Tom Sawyer

I don't get what your argument is. The scientific method is simply a way of asking questions. It proposes a hypothesis, subjects that hypothesis to verifiable testing and then either accepts or rejects the hypothesis based on the results of that testing.

I fail to see both how that destroys humanity and what better method for asking questions there is or why it would be better to not ask any questions in the first place.

The Dollar

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

Antiplastic

Would that the reverse were true.

Smullyan-esque

Ever since we started using the Scientific Method, the average human life-span has been getting longer, and the overall human population has grow tremendously. There are many more fun things to do, which I think is an important part of progress.

What exactly is the bad stuff that the Scientific Method has given us?

Keith&Co.

To the contrary, the scientific method, the method of experiment, observation, hypothesis, falsification and so on, is what has saved the planet.

From two nuclear attacks more than 50 years ago, and collaborating data from nuclear tests, scientists have made predictions about the consequences of a nuclear exchange between nations.
The conclusions about the horrors we'd face has at least partially helped keep nations from initiating that nuclear exchange. Lesser means of determining our future, such as a belief that a skybeast would protect the righteous, or that we would be lucky, would not have contributed to a useful interdiction of the use of nukes in combat.

I would tend to believe that this statement is utter rot.
Math knowledge did not make a computer. Math is an abstract used to understand the ways reality works. An 'increase in mathematical knowledge' would be useless without the scientific method to understand what numbers to use in the math in the first place, and more science to apply those numbers in an application.

If science was done away with, math would be an intellectual pastime with no means of contributing to human life beyond inventories of food supplies and counting the bodies dead from plague, exposure, unanticipated weather, aggression, starvation...

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

I laughed so hard at that pun that I ended up having to embarrass myself in front of my coworkers by explaining what it was that I found so funny. :blush:

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

I agree. Yet, nobody understands you.

spamandham

The royalty of ages past would no doubt gladly seat themselves with our "poor" immunized, air-conditioned, over fed, highly educated, anti-biotic age butts.

Our concerns tend to gravitate on the fact that we have too much food, too much comfort, and too much liesure.

Our world is not perfect, but misery for those of us living in the scientific age, is much lower than ages past.

The Dollar

The average lifespan of individuals appears to be increasing however this must be seen in the context of a unsustainable wave function. The population having maxed out its average life span will then decline. The result of a combination of factors including poisioning of the zeas, new & invasive pathogens, obesity, land degration, freshwater degration & the list goes on & on, solve one problem and like a hydra two replace it -but all is essentially driven by scientific 'thought'. By the way living a longer lifespan via calorific restriction is the reminder that any thinking indivual needs that lifespan is not the thing it appears....we live only to pass on heirs. A bio-social wave is brewing....that will normalise lifespan to the historic average of 40 max.

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.