Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Science Vs. Religion

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,788 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Naz_st wrote: »
    There's a lot more to the scientific method than merely forming hypotheses and testing them.

    Thanks for the link. It shows the history of the ways we use for forming hypotheses and testing them. Things like observation, deductive logic, and induction are ways of creating hypotheses, while controlled experimentation of various kinds are ways of testing those hypotheses. Things like falsifiability, reproducability and peer review are just the extra stringent methods we have invented to verify our experimental results. Ultimately, it still comes down to somehow coming up with an idea, and testing that idea in a reliable way.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Also, not all advances in science are driven by adherence to the scientific method at the outset. Consider Einstein's thought experiments that began him on the journey that would ultimately lead to the special theory of relativity, or Archemedes' famous "eureka" moment.

    True, but eventually, to be considered science, advances need to be subjected to the scientific method, otherwise those ideas stay in your head.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by "definable"... quantum mechanics is at its core non-deterministic for example. It is for that reason some things, such as the secure mechanism of key exchange in quantum crpytography, are possible.

    Definable in the sense that those rules are measurably constant, or variable according to some other rule which itself is definable.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    I agree that is not a contradiction, but your initial statement ("The domain of science is, by definition, everything that exists subject to the laws of this universe") failed to account that science also deals with establishing what those laws are (now who's being pedantic :)).

    True, sorry about that :)
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Also, what about the concept of the multiverse with different sets of physical laws for each universe? Is that in the realms of scientific research?

    Depends on wether anything created in this universe could exist in another universe with different rules. If nothing from this universe can exist in another universe, then there is no way to make any measurements of the other universe (either directly or indirectly) and so it would seem it would be outside the realms of our science.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    And, since you are so enamoured of the scientific method, surely you must narrow your own definition to only those things that can be falsified and are repeatable? Given the non-deterministic nature at the quantum level, and at the material level unless you are teleologically subscribed to pre-destination, this does not include everything by a long shot.

    I dont really know anything about quantum mechanics, so I cant say anything about this. Is there anything in quantum mechanics that is completely unfalsifiable? (and never expected to be falsiable?)
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Take human emotion, psychology or society for example - repeatable testing could be pretty tricky where human "mood" and interaction are factors.

    Mood and interaction are merely unknown variables, much like atom size, electrical charge and radiation were 200 or more years ago. Just because they are unmeasurable now doesnt mean we will never figure them out.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    And why do you love somebody? Or like a film or book or flavour or colour? Want to suggest the objective, repeatable, falsifiable test around proving that?! :D

    No, but I'm not a biologist though. I'd imagine it all boils down to very complex brain chemistry.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    "Rational" is such a subjective word, I would say instead that they don't think about their beliefs scientifically. I mean anyone can theoretically think rationally about any internally consistent set of rules that don't hold objective meaning. The trick then is to ensure that one of the rules involves a supernatural agent as a "get out of jail free" card when that set of rules is supposed to impinge on the real world... but then of course it's objectively and definitively not scientific anymore!

    Yeah, I see what you are saying, I guess I just see "rationality" and "scientifically" as the same thing :D.


Advertisement