Originally Posted by Oxymoron

First off, I think you should realise that scientific method is essentially induction. It has some additional checks and balances - more formal language, peer review - in order to counteract the vagaries of communication. But basically it is an inductive learning algorithm that starts from an arbitrary state and iterates convergently on reality using an error measure based on the difference between hypothesis and reality.

I would suggest, then, that if you were to be serious about ditching the scientific method, then you really ought to stop using your brain, because being a learning agent, it functions in exactly that way - constructs a model of the world, forms hypotheses based on that model, and corrects that model based on the results of comparison. So: stop using computers, lock yourself in a dark room, and try not to think about anything. If you're serious, that is. And if you're not, then please desist from posting,

Furthermore: even allowing you some benefit of the doubt, your conflation of science (a methodology based on forming approximating models of the universe and using new information to adapt those models) and the products of science (technology) is a logical fallacy, and renders your argument invalid.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

The assumption here is that there is a reality upon which the scientific method is gnawing away at.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

The distinction between science and the products of science are more than a little blurred by the technological devices science utilises. I would suggest the seperation of Chruch and State in this instance is more than a little invalid based on the patenting of genes for instance and the ubiqitous use of laser technology?

Originally Posted by The Dollar

I'm astounded there is someone here who actually knows the modus operendi of the brain. I certainly will not ask such a knowledgeable poster to desist, indeed please qualify your knowledge in this instance?

Originally Posted by The Dollar

But at some point it must work on the unretrievable experience

Originally Posted by The Dollar

There is the assumption that the earth is reality

Originally Posted by The Dollar

but this keyboard is in a room.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

I don't know how many earths it is on and I do not know how they vary or interrelate - the earth like the brain yields poor results from unsound assumptions.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

The scientific method is a poormans cart & horse but the rider carries the plaguedead. He must abandon this or perish from the plague himself....

Originally Posted by The Dollar

However if your instruments and assumptions are inherently untestable then you have to drop the method altogther before you find yourself walking off a cliff.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

I've explained as best I can. There appears to be enough information in my content.

Originally Posted by The Dollar

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?

Originally Posted by The Dollar

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.