Posts Tagged ‘Scientific Method’

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?—-(2)

April 2, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#31

Paarsurrey wrote: #31

“a changing gravitational constant”

Is it because it helps the humans to have some perception of the Ever-Eternal-God, His Oneness does not change, is ever-constant , yet His attributes change all the time, so other things created by Him always keep changing/moving/orbiting, cannot stop unless He commands them to stop, and they finish? Please
Regards

Is faith the backbone of Science?

April 2, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

#3 l.……. wrote:

No. Science uses the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith. When a “scientific theory” is presented, scientists scramble to do their best to disprove it.

Paarsurrey comments: #20

“repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith.”

  1. Does repeated “experimentation and observation” make it immune from the errors or blunders?
  2. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?
  3. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?
  4. The word “repeated” shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the  exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.
  5. It is not a “battle” with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and  progress .
So, it is faith and faith alone in the “experimentation and observation” that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science “works”  and continues its endeavors. Please
Right? Please

Regards

OOOOOOOOOOOO

Search/Research:

*1 .

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?

April 1, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#2 S……….. said:

“In other words, is the method used by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge truly something that can be considered knowledge by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge?”

Of course not. 

Paarsurrey Comments:

  1. Does one mean that science is circular in reasoning? Please
  2. Those who gather knowledge do it on faith  of it being useful. Had they no faith they won’t have gathered it? Right? Please

#3 i…….. said:

Scientists do have values. Scientists value:

– logic and critical thinking
– evidence
– verifiability and repeatability
– discovering new things

If you don’t value those things, you probably won’t value science. BUT, you probably DO value those things, you just haven’t thought about it.

If you use any technology from cars to computers, then you value the things that science values, because none of those things are possible without those values.

#4 S.…….said in response:

Thus, if I like using my cell phone, I must believe in tectonic plate subduction?

Paarsurrey comments on #3 above:

  1. Science is under discussion please, not the scientists. Please
  2. Value of a thing is finite, and is limited by its scope that is clearly defined; it has no value out of its scope. It will be just irrelevant.

#5 l.……. wrote in response to #1 :

The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Paarsurrey comments:

  1. Please quote from a textbook of science that scientific method is not a philosophical method. If that would have been the case the science need not have had a discipline called “Philosophy of science”, in fact science was not a separate subject but was a branch of philosophy in the past.
  2. The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.
  3. Does one agree that science is limited to the “physical and natural” and has no value out of these realms?

 

Scientific Method is useless in religion?

October 20, 2016

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientific-method-is-useless-in-religion.191797/

Yesterday at 3:23 PM#1

Paarsurrey wrote:

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

Yesterday at 4:40 PM#9

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one.
Comparative study of religions is simply a method . One could say it is an art or equally one could describe it to be science in general terms being rational. For sure it is not a discipline of Science.
Regards

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

October 19, 2016
#268366 13 min ago
hpcaban wrote:
<quoted text>

In science ONLY? Meaning logical, fact based research has no place in our thinking? Please! Religion, based on faith, is no science either!

Paarsurrey wrote:
Every tool is useful if applied at the proper place and purpose. Those who made this tool called “Scientific Method” were sensible people. They named it where it was to be used usefully that is in science and not in religion. If one will try to use it in religions one is bound to fail. This tool was never made to be used in Religion. It will be like using a hammer for pulling a nail from a door, that will break the door. Right? Please

Atheism is a faith based non-religion, it has got nothing to do with science. Atheism is just confusion. Please

Regards

The mute scientific method!

April 6, 2016
Post #175

paarsurrey

I never said that religion is in subordination to science. I always say that religion and science are in different domains, they don’t necessarily contradict one another. Science deals the material and physical domains, religion deals in moral and spiritual domains.
The science deals the temporary, religion deals the lasting truth.
Science deals the relative, religion deals the absolute truth.
Science did not create any word or any iota/atom in the universe, it only borrowed words and symbols or integers without which it would have been mute and have been incapacitated to do anything.
Right?
Regards

ReligiousForums.com

Thread: “Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?”

Post:  #175

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-the-greatest-moral-example.185227/page-9#post-4702742

Scientific Method: God

December 4, 2015
Post #397
Paarsurrey wrote:

Can science disprove the existence of God?

It is not a question that relates to “scientific method”, scientific method is incapacitated. Right?Please
Regards

ben d likes this.
Post #354
Paarsurrey wrote:

Please read my post #397 in this connection.
Regards

ben d likes this.

Belief in magic not in science

June 1, 2014

http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/#comment-4308

paarsurrey
May 22nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
@boxingpythagoras : May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41 am

“[However, I’ve sometimes heard the word “scientism” applied to the claim that the Scientific Method is the best method yet discovered for discerning and disseminating an understanding of the way in which reality operates. I would wholeheartedly disagree with classifying this claim as “pseudoscience.”]”

Within the physical and material realms; I agree that scientific method is useful as a tool; out of this it is of no use; and those who try to fit it everywhere definitely believe in magic not in science.
Even science does not claim it.

Regards

Use of Scientific Method outside material and physical realms; is belief in magic not science

May 22, 2014

http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/new-atheism-is-bad-science/#comment-4308

paarsurrey
May 22nd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
@boxingpythagoras : May 22nd, 2014 at 5:41 am

“[However, I’ve sometimes heard the word “scientism” applied to the claim that the Scientific Method is the best method yet discovered for discerning and disseminating an understanding of the way in which reality operates. I would wholeheartedly disagree with classifying this claim as “pseudoscience.”]”

Within the physical and material realms; I agree that scientific method is useful as a tool; out of this it is of no use; and those who try to fit it everywhere definitely believe in magic not in science.

Even science does not claim it.

Regards

“Does science support Atheism, positively?”

April 22, 2014

I started a discussion on my favorite religious education discussion forum on the above topic.
The viewers could read/join the discussion at the forum accessing the following link or they may comment at this blog Paarsurrey; and then after due deliberation form their own sincere opinion independently.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively.html

paarsurrey wrote:

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3734739-post23.html

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Doom
I assume its mentioned in a few history books here and there. As far as formal studies go, I can only guess… which I will now do!

theology
sociology
political science
philosophy

I would assume text books dealing with these subjects have a fair chance of mentioning atheism and drawing conclusions based on it.

The above subjects are not disciplined by the scientific method (proper); I meant:

“And over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology.”

Science – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please keep this in mind while you make your research on the topic.

Thanks and regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-4.html#post3734795

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest

In other words, science is an affirmative rejection of any god that has knowledge unobtainable by man through mere observation.

Science does not say god does not or cannot exits. Science says there is nothing we can learn from god that we cannot learn on our own.

Citations please as requested in the OP.

Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-5.html#post3734830

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest
I never said science ‘positively’ supports atheism.

Thanks and regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-6.html#post3734876

paarsurrey wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunctionalAthiest
We all must make an assumption, either we accept the basic assumptions of science and believe what we see, or we accept revelation/authority and believe what we are told and what we read.

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/162023-does-science-support-atheism-positively-9.html#post3735423

paarsurrey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quatermass
Science doesn’t support atheism necessarily just as it isn’t the antithesis* of religion, as many seem to think it is. It is simply that, since no experiment can be performed either way to determine whether there is or is not a God(s), it doesn’t deal with the matter at all.

I appreciate it.

Thanks and regards

*From Google: an•tith•e•sis: a person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else.
“love is the antithesis of selfishness”
synonyms: (complete) opposite, converse, contrary, reverse, inverse, obverse, other side of the coin;