Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ezkerraldean · 07-17-2008, 10:06 AM

what?
the scientific method seems to work pretty well. i mean, look at all this shiny technology all around us.

_Naturalist_ · 07-17-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Yes! What we should do is look at the scientific method, see how good it is at predicting correct results, compare it to other methods, and form conclusions based on the evidence! That's such a great idea, I think I'll come up with a name for it: science.

Well said.

nogods4me · 07-17-2008, 10:31 AM

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

Game. Set. Match. Mr. Asimov

Tom Sawyer · 07-17-2008, 10:41 AM

I think he's saying that there's too many bad theories out there and the good ones are getting lost in the shuffle.

Perhaps a solution would be to get independent groups of scientists to review the work of their peers to see if they have merit before the theories are published anywhere. I'm not sure what we should call this process, though.

The Dollar · 07-17-2008, 10:54 AM

Asimov, bless his emotional jump into atheism, was right about knowledge becoming more refined. That was mathematics not science increasing. You see I often look at this computer and think is it a product of science - and I realise it's case is and its circuits are - they are quite questionable in my honest opinion. But this computer is at heart a product of a increase in mathematical knowledge, not that it matters to some?

PyramidHead · 07-17-2008, 11:32 AM

The Dollar, by what mechanism should we test the efficacy of the scientific method if not the scientific method itself?

The Dollar · 07-17-2008, 11:46 AM

The scientific method will be abandoned or it will stop by causing the extinction of the species that utilises it.

This I call the nowin conjecture. It may be possible to prove the nowin conjecture if the scientific method is abandoned, since mathematical knowledge can then increase. The collapsing biosphere and the discovery of how to make hydrogen bombs signal all is not well with the scientific method - they are just two of it's rather obvious offspring.

Antiplastic · 07-17-2008, 11:55 AM

Any chance you will ever give an example of what you're talking about?

Or is being coy part of the "new method" you're proposing?

The Dollar · 07-17-2008, 12:07 PM

There is no new method. There is only abandondment or extinction resulting from use of the scientific method. Those who try to find a new way or return to religion are doomed. All that can be done is to abandon the scientific method. There is no replacement and the population will still undergo a radical decline. It will not recover if science is utilised in the aftermath. Extinction will be complete.

The Dollar · 07-17-2008, 12:24 PM

The ranges of most all the higher species that appear to be flourishing are in decline. The fabric of the biosphere is more fragile than it appears. Using science will allow the human population to grow at the cost of the surviving animal/plant populations. The burning of the remaining forests and the removal of the remaining fish in the sea. The human population will appear to be recovering by the miracle of science. It will be appearance only. The next collapse will be complete as the vast majority of higher animals, fish and forests will be gone.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2008, 10:06 AM	#21
Ezkerraldean Veteran Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: transatlantically challenged (UK/canada) Posts: 2,688	what? the scientific method seems to work pretty well. i mean, look at all this shiny technology all around us.

07-17-2008, 10:31 AM	#23
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm Game. Set. Match. Mr. Asimov

07-17-2008, 10:41 AM	#24
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	I think he's saying that there's too many bad theories out there and the good ones are getting lost in the shuffle. Perhaps a solution would be to get independent groups of scientists to review the work of their peers to see if they have merit before the theories are published anywhere. I'm not sure what we should call this process, though.

07-17-2008, 10:54 AM	#25
The Dollar Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lincoln, England Posts: 94	Asimov, bless his emotional jump into atheism, was right about knowledge becoming more refined. That was mathematics not science increasing. You see I often look at this computer and think is it a product of science - and I realise it's case is and its circuits are - they are quite questionable in my honest opinion. But this computer is at heart a product of a increase in mathematical knowledge, not that it matters to some?

07-17-2008, 11:32 AM	#26
PyramidHead Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Providence, Rhode Island Posts: 4,389	The Dollar, by what mechanism should we test the efficacy of the scientific method if not the scientific method itself?

07-17-2008, 11:46 AM	#27
The Dollar Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lincoln, England Posts: 94	The scientific method will be abandoned or it will stop by causing the extinction of the species that utilises it. This I call the nowin conjecture. It may be possible to prove the nowin conjecture if the scientific method is abandoned, since mathematical knowledge can then increase. The collapsing biosphere and the discovery of how to make hydrogen bombs signal all is not well with the scientific method - they are just two of it's rather obvious offspring.

07-17-2008, 11:55 AM	#28
Antiplastic Veteran Join Date: May 2007 Location: Adrift on Neurath's Raft Posts: 1,787	Any chance you will ever give an example of what you're talking about? Or is being coy part of the "new method" you're proposing?

07-17-2008, 12:07 PM	#29
The Dollar Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lincoln, England Posts: 94	There is no new method. There is only abandondment or extinction resulting from use of the scientific method. Those who try to find a new way or return to religion are doomed. All that can be done is to abandon the scientific method. There is no replacement and the population will still undergo a radical decline. It will not recover if science is utilised in the aftermath. Extinction will be complete.

07-17-2008, 12:24 PM	#30
The Dollar Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lincoln, England Posts: 94	The ranges of most all the higher species that appear to be flourishing are in decline. The fabric of the biosphere is more fragile than it appears. Using science will allow the human population to grow at the cost of the surviving animal/plant populations. The burning of the remaining forests and the removal of the remaining fish in the sea. The human population will appear to be recovering by the miracle of science. It will be appearance only. The next collapse will be complete as the vast majority of higher animals, fish and forests will be gone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.