A Dangerous Proposition

[B. John Jones]

Science uses one basis of judgment--information deemed as evidence by a single method, science (self). This proposition is quite dangerous. Science essentially puts all of your eggs in one basket.

[Strange]

If you think that using objective measurements to test ideas is dangerous then I don't think there is much hope for you.

[timo]

If you think that using objective measurements to test ideas is dangerous then I don't think there is much hope for you.

I find that comment a bit aggressive, given that B. John Jones hasn't actually said much. But the OP indeed begs the question what other methods there could be. Just because anecdotal evidence is an alternative method, adding it as a second source of verification of ideas does not really offer much hope of improving the output. Or to stay in the picture: Putting all eggs in one basket seems like a better idea than putting half of them in the basket and throwing the other half of them down a cliff.

Edited June 9, 2016 by timo

[Strange]

I find that comment a bit aggressive, given that B. John Jones hasn't actually said much.

 

 

Sorry about that. But he has said plenty in other threads.

 

 

 

Putting all eggs in one basket seems like a better idea than putting half of them in the basket and throwing the other half of them down a cliff.

 

[CharonY]

Also considering that the scientific method is not a single basket, but utilizes orthogonal approaches.

It is like saying that knowledge is a bad thing as it relies on methods that generate knowledge.

[B. John Jones]

If you think that using objective measurements to test ideas is dangerous then I don't think there is much hope for you.

Not at all. Using it as your only basis--is very dangerous.

I find that comment a bit aggressive, given that B. John Jones hasn't actually said much. But the OP indeed begs the question what other methods there could be. Just because anecdotal evidence is an alternative method, adding it as a second source of verification of ideas does not really offer much hope of improving the output. Or to stay in the picture: Putting all eggs in one basket seems like a better idea than putting half of them in the basket and throwing the other half of them down a cliff.

You're assuming 2 things (probably presumptuously): 1) textual information offered as evidence is anecdotal; 2) admitting them as evidence equals reckless abandon.

[Arete]

But the OP indeed begs the question what other methods there could be.

 

 

It also seems to assume that "science" is a single method for investigating a hypothesis - where as there is almost always a multitude of scientifically valid ways of approaching a problem, and frequently vigorous debate among scientists as to the best way to approach it, and different answers dependent on the approach.

 

It's not like science/scientists are a monolithic group uniformly demanding "this is the way it must be done!" - so long as the method meets the basic principles of scientific investigation (e.g. falsifiable hypothesis, a priori criteria for acceptance, controlled experimentation, etc) there's usually more ways to "skin a cat" than there are cats.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Arete

[Strange]

Not at all. Using it as your only basis--is very dangerous.

 

 

What do you suggest is used?

 

You're assuming 2 things (probably presumptuously): 1) textual information offered as evidence is anecdotal; 2) admitting them as evidence equals reckless abandon.

 

 

There are several branches of science that use textual information. An obvious example is linguistics.

[B. John Jones]

Also considering that the scientific method is not a single basket, but utilizes orthogonal approaches.

It is like saying that knowledge is a bad thing as it relies on methods that generate knowledge.

Orthogonal "approaches", by definition, preclude information, as far as it would otherwise be counted as evidence, if it comes from outside the scientific method--one basket. Orthogonal "approach" tolerates such information, but will not consider it as evidence.

 

Knowledge, utterly based (relying exclusively) on one class, or form, of methods (even very good methods), is very dangerous.

Edited June 9, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Phi for All]

This seems to be a simple case of wanting something to be a certain way, and making up the facts to support it. If the OP thinks this is intellectually honest, it's probably why he misunderstands how science really operates. Better the caricature to make fun of than to actually try to understand reality.

[EdEarl]

@B John Jones

Scientific theory says that a body going at speed S for H hours goes H*S distance. Scientists can measure the distance with trigonometry, with an odometer, and with a tape measure (ruler). That's three different verifications of the theory. What would you propose?

 

For example, R=50m/h for 2 hours = 100 miles.

Edited June 9, 2016 by EdEarl

[B. John Jones]

@B John Jones

Scientific theory says that a body going at speed S for H hours goes H*S distance. Scientists can measure the distance with trigonometry, with an odometer, and with a tape measure (ruler). That's three different verifications of the theory. What would you propose?

 

For example, R=50m/h for 2 hours = 100 miles.

 

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days.

This seems to be a simple case of wanting something to be a certain way, and making up the facts to support it. If the OP thinks this is intellectually honest, it's probably why he misunderstands how science really operates. Better the caricature to make fun of than to actually try to understand reality.

 

"There is a way that seems right to a [person], but in the end it leads to death." --an ancient proverb

 

I hardly make fun of science. Rather I refute where there is error, being more prominent where science is "modern."

[John Cuthber]

 

You're assuming 2 things (probably presumptuously): 1) textual information offered as evidence is anecdotal; 2) admitting them as evidence equals reckless abandon.

Writing an anecdote down does not stop it being an anecdote so 1 isn't an assumption- it's an observation.

Adding anecdotes- as it they were real data- is reckless since we know that it is unreliable (and sometimes outrightly dishonest.

So, again, that's not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

So you are actually wrong on both points.

[Strange]

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days.

 

 

But there are other measures that could be used to estimate your lifespan. (Obviously, the future is unknown so it can only be a statistical prediction.)

[John Cuthber]

 

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days.

 

Well, it might be a better approximation than assuming that everyone lives 3 score years and ten.

So, what would you use?

It's not enough to say that - "because science does [whatever] it is dangerous" for two reasons.

Firstly, you need to show that it is true, both that science does what you say it does (and so far you have shown that you simply don't know how science works) and you also need to show that doing so is dangerous (and again- you have not even got close).

 

But, even after you have done all that- you still need to show that there is an alternative which works.

What alternative are you suggesting?

[B. John Jones]

Writing an anecdote down does not stop it being an anecdote so 1 isn't an assumption- it's an observation.

Adding anecdotes- as it they were real data- is reckless since we know that it is unreliable (and sometimes outrightly dishonest.

So, again, that's not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

So you are actually wrong on both points.

 

"Anecdote," requires brevity. The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population across millennia, as a comprehensive collective history of events in time, and transcending time.

 

"Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature (if facetiously).

 

So Scripture is not anecdote, except by preclusion, such as in modern science; my point in exposing presumption number 1.

 

Preclusion of Scripture as evidence requires presumption. Modern science is not strictly based on objective observation since it precludes data from its view, without consideration, commonly recognized as truth, by very reasonable people--Billy Graham, "Honest Abe," Martin Luther King, Isaac Newton, John F. Kennedy, etc.

[Arete]

 

Preclusion of Scripture as evidence requires presumption. Modern science is not strictly based on objective observation since it precludes data from its view, without consideration, commonly recognized as truth, by very reasonable people--Billy Graham, "Honest Abe," Martin Luther King, Isaac Newton, John F. Kennedy, etc.

 

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Arete

[studiot]

Let's be clear about technical matters.

 

JBJ, you started this thread with two wrongs and a right.

 

A right because I and the technical world, and indeed most of the non technical, agree with you that it is dangerous to rely solely on one assessment.

 

Wrong on two counts because in your ignorance you accuse the technical world of following a single assessment creed.

 

I will allow that you do not actual understand technical matters but before I enlighten you, perhaps you would be so good as to answer this question.

 

Suppose you were in a hospital, suffering a life threatening condition, and about to receive a life saving treatment.

 

Would you think it right and proper that the dosage to be administered received an independent check before you received it?

Edited June 9, 2016 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

 

"Anecdote," requires brevity. The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population across millennia, as a comprehensive collective history of events in time, and transcending time.

 

"Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature (if facetiously).

 

So Scripture is not anecdote, except by preclusion, such as in modern science; my point in exposing presumption number 1.

 

Preclusion of Scripture as evidence requires presumption. Modern science is not strictly based on objective observation since it precludes data from its view, without consideration, commonly recognized as truth, by very reasonable people--Billy Graham, "Honest Abe," Martin Luther King, Isaac Newton, John F. Kennedy, etc.

""Anecdote," requires brevity."

No it doesn't.

" The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population"

No, it's less than half- and even if it were that wouldn't be evidence.

 

""Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature"

No it does not.

 

"So Scripture is not anecdote, "

Even if your premises were correct, and they are not, that isn't a logical deduction from them.

So you are still wrong.

 

Please learn some logic.

[Strange]

 

"Anecdote," requires brevity. The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population across millennia, as a comprehensive collective history of events in time, and transcending time.

 

 

That doesn't make it correct. Parts of it are clearly not correct.

[EdEarl]

 

Very good measures. But I wouldn't use them to calculate my length of days.

 

"There is a way that seems right to a [person], but in the end it leads to death." --an ancient proverb

 

I hardly make fun of science. Rather I refute where there is error, being more prominent where science is "modern."

So you want to pick where science has it right and doesn’t. Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help. Do you avoid doctors because they have medicine wrong? Or, does the modern electronic industry have it wrong and need help. Modern electronics is based on quantum mechanics; how would you improve electronics, what is needed in addition to the scientific method.

Edited June 10, 2016 by EdEarl

[B. John Jones]

Well, it might be a better approximation than assuming that everyone lives 3 score years and ten.

So, what would you use?

It's not enough to say that - "because science does [whatever] it is dangerous" for two reasons.

Firstly, you need to show that it is true, both that science does what you say it does (and so far you have shown that you simply don't know how science works) and you also need to show that doing so is dangerous (and again- you have not even got close).

 

But, even after you have done all that- you still need to show that there is an alternative which works.

What alternative are you suggesting?

 

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

 

I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science.

 

Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

 

So you want to pick where science has it right and doesn’t. Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help. Do you avoid doctors because they have medicine wrong? Or, does the modern electronic industry have it wrong and need help. Modern electronics is based on quantum mechanics; how would you improve electronics, what is needed in addition to the scientific method.

 

I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature.

Does modern medicine have it wrong and need additional help.

 

Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind.

 

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

 

I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science.

 

Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

 

 

I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature.

 

Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind (where appetite includes palette).

 

Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Arete]

The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence.

 

 

Ergo, you want science to make a special exemption to its standard of rigor and accept a literal interpretation of the old testament,

 

We will have to agree to disagree - as would a large proportion, perhaps even a majority of Christians, including the pope.

 

No secondary source is considered evidence in of itself - especially if it contradicts empirical data, Bible, Koran, Torah etc included.

[EdEarl]

It is easy to criticize science by alluding to problems, but, as John Cuthber said, you haven't said anything to demonstrate danger or inappropriate scientific method. Moreover, you haven't explained how to improve the scientific process. You have nothing to offer but vague criticism.

[B. John Jones]

 

Arete selected: "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence" [.] and thoughtfully punctuated.

 

I had said, "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact."

 

Arete: "Ergo, you want science to make a special exemption to its standard of rigor and accept a literal interpretation of the old testament."

 

[But I had just said, consider, not initially as fact."]

 

I would hardly classify the pope as Christian (of course, that's mere opinion).

 

There's very much, and richer data, that supersedes empirical data, as valid as those data often are. Science is one very useful way of observing, and calculating so many outstanding things in nature. But nature herself always supersedes science.

 

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones