Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two types of science
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1 of 5 (715449)
01-05-2014 4:04 PM


For something to be considered science, it is supposed to be something that the scientific method is applicable to. Here's the first paragraph at Wikipedia that defines the scientific method;
quote:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Scientific method - Wikipedia
"The scientific method is a body of techniques" - The purpose of this thread is to show that some science, such as deep space speculation, age of the earth speculation, etc. have a much smaller "body of techniques" available to study them, than do current day applications of science, such as medical study, or any present day workings with present day materials.
When working in present day time and activity, all 5 human senses can be used to do all the empirical testing, measuring, and falsifying required by the scientific method to come to conclusions that can overcome personal beliefs and worldviews. Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied. Little more than the sense of sight, for example, can be used to come to conclusions about space exploration.
There are two distinct differences in some types of science versus other types. Naturalists like to blend them, to make them appear as virtually the same thing. Sometimes they are successful, but their naturalistic worldview, their desire to "weaken the hold of religion" as they've been instructed to do by Nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg, causes them to claim evidence that isn't always accepted by everyone of all worldviews. Science isn't the only source of knowledge, and I'll be glad to detail other sources of knowledge as the thread progresses.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-05-2014 5:35 PM marc9000 has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 5 (715457)
01-05-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-05-2014 4:04 PM


Hi Marc,
The title of your thread is, "Two types of science," but if someone assigned me to read your message and then list your two types, the best I could come up with would be that one type of science has a larger body of available techniques and is observable by more human senses than the other. Is that all you meant? This is a difference in number and not in character and doesn't seem a very meaningful difference. And what happened to Faith's claims about the "unwitnessed/prehistoric past" being unamenable to study because of lack of witnesses from the past?
Also, worldviews and other sources of scientific knowledge would be a different topic - could you please remove your last paragraph?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 4:04 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 7:42 PM Admin has replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3 of 5 (715476)
01-05-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-05-2014 5:35 PM


The title of your thread is, "Two types of science," but if someone assigned me to read your message and then list your two types, the best I could come up with would be that one type of science has a larger body of available techniques and is observable by more human senses than the other. Is that all you meant?
Yes, but if one is limited to fewer human senses, the scientific method, in some peoples' opinions, could become too vague to draw conclusions worthy enough to become politically established in a diverse society.
This is a difference in number and not in character and doesn't seem a very meaningful difference.
I think it's a difference in character, when the number of angles of exploration is so low that testability and falsifiability become weakened to the point of non-existence. After all, that is the reason the concept of Intelligent Design has failed in court cases.
And what happened to Faith's claims about the "unwitnessed/prehistoric past" being unamenable to study because of lack of witnesses from the past?
I'm not Faith, if she said that unwitnessed past is totally unamenable to naturalistic study, then I would disagree with her. My opinion is that it could be partially possible to study it from a naturalistic standpoint, but not thoroughly enough to be considered scientific in the public domain.
Also, worldviews and other sources of scientific knowledge would be a different topic - could you please remove your last paragraph?
I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable. That's the only way I'm willing to discuss it, and it's not important to me if it's in one of the science forums or not. If you won't promote it that's fine, but it may indicate that what Boulder-dash opened this thread with could have some merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-05-2014 5:35 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 5 (715480)
01-05-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by marc9000
01-05-2014 7:42 PM


marc9000 writes:
I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable. That's the only way I'm willing to discuss it, and it's not important to me if it's in one of the science forums or not. If you won't promote it that's fine, but it may indicate that what Boulder-dash opened this thread with could have some merit.
in other words, you're not willing to engage in a give and take with moderators, and if they refuse to promote your thread proposal precisely as submitted then they're fascists.
I'm trying to give your topic a clear and precise focus. Work with me.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by marc9000, posted 01-05-2014 7:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 5 (715787)
01-09-2014 9:36 AM


Thread Copied to Free For All Forum
Thread copied to the Two types of science thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024