KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)

Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

[AmishDude]

Are you suggesting that science abandon the scientific method?

I'm saying faith in the scientific method is a faith. You must accept its validity in order to use it. (This does not address the flaws in the method, which are most egregious in so-called junk science. Of course, these flaws can be considered part of the method itself.)

[Dimensio]

You have a great deal of faith in the notion that the method is well-established (care to quantify?) and in the means by which the method was established.

Now you're just playing semantic games and using a false equivocation.

The word "faith" has different meanings. When speaking of religious "faith" it has one meaning. When speaking of the "faith" to which you refer it has a completely different meaning. Trying to claim that accepting the scientific method as a valuable tool is on par with religious faith is fundamentally dishonest. That is to say that when you claim that they are equivalent, you are lying.

[Dimensio]

What I am learning here is that there are those on the atheistic evolution side

What about people on the Christian evolution side?

[Rudder]

There is no "par". Faith is either 1 or 0. That is the point of faith.

Kewl...

I believe you're correct and right on point.

Science imposes no such a priori dichotomy as it is but merely a method and not a philosophy.

[AmishDude]

I didn't say they are equivalent, you did. I simply state that you must have a faith in the scientific method in order for it to apply. It may "make sense" to you, for example. You've accepted the notion for so long, you don't realize that there are simply premises that must be accepted.

[Quark2005]

I'm saying faith in the scientific method is a faith. You must accept its validity in order to use it. (This does not address the flaws in the method, which are most egregious in so-called junk science. Of course, these flaws can be considered part of the method itself.)

What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?

[Coyoteman]

You are mincing words. You have faith in your religious beliefs, which are independent of evidence.

Scientists trust in the scientific method based on several centuries of experiment and improvement.

If we were to believe you, then how did the scientific method evolve? It didn't just spring into existence all tested and ready to go, did it? No. It was developed through trial and error (or in the case of my field, by trowel and error).

Faith does not evolve in this manner. It is based on an entirely different origin and it is not accurate to equate the two.

[AmishDude]

What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?

What aren't the flaws?

• It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.) Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.
• It relies on specialists for verification. This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.
• The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.

But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.

[Dimensio]

I didn't say they are equivalent, you did. I simply state that you must have a faith in the scientific method in order for it to apply

So if you weren't trying to make an equivocation, why bring up the word "faith" in the first place? Why use that word when it's clear to anyone with a brain that its dual meaning can cause confusion?

[Rudder]

What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?

I got five pile of Current Contents that will never be read and they keep on coming...

Science is too prolific, it needs a "summary" publication, and more, to keep us abreast of the major discoveries.

[AmishDude]

But you have faith that the trial and error method will produce incrimentally better results.

That is a faith. Period. It may be a good one based on your life experience and your understanding of others' life experience, but you still believe it will work.

Will it? Well, I can give you plenty of examples (in mathematics, I grant you) where you can get what appears to be closer and closer and closer to the correct solution only to find, after a lot of work, that you were very far off. The example I have in mind is Newton's method for finding zeros of functions. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that trial and error will lead you to entirely the wrong solution for any given problem.

[ml1954]

What aren't the flaws?

Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?

[AmishDude]

Why use that word when it's clear to anyone with a brain that its dual meaning can cause confusion?

I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

[AmishDude]

Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?

Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.

[balrog666]

I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! And thus you have confused no one but yourself.

[indcons]

"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"

Funny to see the right use the language of the hated left. Is Sen. O'Connor going to campaign for hate speech rules next?

[ml1954]

Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.

So you don't have an answer to my questions.

[Coyoteman]

Post #151 But you have faith that the trial and error method will produce incrimentally better results.

That is a faith. Period.

Post #153 I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

You are being deliberately offensive. Words mean things, and to deliberately confuse two clearly different meanings does not contribute to the discussion, nor to your credibility.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between a belief or a faith, based on no clear evidence (a religious belief, for example), and the scientific method which has been worked out by trial and error for centuries. Either can be wrong, but the trust one places in the scientific method is different than the belief one places in ones faith.

Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back to see if the thread has evolved tomorrow.

[AmishDude]

Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between a belief or a faith,

Because you choose to make it and because you have decided that the word "faith" is a pejorative.

You use "belief" and "trust" as substitutes.

Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back

I read this quickly and it suggested to me that there was too much information being conveyed as to what you were shaving.

[Quark2005]

What aren't the flaws?

Um, it works remarkably well?

It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.)

Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken, that is why it is subject to revision and peer review. Well-established and tested theories, though have proven their validity over and over again.

Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.

These statements are completely untrue. Einstein's theories have proven themselves to be remarkably accurate along many separate lines of inquiry.

It relies on specialists for verification.

This is a necessity. Have a better idea?

This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.

Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other. Scientists profit from proving/disproving new theories, and have to withstand each other's attacks constantly.

The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.

And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window. That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research. There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.

But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.

Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent, now. What would you suggest we replace it with?