in the modern sense. That is the core problem of this sub-debate.

 

[Augustus]

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) see 6.1.

Or for lower level readers...

It's absolutely true that "the scientific method" as taught in schools is vastly oversimplified. But that's true of practically everything kids learn in schools...

Both the grade-school version of "how a bill becomes a law" and the grade-school version of "the scientific method" are examples of "lies-to-children," a term I picked up from the Science of Discworld books by Jack Cohen, Ian Stewart, and the late, great Terry Pratchett. Lies-to-children are not strictly true, but they're simplified in a way that makes them easier to grasp for children, and provide a framework that allows for future elaboration. Schoolhouse Rock doesn't get into cloture motions and budget reconciliation rules and conference committees and lobbyists and any of the myriad other intricacies of the American legislative process, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. They provide, in catchy musical form, a broad outline of the process by which a bill becomes a law, and you can go back later and add complexity as needed to discuss the success or failure of a specific piece of real legislation as needed.

The problem with science isn't so much that "the scientific method" is a myth, but that it's a lie-to-children that far too many people never move beyond. Most politically aware adults know a good deal more about the workings of Congress than the Schoolhouse Rock version, but many of those very same people have a conception of science that remains at the musical cartoon level. Understanding Science and other similar projects are attempts to fix this problem by explicitly digging into the complexity of real science in curricula aimed at the higher grades where students start to learn more about politics, but we still have a lot of room to improve.

'The Scientific Method' Is A Myth, Long Live The Scientific Method

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're a tedious person with nothing of value to say. Good day to you.

Yeah, you are potentially dangerous as understanding science, because modern science is against something being set in stone, because then it is dogmatically declared absolute. So you apparently don't understand that even science as method could change.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Those scientists didn't pull it out of their behinds, though. They did what they considered studies, tests and so on. They were not frauds or pseudoscientists in their day. We shouldn't just say it's not science because we think it's wrong in our days. I would agree that racialism is nonsense, but not that it's not science in the sense it was considered to be at the time.

It wasnt considered science by some monolithic orthodox authority at the time. Perhaps a proportion of people did subscribe to the notions of eugenics or social Darwinism, that doesn't make them scientific.

What makes something scientific is the rigorous application of the scientific method.

Which was not and is not applied to the above pseudoscientific topics.

Science contrary to Augustus's claim. Is not wrong about anything. The scientific method is not ill-defined.

Theories might make incorrect predictions. That's because the data is insufficient.

Theories might be proven false in the light of better information.

But the method is not wrong. It is flawless. It is objective. It produces results. Unlike crappy religious narratives.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Or for lower level readers...

It's absolutely true that "the scientific method" as taught in schools is vastly oversimplified. But that's true of practically everything kids learn in schools...

Both the grade-school version of "how a bill becomes a law" and the grade-school version of "the scientific method" are examples of "lies-to-children," a term I picked up from the Science of Discworld books by Jack Cohen, Ian Stewart, and the late, great Terry Pratchett. Lies-to-children are not strictly true, but they're simplified in a way that makes them easier to grasp for children, and provide a framework that allows for future elaboration. Schoolhouse Rock doesn't get into cloture motions and budget reconciliation rules and conference committees and lobbyists and any of the myriad other intricacies of the American legislative process, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. They provide, in catchy musical form, a broad outline of the process by which a bill becomes a law, and you can go back later and add complexity as needed to discuss the success or failure of a specific piece of real legislation as needed.

The problem with science isn't so much that "the scientific method" is a myth, but that it's a lie-to-children that far too many people never move beyond. Most politically aware adults know a good deal more about the workings of Congress than the Schoolhouse Rock version, but many of those very same people have a conception of science that remains at the musical cartoon level. Understanding Science and other similar projects are attempts to fix this problem by explicitly digging into the complexity of real science in curricula aimed at the higher grades where students start to learn more about politics, but we still have a lot of room to improve.

'The Scientific Method' Is A Myth, Long Live The Scientific Method

Mere absurd opinion.

 

[Rival]

Science contrary to Augustus's claim. Is not wrong about anything.

I think this is where you're going wrong.

Science is manned by humans and they will always be wrong about some things; even if we use tried and tested methods we can still fudge them, as we see with a lot of medicine errors (such as the thalidomide scandal) and various sets of 'data' that have been cocked-up.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yeah, you are potentially dangerous as understanding science, because modern science is against something being set in stone, because then it is dogmatically declared absolute. So you apparently don't understand that even science as method could change.

If you want to change the method be my ****ing guest. I'd like to see some suggestions..

 

[Augustus]

Today we know that social Darwinism is Nazi mating calling.

One last correction...

Social Darwinism (or scientific Malthusianism/the application of evolutionary logic to social systems or whatever you want to call it seeing as it is a very nebulous concept) was used to support all kinds of political positions including pacifism and socialism.

Reading helps us know things...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It wasnt considered science by some monolithic orthodox authority at the time. Perhaps a proportion of people did subscribe to the notions of eugenics or social Darwinism, that doesn't make them scientific.

What makes something scientific is the rigorous application of the scientific method.

Which was not and is not applied to the above pseudoscientific topics.

Science contrary to Augustus's claim. Is not wrong about anything. The scientific method is not ill-defined.

Theories might make incorrect predictions. That's because the data is insufficient.

Theories might be proven false in the light of better information.

But the method is not wrong. It is flawless. It is objective. It produces results. Unlike crappy religious narratives.

Now that one tell us everything about your level of objectivity, because it is not science. "Unlike crappy religious narratives." That is a first person qualitative value evolution.