PDA

View Full Version : Debate the Scientific Method


mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 07:59 AM
Without actually using the scientific method (because then that would be circular reasoning) prove or disprove the scientific method is true or false.


The scientific method is (correct me if I'm wrong_

Observe and Ask Questions
Do Background Research
Make a hypothesis (that is an educated guess)
Test your hypothesis with an experiment
Analyze the results and form a conclusion
Hypothesis is either true or false.
If true report results.
If false then make a new hypothesis and test for truth.
Repeat until hypothesis is true.


This should be fun. :)

Oh and for those wondering I'm not bashing the scientific method. I support it actually.
I just think this will be a interesting mental exercise.

Wooster
04-20-2011, 08:06 AM
How about a proof by contradiction?

Blind and dictate all
Do prognostications
Assume a result
Find experiments that support your assumption
"Clean" your results for any inconvenient truths
Assumption IS true
Report results to friendly ears i.e. media
Assumption IS TRUE!!! DAMMIT Ridicule all that say otherwise
Repeat until you smash all opposition
Now claim global warming will destroy the earth and is the cause of all bad things

I rest my case. :ugeek:

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 08:13 AM
How about a proof by contradiction?

Blind and dictate all
Do prognostications
Assume a result
Find experiments that support your assumption
"Clean" your results for any inconvenient truths
Assumption IS true
Report results to friendly ears i.e. media
Assumption IS TRUE!!! DAMMIT Ridicule all that say otherwise
Repeat until you smash all opposition
Now claim global warming will destroy the earth and is the cause of all bad things

I rest my case. :ugeek:

Wooster you're genius knows no bounds. :lol:

Wooster
04-20-2011, 08:14 AM
No, it does not. :lol:

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 08:18 AM
No, it does not. :lol:

Although for the sake of arguing over nothing I will have to debate your point with a question...

You said that the scientific method can be proven using a contradiction...

But how do you know contradictions exist?

Wooster
04-20-2011, 08:47 AM
That can be found in the Principles of Mathematics by Bertrand Russell. Given that it took him 52 chapters to reach the definition of 1, I am sure he got that right.

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 08:51 AM
That can be found in the Principles of Mathematics by Bertrand Russell. Given that it took him 52 chapters to reach the definition of 1, I am sure he got that right.


But how do we know math is true?


Oh and by the way on youtube someone thought that the
peer review stage is proof that the scientific method is true.

What are your thoughts on that?

Wooster
04-20-2011, 08:59 AM
We are debating the scientific method, not semantics.

That depends who are the peers and how much effort they put into the review.

Must of the time they just offer asinine comments. What matters most is the repeatability of an experiment.

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 09:01 AM
We are debating the scientific method, not semantics.

That depends who are the peers and how much effort they put into the review.

Must of the time they just offer asinine comments. What matters most is the repeatability of an experiment.


Fair enough. Wooster wins.

True.

Danielle
04-20-2011, 09:19 AM
How about a proof by contradiction?

Blind and dictate all
Do prognostications
Assume a result
Find experiments that support your assumption
"Clean" your results for any inconvenient truths
Assumption IS true
Report results to friendly ears i.e. media
Assumption IS TRUE!!! DAMMIT Ridicule all that say otherwise
Repeat until you smash all opposition
Now claim global warming will destroy the earth and is the cause of all bad things

I rest my case. :ugeek:Or until someone writes a book pointing out all the bad science. >.>

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 09:21 AM
Or until someone writes a book pointing out all the bad science. >.>

Hm...this calls for a book burning!

Danielle
04-20-2011, 09:23 AM
But then you will have an entire free world breathing down your neck, how are you going to save face with a book burning?

Wooster
04-20-2011, 09:24 AM
Not to mention people will blame you for riots where lunatics kill other people.

Danielle
04-20-2011, 09:25 AM
Exactly. It is better to stay quiet if your going to operate on the fringe. >.>

Wooster
04-20-2011, 09:27 AM
I love Big Brother. =D

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 09:48 AM
Ok so the person I'm arguing against thinks that previous successes are proof that the scientific method is true.

What do you think, Wooster?

Remember even if you think the scientific method is true (as I actually do)
the object of the game is to prove that previous successes are evidence of that.

Kreegah!!!
04-20-2011, 11:55 AM
Before the METHOD, there was Pythagorean's Theorem. He was murdered for it, so Arithmeticians had to seek out a new way of dealing with things. Along comes Archimedes, and we're all set.


Eureka! The Scientific Method. All naysayers get burned as garden torches! Hooray!

Sheelah
04-20-2011, 12:00 PM
I like the scientific method actually..it disproves some and the cream rises to the top, then those are challenged, things usually get better because of it..trail and error gets added into the equation..


No book burning please..D:

PlatonicZombie
04-20-2011, 12:17 PM
As pointed out earlier. The scientific method cannot escape agendas. Much like logic, it's an over valued tool.

Sheelah
04-20-2011, 12:18 PM
Yes, but people are always retesting what has already been done before..so not really.

Danielle
04-20-2011, 12:20 PM
Good science done right does not conform to "agenda", that is why the peer review system is such an important step.

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 01:21 PM
Good science done right does not conform to "agenda", that is why the peer review system is such an important step.


At least that's how it SHOULD be. But such isn't always the case.
Like much of everything else science is influenced by politics and
has politics of it's own. If you think science could never be tainted
by the evils of politics then congrats you have successfully
been propagandized. It's not as difficult as one might think for
a scientist to be bribed into getting certain "results". But wouldn't
we know? Not necessarily. Even though theoretically you could
just test the experiments for yourself some experiments are too
costly for the common person to test and the common person
really just has to take the scientist word for it. Or better yet
compare it with other scientists and see if it matches up.
But then that's another thing. Science has politics of it's own.
If a majority of scientists are wrong (but they are correct)
and the minority is right who's results are published? Of course
the way it SHOULD be is that the correct minority but sometimes
it's the majority that prevails. Why do they prevail? Because they
outnumber the minority. They can crush their opponents just
by simply having more people agree with them. Then there's
appealing to authority. A top notch scientist can be bribed
to agree with such and such "results" which gives them more credit.

Though this isn't some big giant science is corrupt conspiracy.
There are still good scientists out there.


Al Gore just isn't one of them. :lol:

Danielle
04-20-2011, 01:23 PM
No, but Al Gore's acquaintances are. >.> And I am not so naive as to think politics doesn't undermine science.

PlatonicZombie
04-20-2011, 01:55 PM
Good science done right does not conform to "agenda", that is why the peer review system is such an important step.


Science will always have an agenda because people always have a motive toward something. Sure science can be wonderful; for example, giving us a cure for cancer. That would be great!! But such a thing is not attained if it were not for someone having a motivation to find it. The point being there are agendas both good and bad, but both are agendas nonetheless.

Sheelah
04-20-2011, 02:00 PM
At least that's how it SHOULD be. But such isn't always the case.
Like much of everything else science is influenced by politics and
has politics of it's own. If you think science could never be tainted
by the evils of politics then congrats you have successfully
been propagandized. It's not as difficult as one might think for
a scientist to be bribed into getting certain "results". But wouldn't
we know? Not necessarily. Even though theoretically you could
just test the experiments for yourself some experiments are too
costly for the common person to test and the common person
really just has to take the scientist word for it. Or better yet
compare it with other scientists and see if it matches up.
But then that's another thing. Science has politics of it's own.
If a majority of scientists are wrong (but they are correct)
and the minority is right who's results are published? Of course
the way it SHOULD be is that the correct minority but sometimes
it's the majority that prevails. Why do they prevail? Because they
outnumber the minority. They can crush their opponents just
by simply having more people agree with them. Then there's
appealing to authority. A top notch scientist can be bribed
to agree with such and such "results" which gives them more credit.

Though this isn't some big giant science is corrupt conspiracy.
There are still good scientists out there.


Al Gore just isn't one of them. :lol:

Yes, but you're forgetting that other groups, scientists and consumer watchdog groups amoth others also, repeat the same tests, under similar conditions, even if one group is tainted, they can't taint all groups performing the same test, using similar methods...

mrsticky005
04-20-2011, 04:10 PM
Yes, but you're forgetting that other groups, scientists and consumer watchdog groups amoth others also, repeat the same tests, under similar conditions, even if one group is tainted, they can't taint all groups performing the same test, using similar methods...

That's why you CRUSH the opposition.

See Wooster's Unscientific method. :cool: