Total Posts:157|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Beyond science

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 4:42:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Well that is a lot clearer than the last post. "Working of the world" clearly refers to nature, so the statement is essentially "The only way you can make progress in understanding nature is through science".

1. Yes, I agree with this statement.

2.a A scientific argument is not necessary to lead to this conclusion. You could introduce logic, various philosophies, or whatever you want to support that conclusion because the quote limits the application of science to nature.

2.b I believe you can scientifically support this statement through the following application of the scientific process:

I. Hypothesis: science is the only method of understanding nature.
II. Observations: science has consistently lead to a deeper understanding of nature. Other methods of studying nature have not done so.
III. Predictions: Science will continue to lead to deeper understandings of nature. Other methods will not.
IV. We can wait and see if this holds true, historically it has so there seems no reason to doubt it will in the future. If an alternative method to science comes along and also consistently leads to a deeper understanding of nature or science quits working then the theory is disproved.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 4:50:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

Thanks for the ad hominem. This is your view of what you have tried to do. I would say that you are trying to foist a biased view of science on to free thinking individuals so that you can use it to support your own pet conclusions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

Yes, I agree his view is fairly extreme.

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

I find little contradictory evidence. Mathematics has produced knowledge but can we class it as 'understanding the workings of the world'?

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

No, but we could adopt a scientific approach to test this hypothesis. What evidence is there that other methods have helped understand the workings of the world. We could compare the knowledge produced by different methods. We could examine the methods to see if they have a good basis in reality ie do they involve a process for checking the validity of the knowledge produced etc.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Science is more than just arguments. Philosophy is just arguments, science uses evidence.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 5:41:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

LOL. A scientific argument is not required for that as science seeks to reveal how things work, not to argue the validity of itself.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

You have created a strawman.

Discuss...

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 5:52:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

As a broad generalization, yes, i agree.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

Everything in science.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 5:56:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
No. Much of mathematics is based on a priori truths, but the development of mathematics has made massive contributions to our understanding of the world because the more we look, the more maths we can find. Nearly every scientific discipline has benefited from it. For example, calculus, differential equations and dynamical systems are important pretty much everywhere; fractals explain irregular shapes; geometry was important in optics; game theory is important in social sciences; formal logic, particularly lambda calculus, has been used extensively in linguistics, etc. In every one of these cases, the development of maths has been intricately tied with scientific development, even though the formal proofs use a system of logic and deduction distinct from the scientific method. (I guess topology would be an exception, as it almost developed in isolation until it was finally mature enough to be applied.)

Philosophy also contributes much to our understanding of how the world works. If I understand correctly, Einstein got some inspiration from philosophers of the past, and many sciences started out in philosophy until they became rigorous and scientific enough to be independent. Physics was probably the first to branch out, while psychology is a more recent example. (I'm not saying all sciences come from philosophy - folk biology and traditional medicine has been around for millennia, linguistics originated from the humanities, etc. - but even these fields have been heavily influenced by philosophy). In fact, some philosophical work has been hugely influential in science, or even become the methodological precepts that underpin scientific study. The best example I can think of is Fodorian modularity in cognitive science-related fields (neuroscience, psycholinguistics, etc.)

With that said, I doubt Atkins' view is the mainstream one in the scientific community. I don't think most scientists believe that the scientific method is the only way to find out truths (that would, philosophically speaking, be obviously false because of analytic propositions...)
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 7:12:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

Yes.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

What is a "scientific argument?" I'm confident we can demonstrate the truth of his assertion through the scientific method. Let's investigate some phenomenon that is part of "the workings of the world" using science and whatever non-scientific methodologies you want. Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding of such a phenomenon while science fails to do so, Atkins' assertion holds as true.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

I suspect, as others have pointed out, that your "failing" in the other thread is a matter of strawman-ing Atkins and not being able to get anyone to go along with your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of what he said.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 9:51:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

It all depends whether he means "in all things" or just in "understanding the physical world, and on whether he meant "forever" or "up until this point".

The former is pretty clear that he is talking about the physical world only; indeed prior to the 2:27 mark, he makes clear that philosophy is useful in understanding particular issues and the nature of things, but not in understanding the physical world.

The latter is also fairly clear; as to defend his position he used examples in history of how philosophy has got it completely wrong in the past.

Saying this, what is the context of this conversation?

Well, the question he was asked that you are quoting the response to is:

"Mr Atkins, would you like to comment on what you think of philosophy using science to do philosophy? Do you think it's a mistake to try and answer questions in that method?"

When you take that context; it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the quote and snippet you have used is not intended to be used in the context you are trying to force it in.

In this argument, the context of the question that was asked, and his defense of it, it is clear he is making an argument that history has shown philosophy to be an empty failed endeavor when it comes to determining the behavior of the real world, and that science on the other hand works; and thus as the entire video started with: "philosophy is a complete waste of time" although he clarified that he intended this to mean only when determining the behavior of the real world.

It is absolutely clear from the question asked, the context of his response, and how he responded that what you are accusing him doesn't seem to have much to do with any of that video you linked.

The only way you can draw the conclusion that you believe he thinks "that science is the only way to determine the workings of the world" for all time ever; is if you ignore what he says for the rest of the video and ignore the overall context of what the discussion was about.

This was repeatedly pointed out to you; and instead of accepting that you got the context and intention wrong; you simply created another thread and blamed everyone else for your inability to accurately and honestly portray a scientists opinion.

Now, saying this, he may well believe what you said, but you cannot determine that from the video he cited.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:32:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"A man's got to know his limitations!"

- Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2016 10:37:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"
The questions are:
1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?
I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Harry, having failed to prove your point in one thread [http://www.debate.org...], you're now using this thread to shift the burden of evidence, without having acknowledged your failure in the other thread.

That is lame, dishonest and boring.

However, since you've now asked a slightly different question: whether science can demonstrate its own historical efficacy and the inefficacy of other methods, yes it can.

Accepting (which you have not been able to refute) that Atkins is talking about knowledge to date, rather than knowledge forever, a practical definition of knowledge will support the demonstrable contention that science has produced knowledge reliably, while common alternatives -- for example, theology, philosophy, tarot cards, astrology, trances, drug-induced visions, cloud-gazing and inspirational dreams -- haven't.

However, if you shift your definition of knowledge to something more idealistic and less practical, you might get other answers, but that doesn't mean you're better off for having them.

I'm happy to sketch the definitions and methodology for demonstrating why science is the only valid game in town, once you demonstrate your good faith by ceasing to blame other members for your own failure in the other thread.

Or, you can continue your rhetorical posturing, and increasingly, members may see this thread as dishonest, rhetorical posturing too.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:17:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 4:42:33 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Well that is a lot clearer than the last post. "Working of the world" clearly refers to nature, so the statement is essentially "The only way you can make progress in understanding nature is through science".

1. Yes, I agree with this statement.

2.a A scientific argument is not necessary to lead to this conclusion. You could introduce logic, various philosophies, or whatever you want to support that conclusion because the quote limits the application of science to nature.

So you consider it a true statement yet you arrived at this truth not via the scientific method - ergot the statement is a logical contradiction because it asserts that this knowledge can only be acquired via the scientific method.

2.b I believe you can scientifically support this statement through the following application of the scientific process:

I. Hypothesis: science is the only method of understanding nature.

How is that assertion established?

II. Observations: science has consistently lead to a deeper understanding of nature. Other methods of studying nature have not done so.

What is a "deeper" understanding?

III. Predictions: Science will continue to lead to deeper understandings of nature. Other methods will not.

How is the "other methods will not" arrived at? How do you know this?

IV. We can wait and see if this holds true, historically it has so there seems no reason to doubt it will in the future. If an alternative method to science comes along and also consistently leads to a deeper understanding of nature or science quits working then the theory is disproved.

You're fumbling, you have no proof that science is the only method of understanding nature, you have no definition of "understanding"

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:22:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 4:50:46 PM, chui wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

Thanks for the ad hominem. This is your view of what you have tried to do. I would say that you are trying to foist a biased view of science on to free thinking individuals so that you can use it to support your own pet conclusions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

Yes, I agree his view is fairly extreme.

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

I find little contradictory evidence. Mathematics has produced knowledge but can we class it as 'understanding the workings of the world'?

Do you agree with the assertion - can you answer with yes/no?


2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

No, but we could adopt a scientific approach to test this hypothesis. What evidence is there that other methods have helped understand the workings of the world. We could compare the knowledge produced by different methods. We could examine the methods to see if they have a good basis in reality ie do they involve a process for checking the validity of the knowledge produced etc.


Yes I agree, but that process will not allow you to assert as a truth that the scientific method is the ONLY means to gain knowledge of the world.


I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Science is more than just arguments. Philosophy is just arguments, science uses evidence.

Yet there's NO evidence that the the scientific method is the ONLY means for acquiring knowledge of the world is there?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:25:01 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 5:52:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

As a broad generalization, yes, i agree.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

Everything in science.


That's not a scientific argument tkubok, it's an assertion. What evidence is there that everything in science proves the assertion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:27:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 5:56:46 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
No. Much of mathematics is based on a priori truths, but the development of mathematics has made massive contributions to our understanding of the world because the more we look, the more maths we can find. Nearly every scientific discipline has benefited from it. For example, calculus, differential equations and dynamical systems are important pretty much everywhere; fractals explain irregular shapes; geometry was important in optics; game theory is important in social sciences; formal logic, particularly lambda calculus, has been used extensively in linguistics, etc. In every one of these cases, the development of maths has been intricately tied with scientific development, even though the formal proofs use a system of logic and deduction distinct from the scientific method. (I guess topology would be an exception, as it almost developed in isolation until it was finally mature enough to be applied.)

Philosophy also contributes much to our understanding of how the world works. If I understand correctly, Einstein got some inspiration from philosophers of the past, and many sciences started out in philosophy until they became rigorous and scientific enough to be independent. Physics was probably the first to branch out, while psychology is a more recent example. (I'm not saying all sciences come from philosophy - folk biology and traditional medicine has been around for millennia, linguistics originated from the humanities, etc. - but even these fields have been heavily influenced by philosophy). In fact, some philosophical work has been hugely influential in science, or even become the methodological precepts that underpin scientific study. The best example I can think of is Fodorian modularity in cognitive science-related fields (neuroscience, psycholinguistics, etc.)

With that said, I doubt Atkins' view is the mainstream one in the scientific community. I don't think most scientists believe that the scientific method is the only way to find out truths (that would, philosophically speaking, be obviously false because of analytic propositions...)
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

Refreshing to read such a post and I LOVE lambda calculus (been studying it as part of my interest in functional programming).
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:33:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 7:12:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

Yes.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

What is a "scientific argument?" I'm confident we can demonstrate the truth of his assertion through the scientific method. Let's investigate some phenomenon that is part of "the workings of the world" using science and whatever non-scientific methodologies you want. Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding of such a phenomenon while science fails to do so, Atkins' assertion holds as true.


But " Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding" hardly constitutes a proof does it? Atkins asserts that the scientific method IS THE ONLY way, he doesn't say "seems to be" or "or I'm not aware of any other method" etc, he unequivocally says THE ONLY WAY, he's a reputable scientist and knows how to communicate his ideas I think.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

I suspect, as others have pointed out, that your "failing" in the other thread is a matter of strawman-ing Atkins and not being able to get anyone to go along with your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of what he said.

No, I don't assume that every scientist is always correct when they explain science, every statement made by a scientist must be upheld to scrutiny for correctness, Atkins is no exception.

Also I haven't misrepresented - his own words are transcribed in my OP, it is you who are misrepresenting what I've said.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:34:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 9:51:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

It all depends whether he means "in all things" or just in "understanding the physical world, and on whether he meant "forever" or "up until this point".

The former is pretty clear that he is talking about the physical world only; indeed prior to the 2:27 mark, he makes clear that philosophy is useful in understanding particular issues and the nature of things, but not in understanding the physical world.

The latter is also fairly clear; as to defend his position he used examples in history of how philosophy has got it completely wrong in the past.

Saying this, what is the context of this conversation?

Well, the question he was asked that you are quoting the response to is:

"Mr Atkins, would you like to comment on what you think of philosophy using science to do philosophy? Do you think it's a mistake to try and answer questions in that method?"

When you take that context; it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the quote and snippet you have used is not intended to be used in the context you are trying to force it in.

In this argument, the context of the question that was asked, and his defense of it, it is clear he is making an argument that history has shown philosophy to be an empty failed endeavor when it comes to determining the behavior of the real world, and that science on the other hand works; and thus as the entire video started with: "philosophy is a complete waste of time" although he clarified that he intended this to mean only when determining the behavior of the real world.

It is absolutely clear from the question asked, the context of his response, and how he responded that what you are accusing him doesn't seem to have much to do with any of that video you linked.

The only way you can draw the conclusion that you believe he thinks "that science is the only way to determine the workings of the world" for all time ever; is if you ignore what he says for the rest of the video and ignore the overall context of what the discussion was about.


This was repeatedly pointed out to you; and instead of accepting that you got the context and intention wrong; you simply created another thread and blamed everyone else for your inability to accurately and honestly portray a scientists opinion.

Now, saying this, he may well believe what you said, but you cannot determine that from the video he cited.

You've made no attempt to answer the questions I asked, do you or do you not agree with what he s said man???
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:42:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/4/2016 10:37:03 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"
The questions are:
1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?
I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Harry, having failed to prove your point in one thread [http://www.debate.org...], you're now using this thread to shift the burden of evidence, without having acknowledged your failure in the other thread.

Not all, I'm not seeking to prove anything to anyone other than myself. I have so far proven that:

a) You are unable or unwilling to state whether you agree with the assertion Atkins made.
b) You are unable or unwilling to formulate a scientific argument (evidence based etc) that proves Atkins' assertion.

That is lame, dishonest and boring.


It's not my goal to interest you, as for the other charges feel free to show evidence of me lying...

However, since you've now asked a slightly different question: whether science can demonstrate its own historical efficacy and the inefficacy of other methods, yes it can.


Accepting (which you have not been able to refute) that Atkins is talking about knowledge to date, rather than knowledge forever, a practical definition of knowledge will support the demonstrable contention that science has produced knowledge reliably, while common alternatives -- for example, theology, philosophy, tarot cards, astrology, trances, drug-induced visions, cloud-gazing and inspirational dreams -- haven't.


What evidence do you offer to prove that EVERY other supposed source of knowledge has ALWAYS been false? You have none do you! You have no idea if some person in antiquity perceived some revelation that was in fact true, you have no idea if such an event has ever occurred and gone unrecorded do you?

Of course you do not so unless you do I see no logic way to support your assertion, it is - as I already said - a statement of personal belief, not something you demonstrated scientifically!

However, if you shift your definition of knowledge to something more idealistic and less practical, you might get other answers, but that doesn't mean you're better off for having them.

I'm happy to sketch the definitions and methodology for demonstrating why science is the only valid game in town, once you demonstrate your good faith by ceasing to blame other members for your own failure in the other thread.

Or, you can continue your rhetorical posturing, and increasingly, members may see this thread as dishonest, rhetorical posturing too.

No, just answer questions, don't waffle on and whinge and whine like Trump man.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:48:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:34:30 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:51:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

It all depends whether he means "in all things" or just in "understanding the physical world, and on whether he meant "forever" or "up until this point".

The former is pretty clear that he is talking about the physical world only; indeed prior to the 2:27 mark, he makes clear that philosophy is useful in understanding particular issues and the nature of things, but not in understanding the physical world.

The latter is also fairly clear; as to defend his position he used examples in history of how philosophy has got it completely wrong in the past.

Saying this, what is the context of this conversation?

Well, the question he was asked that you are quoting the response to is:

"Mr Atkins, would you like to comment on what you think of philosophy using science to do philosophy? Do you think it's a mistake to try and answer questions in that method?"

When you take that context; it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the quote and snippet you have used is not intended to be used in the context you are trying to force it in.

In this argument, the context of the question that was asked, and his defense of it, it is clear he is making an argument that history has shown philosophy to be an empty failed endeavor when it comes to determining the behavior of the real world, and that science on the other hand works; and thus as the entire video started with: "philosophy is a complete waste of time" although he clarified that he intended this to mean only when determining the behavior of the real world.

It is absolutely clear from the question asked, the context of his response, and how he responded that what you are accusing him doesn't seem to have much to do with any of that video you linked.

The only way you can draw the conclusion that you believe he thinks "that science is the only way to determine the workings of the world" for all time ever; is if you ignore what he says for the rest of the video and ignore the overall context of what the discussion was about.


This was repeatedly pointed out to you; and instead of accepting that you got the context and intention wrong; you simply created another thread and blamed everyone else for your inability to accurately and honestly portray a scientists opinion.

Now, saying this, he may well believe what you said, but you cannot determine that from the video he cited.

You've made no attempt to answer the questions I asked, do you or do you not agree with what he s said man???

What he said in an out of context quote mine, extrapolated into an extreme irrelevant straw man and what he means based on the context and is actual words are different things.

Which one would like me to answer?

Stop hiding behind semantics and deal with the fact you are deliberately misrepresenting a scientists position repeatedly.

It's obvious that you're not being honest in your portrayal of the question, why should I ignore that and treat the question as if it's honest, which it most assuredly is not.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:52:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:42:39 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
What evidence do you offer to prove that EVERY other supposed source of knowledge has ALWAYS been false?
I don't need to demonstrate that, Harry. It's sufficient to show that after diligent investigation, all documented approaches to investigation other than those adopted by science have proven:

1) Erroneous, in that they have claimed false contentions as truth;
2) Ignorant, in that they have failed to predict key truths; and
3) Blind, in that they are unable to detect their ignorance and error, and improve the accuracy of their methods.

It's then easy to show that despite imperfections arising from early errors and limited accuracy, science constantly eliminates inaccuracy and imprecision, and extends its scope to reliably predict things it couldn't previously anticipate.

That makes it the best method epistemologically (i.e. most practical and reliable) of all surveyed.

And when other methods are all inadequate for practical purposes, then the sole best method becomes the sole practical method, and that proves Atkins' point is reasonable when interpreted reasonably, and well-evidence under reasonable definitions of evidence.

The rest is your rhetoric: straw-manning and evasion, taking statements out of context and misinterpreting them so you can witch-hunt, while evading any admission that you're doing so, or why you are.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:25:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:33:02 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 7:12:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

Yes.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

What is a "scientific argument?" I'm confident we can demonstrate the truth of his assertion through the scientific method. Let's investigate some phenomenon that is part of "the workings of the world" using science and whatever non-scientific methodologies you want. Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding of such a phenomenon while science fails to do so, Atkins' assertion holds as true.


But " Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding" hardly constitutes a proof does it? Atkins asserts that the scientific method IS THE ONLY way, he doesn't say "seems to be" or "or I'm not aware of any other method" etc, he unequivocally says THE ONLY WAY, he's a reputable scientist and knows how to communicate his ideas I think.



That's as close as you get in science: true based on repeatable demonstration and taken as such until otherwise shown to be false. Since he's a scientist, it's safe to take that as his meaning.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

I suspect, as others have pointed out, that your "failing" in the other thread is a matter of strawman-ing Atkins and not being able to get anyone to go along with your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of what he said.

No, I don't assume that every scientist is always correct when they explain science, every statement made by a scientist must be upheld to scrutiny for correctness, Atkins is no exception.

Also I haven't misrepresented - his own words are transcribed in my OP, it is you who are misrepresenting what I've said.

See above. You're failing to consider the context.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 12:32:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:22:54 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 4:50:46 PM, chui wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

Thanks for the ad hominem. This is your view of what you have tried to do. I would say that you are trying to foist a biased view of science on to free thinking individuals so that you can use it to support your own pet conclusions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

Yes, I agree his view is fairly extreme.

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

I find little contradictory evidence. Mathematics has produced knowledge but can we class it as 'understanding the workings of the world'?

Do you agree with the assertion - can you answer with yes/no?

Yes I do.


2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

No, but we could adopt a scientific approach to test this hypothesis. What evidence is there that other methods have helped understand the workings of the world. We could compare the knowledge produced by different methods. We could examine the methods to see if they have a good basis in reality ie do they involve a process for checking the validity of the knowledge produced etc.


Yes I agree, but that process will not allow you to assert as a truth that the scientific method is the ONLY means to gain knowledge of the world.

We cannot assert anything as an absolute never to be contradicted truth. However the lack of any other creditable method means that there is a strong possibility that science is currently the only method.


I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Science is more than just arguments. Philosophy is just arguments, science uses evidence.

Yet there's NO evidence that the the scientific method is the ONLY means for acquiring knowledge of the world is there?

The absence of evidence for alternative methods is at least circumstantial evidence. So to say there is no evidence is not a tenable position.

It would appear to me that what you require is something of the nature of a mathematical proof of the assertion. You are using the word evidence when you mean proof. These are not equivalent ideas in science but are in everyday language.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 1:19:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:17:54 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 4:42:33 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

2.a A scientific argument is not necessary to lead to this conclusion. You could introduce logic, various philosophies, or whatever you want to support that conclusion because the quote limits the application of science to nature.

So you consider it a true statement yet you arrived at this truth not via the scientific method - ergot the statement is a logical contradiction because it asserts that this knowledge can only be acquired via the scientific method.

I am not sure I can state this any simpler, it seems you just don't understand how the English language works.

The portion of the quote that says "in understanding the workings of the world" places a boundary on the proposition "The only way you can make progress in understanding ... is through the scientific method". So as I stated before and you did not understand (or intentionally ignored) a simpler, synonymous statement would be "The only way to make progress in understanding nature is science".

Now, you try to claim the statement is a logical contradiction because you can't use science to prove that statement. Once again, as I previously stated and you did not comprehend (or intentionally ignored) there is no contradiction because demonstrating the statement "The only way to make progress in understanding nature is science" would not be a part of "nature" and therefore other means of proving that statement are perfectly valid.

I doubt that made sense to you (or you will intentionally ignore it again) based on past history, but I got a few minutes to waste so there you go.

2.b I believe you can scientifically support this statement through the following application of the scientific process:

I. Hypothesis: science is the only method of understanding nature.

How is that assertion established?

I suggest getting a dictionary and looking up the definition of hypothesis as it seems you don't understand what that is.

II. Observations: science has consistently lead to a deeper understanding of nature. Other methods of studying nature have not done so.

What is a "deeper" understanding?


Again, I would refer you to a dictionary if there are terms you don't understand. If you wish to actually argue there has not been scientific progress (i.e. a deeper understanding of nature) in the last few centuries have at it.

III. Predictions: Science will continue to lead to deeper understandings of nature. Other methods will not.

How is the "other methods will not" arrived at? How do you know this?

I would refer you to a dictionary to learn the definition of "prediction". A prediction is not something you know.

IV. We can wait and see if this holds true, historically it has so there seems no reason to doubt it will in the future. If an alternative method to science comes along and also consistently leads to a deeper understanding of nature or science quits working then the theory is disproved.

You're fumbling, you have no proof that science is the only method of understanding nature, you have no definition of "understanding"

At least I have a basic understanding (again get your dictionary if you have trouble with that word) of the English language to fall back on.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 2:59:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:48:41 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/5/2016 12:34:30 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 9:51:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?
2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

It all depends whether he means "in all things" or just in "understanding the physical world, and on whether he meant "forever" or "up until this point".

The former is pretty clear that he is talking about the physical world only; indeed prior to the 2:27 mark, he makes clear that philosophy is useful in understanding particular issues and the nature of things, but not in understanding the physical world.

The latter is also fairly clear; as to defend his position he used examples in history of how philosophy has got it completely wrong in the past.

Saying this, what is the context of this conversation?

Well, the question he was asked that you are quoting the response to is:

"Mr Atkins, would you like to comment on what you think of philosophy using science to do philosophy? Do you think it's a mistake to try and answer questions in that method?"

When you take that context; it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the quote and snippet you have used is not intended to be used in the context you are trying to force it in.

In this argument, the context of the question that was asked, and his defense of it, it is clear he is making an argument that history has shown philosophy to be an empty failed endeavor when it comes to determining the behavior of the real world, and that science on the other hand works; and thus as the entire video started with: "philosophy is a complete waste of time" although he clarified that he intended this to mean only when determining the behavior of the real world.

It is absolutely clear from the question asked, the context of his response, and how he responded that what you are accusing him doesn't seem to have much to do with any of that video you linked.

The only way you can draw the conclusion that you believe he thinks "that science is the only way to determine the workings of the world" for all time ever; is if you ignore what he says for the rest of the video and ignore the overall context of what the discussion was about.


This was repeatedly pointed out to you; and instead of accepting that you got the context and intention wrong; you simply created another thread and blamed everyone else for your inability to accurately and honestly portray a scientists opinion.

Now, saying this, he may well believe what you said, but you cannot determine that from the video he cited.

You've made no attempt to answer the questions I asked, do you or do you not agree with what he s said man???

What he said in an out of context quote mine, extrapolated into an extreme irrelevant straw man and what he means based on the context and is actual words are different things.


I beg your pardon? Atkins made an assertion in plain English, stop procrastinating.

Which one would like me to answer?


How about both?

Stop hiding behind semantics and deal with the fact you are deliberately misrepresenting a scientists position repeatedly.

It's obvious that you're not being honest in your portrayal of the question, why should I ignore that and treat the question as if it's honest, which it most assuredly is not.

I'm not "portraying" anything, Atkins made an assertion and asking very simple questions about it.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:31:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:52:05 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/5/2016 12:42:39 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
What evidence do you offer to prove that EVERY other supposed source of knowledge has ALWAYS been false?
I don't need to demonstrate that, Harry. It's sufficient to show that after diligent investigation, all documented approaches to investigation other than those adopted by science have proven:


1) Erroneous, in that they have claimed false contentions as truth;
2) Ignorant, in that they have failed to predict key truths; and
3) Blind, in that they are unable to detect their ignorance and error, and improve the accuracy of their methods.

There's so much wrong here I don't know where to begin! and you claim to be a "scientist".

What about undocumented approaches? you have no idea if some person living or long dead every acquired knowledge outside of any scientific means do you? if they did and never made a record of it you are not able to categorically assert the event never took place.

Science itself often fails in making predictions, it's part of the process of incremental improvements. Newton's inverse square law for example completely fails with respect to predicting the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

If some approach fails to predict a "key" truth (whatever that is) that doesn't mean the approach is fruitless, else we'd abandon science!

As for "blind" this too is irrelevant - you have yet to prove that science is the only way to acquire knowledge about the world.

For example how can you use science to prove that you will not remain aware, conscious after death?

How can I use science to prove that I dreamed last night about an old friend?

How can you use science to prove that supernatural revelation cannot ever occur?

You cannot and that's why you and Atkins are intellectually adrift.


It's then easy to show that despite imperfections arising from early errors and limited accuracy, science constantly eliminates inaccuracy and imprecision, and extends its scope to reliably predict things it couldn't previously anticipate.

I'm not contesting the merits of science.

That makes it the best method epistemologically (i.e. most practical and reliable) of all surveyed.


Science seems to be best with respect to material questions, but best within some scope isn't the same as only in all scope - Atkin's assertion.

And when other methods are all inadequate for practical purposes, then the sole best method becomes the sole practical method, and that proves Atkins' point is reasonable when interpreted reasonably, and well-evidence under reasonable definitions of evidence.


What is "reasonable"? I think it's unreasonable to assert that the scientific method is the ONLY means of gaining knowledge about the world, the assertion is a philosophical one about science it is not a result of science.

The rest is your rhetoric: straw-manning and evasion, taking statements out of context and misinterpreting them so you can witch-hunt, while evading any admission that you're doing so, or why you are.

Once again you complain yet refuse to answer questions put to you, your procrastinating dealing with questions that you've never dealt with before, science can't help you with every question about the world.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:39:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 3:25:22 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/5/2016 12:33:02 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 7:12:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

Yes.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

What is a "scientific argument?" I'm confident we can demonstrate the truth of his assertion through the scientific method. Let's investigate some phenomenon that is part of "the workings of the world" using science and whatever non-scientific methodologies you want. Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding of such a phenomenon while science fails to do so, Atkins' assertion holds as true.


It doesn't though because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - unless you disagree with this??


But " Until one of those other methodologies leads to a better understanding" hardly constitutes a proof does it? Atkins asserts that the scientific method IS THE ONLY way, he doesn't say "seems to be" or "or I'm not aware of any other method" etc, he unequivocally says THE ONLY WAY, he's a reputable scientist and knows how to communicate his ideas I think.



That's as close as you get in science: true based on repeatable demonstration and taken as such until otherwise shown to be false. Since he's a scientist, it's safe to take that as his meaning.

So how does Atkins know there are NO other means of gaining knowledge? If he's a scientist then he should understand the limitations of that discipline.

I'm of the opinion that there is no scientific argument for this assertion and that therefore to declare it true contradicts the assertion itself.

Discuss...

Harry.

I suspect, as others have pointed out, that your "failing" in the other thread is a matter of strawman-ing Atkins and not being able to get anyone to go along with your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of what he said.

No, I don't assume that every scientist is always correct when they explain science, every statement made by a scientist must be upheld to scrutiny for correctness, Atkins is no exception.

Also I haven't misrepresented - his own words are transcribed in my OP, it is you who are misrepresenting what I've said.

See above. You're failing to consider the context.

Everything you and some others have presented in an attempt to defend Atkins always end up defending something different to what he said. Had Atkins qualified his assertion as you do with things like "that's as close as you get" or "until otherwise shown" etc then I'd never have started the topic.

But he never said what you wish he'd said, he was free to use all the words and phrases you have but he didn't he was unequivocal and direct, he said what he said and meant it.

Please don't defend your interpretation of Atkins, either defend what he said or admit that he was unwarranted to make the assertion he made.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:48:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 2:59:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
"Mr Atkins, would you like to comment on what you think of philosophy using science to do philosophy? Do you think it's a mistake to try and answer questions in that method?"

When you take that context; it is absolutely and abundantly clear that the quote and snippet you have used is not intended to be used in the context you are trying to force it in.

In this argument, the context of the question that was asked, and his defense of it, it is clear he is making an argument that history has shown philosophy to be an empty failed endeavor when it comes to determining the behavior of the real world, and that science on the other hand works; and thus as the entire video started with: "philosophy is a complete waste of time" although he clarified that he intended this to mean only when determining the behavior of the real world.

It is absolutely clear from the question asked, the context of his response, and how he responded that what you are accusing him doesn't seem to have much to do with any of that video you linked.

The only way you can draw the conclusion that you believe he thinks "that science is the only way to determine the workings of the world" for all time ever; is if you ignore what he says for the rest of the video and ignore the overall context of what the discussion was about.


This was repeatedly pointed out to you; and instead of accepting that you got the context and intention wrong; you simply created another thread and blamed everyone else for your inability to accurately and honestly portray a scientists opinion.

Now, saying this, he may well believe what you said, but you cannot determine that from the video he cited.

You've made no attempt to answer the questions I asked, do you or do you not agree with what he s said man???

What he said in an out of context quote mine, extrapolated into an extreme irrelevant straw man and what he means based on the context and is actual words are different things.


I beg your pardon? Atkins made an assertion in plain English, stop procrastinating.

I am pointing out that what he said, taken in context does not say what you think it says. You have taken his post out of context and extrapolated it to mean something that Atkins obviously doesn't mean and doesn't believe.

We've all spelt out why. Why are you refusing to even defend your position on this and simply repeatedly demanding that I accept your obviously flawed premise?

Nor am I procrastinating. The question you asked is based on a false premise, and is inherently loaded as a result.

It's like you've asked the question "Did you ever stop beating your wife?" And then acting incredulous when someone says the question is stupid; demanding that they answer yes or no.

Go back, deal with the inherent flaw in your premise before throwing your toys out of the pram that we're not answering your question.

Which one would like me to answer?


How about both?

Well, your ridiculous straw man position you believe Atkins holds, is science for ever going to be the best way of finding knowledge about everything?

Maybe; I could go either way:

No; because some other method could come along to replace science.

Yes; because science has shown itself to be the best way of determining knowledge thus far, and has shown itself to adapt to new discoveries and methodologies; so even if science is not the best way right now, if a better way is found, science will end up incorporating it.

The latter is a scientific claim as a) it's falsifiable, b) it's based on empirical data, c) it offers predictions about the future. Though I will caveat this with what I say at the end of my reply...

Stop hiding behind semantics and deal with the fact you are deliberately misrepresenting a scientists position repeatedly.

It's obvious that you're not being honest in your portrayal of the question, why should I ignore that and treat the question as if it's honest, which it most assuredly is not.

I'm not "portraying" anything, Atkins made an assertion and asking very simple

Atkins made a statement that you demonstrably took out of context, and repeatedly refuse to defend this position or acknowledge any argument that shows you took it out of context.

You're premise is based on this out-of-context quotation and misrepresentation; and through two threads now, you are merely asserting that you are right in the face of evidence and factual arguments that show you're wrong.

Then you claim it is US who is being obtuse.

The bottom line here, Harry, is this.

Both the claim that you're making about Atkins, and Atkins own claim can be thought of as falsifiable, predictive and based on historical evidence.

Therefore either of those claims can be thought of as scientific with one single, and lone caveat that you haven't acknowledged:

Is this claim made as truth in a religious absolutist sense; or is the claim made as truth in the legal or scientific sense?

IE: Without any doubt, professed as absolute truth; or professed as a truth established beyond reasonable doubt.

That truth definition, and the extent to which it is held alone renders the position scientific or not.

No one has absolute truth, and it's generally only religious people who claim they have it, and only because they're faking it.

Even the most ardent Atheists, even Dawkins, acknowledge this; that they are open and honest that they could be proven wrong, but think it's unlikely and unreasonable based on the evidence to presume they will be.

This is the crux.

Did Atkins mean what he said in the way that scientists make truth claims such as "Evolution is true" or "relativity is true"?

Or did he mean it in the way that Religious people make truth claims such as "God exits", or "You're going to hell?"

It's pretty self explanatory that he means it the same way that every scientists and most educated atheists mean it, including dawkins, everyone in this thread, including myself, and most reasonable people in all walks of life.

Indeed, the way you should mean it when you claim something is true.

The fact that you are assuming he means it as absolute truth; tells me more about your mentality than Atkins. Your positions on evolution, ID, science and the supernatural are indicative of those who profess absolute truth and knowledge.

So, I think it's most likely that the reason you are assuming he means absolute truth, rather than beyond reasonable doubt, is because you are projecting your own faults onto Atkins, Dawkins, myself, and scientifically literate Atheists that we do not have and will not share.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 3:56:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 3:39:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
It doesn't though because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - unless you disagree with this??

First off, please reference my earlier post. If you don't understand any of the words I use below (or any of the words in these first few sentences), please attempt to use a dictionary to figure them out before belaboring the thread asking me to define them for you. Now to answer the question.

From a purely philosophical and logical view, no.

In the real world, yes.

The key is taking modifying the statement to include a philosophical keyword and a scientific keyword to highlight this effect.

Does the absence of evidence PROVE absence? No (philosophical view)

Does the absence of evidence MAKE absence LIKELY? Yes (scientific view).

And the likelihood of absence increases if we have evidence for a mutually exclusive (get the dictionary I know that one is out of your league) theory.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:30:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:25:01 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 5:52:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

As a broad generalization, yes, i agree.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

Everything in science.


That's not a scientific argument tkubok, it's an assertion. What evidence is there that everything in science proves the assertion?


Yes, it is, because i stated what the evidence was; Everything in science.

All the monumental discoveries, both the amount, the speed, and the accuracy is all thanks to the scientific method. No other method in history has provided us with as much knowledge, with this much speed. Everything around us, everything we have is a testament, is evidence that the scientific method is currently the best and only method that has provided us with such knowledge. No other method comes close.

This is not simply an assertion. Its a fact that our knowledge, the amount and speed at which we have accumulated it, as well as our ability to confirm that the knowledge is actually accurate, has increased greatly, far greatly than any point in history before.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 4:42:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 12:22:54 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

Yet there's NO evidence that the the scientific method is the ONLY means for acquiring knowledge of the world is there?

Evidence:

1) We possess knowledge of the world
2) Our knowledge of the world increases
3) The accuracy of our knowledge increases
4) All of our knowledge was revealed to us through the scientific method
5) We do not possess knowledge of the world by any other method

How much more evidence would you like?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 5:20:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 4:30:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/5/2016 12:25:01 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/4/2016 5:52:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/4/2016 3:05:40 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
In the Scientism thread I've been attempting (and failing) to get supposed scientists to answer some elementary questions.

The questions arise from an assertion Dr. Atkins (A Prof. of Chemistry) made in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com......

Listen to what he says starting at: 2:27.

Here is what he said:

"The only way in which you can make progress in understanding the workings of the world is through the scientific method"

The questions are:

1. Do you agree with this assertion?

As a broad generalization, yes, i agree.

2. Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?

Everything in science.


That's not a scientific argument tkubok, it's an assertion. What evidence is there that everything in science proves the assertion?


Yes, it is, because i stated what the evidence was; Everything in science.

All the monumental discoveries, both the amount, the speed, and the accuracy is all thanks to the scientific method. No other method in history has provided us with as much knowledge, with this much speed. Everything around us, everything we have is a testament, is evidence that the scientific method is currently the best and only method that has provided us with such knowledge. No other method comes close.

This is not simply an assertion. Its a fact that our knowledge, the amount and speed at which we have accumulated it, as well as our ability to confirm that the knowledge is actually accurate, has increased greatly, far greatly than any point in history before.

You answered earlier "Everything in science" to the question "Can you present a scientific argument that leads to that conclusion?"

It's a vacuity with no logical structure, it just a statement of belief that the scope and breadth of science in and of itself proves that science is the ONLY way to acquire knowledge of the world.

There is no scientific argument for example that proves that supernatural revelation is not nor ever been a source of knowledge.

So there is one conceivable alternative means of acquiring knowledge that science tells us nothing about, to insist science is the ONLY way necessarily requires that you prove supernatural revelation is impossible, if you can't do that - as Atkins cannot - then you are stuck.

The whole point of this thread and my other on scientism is to see if anyone here would either a) Be honest and admit that Atkins is attributing more to science that science itself permits or b) Present a sound argument in support of what Atkins asserted.

I've sadly seen almot nil - perhaps one or two posts have been frank about this and disagreed with Atkins, but far too many purportedly educated contributors have gone to rather desperate lengths to avoid being honest, accusing me of quote mining, removing vital "context", some even claiming to magically "know" what he "really meant" and so on.

One thing is clear far too many people here have little understanding of the limits to scientific enquiry.

Harry.