From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(27-09-2013 06:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  But maybe you think it's not equal.. Since I tonight I saw you make some claim quantum physics is nonsense in another thread.

He claimed it in this thread as well, and categorically failed to address the topical primer I presented.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-09-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
No, depending on which field of philosophy, it's not based on reason or logic. In fact philosophers have written books on reason, logic etc. They have written books that deal with the sense certainty problem (observation).

So you agree with what I say about science but contest what I say about science all in the same response. Nice

And how would one conclude that science is incremental?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
before we didn't have computers, now we do... INCREMENT!

it's so obvious even you can see the differences I&I, don't insult yourself

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2013, 10:54 AM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
I don't know why I even enter threads by I & I anymore.

I'll use your own example as a demonstration for why your argument is flawed at best and disingenuous at worst.

Guy A takes his ailing grandmother to a witch doctor. He gets the witch doctor's opinion to sprinkle her with holy water each night before bed and she will be cured.

Guy A visits 9 more witch doctors and 6 of the remaining 9 give the same advice, 2 say she is cursed and will certainly die, and the last witch doctor says for her to eat rancid goat meat twice a day plus the holy water.

Now, what is the most logical solution for this person to follow for their poor grandmother (assuming that the witch doctors are the only available source of information in their tribe)? It would appear to be holy water sprinkled on at night.

But that isn't science and that isn't how science works. If one of those witch doctors had said that the Holy water has antibacterial properties from the presence of a fungus that naturally produces antibiotic chemicals and that this holy water would rid his grandmother of the bacteria ailing her and had research showing the Holy water killing off bacteria as part of an experiment to back up both his claim and his explanation, then it could be considered scientific.



Your strawman that science is about scientists getting together and deciding what science is and is not based on a consensus opinion is so far down the lane of logical fallacy that it is equally as absurd the creationist argument that fossils disprove evolution. Scientists don't use anecdotal evidence and testimony to build scientific theory. That requires evidence AND a logical and rational connection between the evidence and the conclusion (this is where the philosophy bit comes in, since a non sequitur or an argument from ignorance wouldn't prove anything).

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-09-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(27-09-2013 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  No, depending on which field of philosophy, it's not based on reason or logic.

Sure. Point being?

(27-09-2013 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  In fact philosophers have written books on reason, logic etc. They have written books that deal with the sense certainty problem (observation).

Sure. Point being?

(27-09-2013 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  So you agree with what I say about science but contest what I say about science all in the same response. Nice

That's because your "ideas" are kernels of worth hidden behind lunatic caricatures.

You don't seem to be able to go beyond your Philosophy 101 introductory lecture.

Our methods are flawed. Yep. Sure. Granted. My question:
So what?

(27-09-2013 07:30 AM)I and I Wrote:  And how would one conclude that science is incremental?

By knowing even a single thing about it. It's a constant feedback loop. This is further corroborated by how extraordinarily shoddy a characterisation the dualistic "normal" and "paradigm shift" paradigm itself is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: