Although I am not a very scientifically minded person, I can be logical if given a moment...so with that in mind, let me add my 2 cents to this topic.
FIRST, concerning topics in general, the advantage that an originator of a topic has is that
they get to basically frame the issue the way that they see fit.
It is a waste of time to try and hijack a topic by reframing it the way that you see it and trying to convince everyone of your point of view. Thus, Jon initially says:
quote:
I would like to discuss the following points (and any of their possible implications):
Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?
Does use of the Bible and other histories represent an appropriate application of these methodologies?
How can we address the implications of these two points as they relate to our understanding of the conclusions derived from the different inputs, that is, if use of the Bible is properly scientific, then why is it wrong' and what/who is the cause of its wrongness'?
Jon
For the enquiring mind of that time, examination of oral traditions was a source, but was used as a methodology. For him to use it was proper for that time. For us to use what he concluded is not as appropriate, since we have other methods. The Bible was written in a properly objective methodical manner, but cannot be used objectively as either a source or a method exclusively.
Crashfrog writes:
Science is both a means of deriving conclusions from sources and a means of judging which sources produce reliable information about the physical world, and the context in which that information is probative. Science is a source - it's a source of information about the reliability of sources. If your young man fails to apprehend that his parents are the Villiage Liars, or apprehends it but accepts their testimony at face value regardless, he's failing to appropriately apply the scientific method. Ultimately, the scientific method is one of skepticism about sources. Your position is one of complete credulity towards a particular, unreliable source. Nothing about that is scientific.
Science appears to be a methodology, however. Why attack the sources or methodologies used by people thousands of years ago? The issue perhaps is what we can use today rather than what they used then. Also..is what they used then defined as the scientific method of that day and era?
Jon writes:
Would you say the young lad in the OP example is guilty of bad science, and if so, what should he have done differently?
What more could he have done?
™ Version 4.2