[crististm]

My point is to make you think about bootstrapping the hypothesis issue.

Yes, an intelligent agent will do exactly what you suggested. And by the way, what you said was exactly a hypothesis. What exactly did you do to generate it? Where did that text/ideas come from?

When you come to the bottom of it you'll probably find something that you can't explain. You'll have to think about something and that will lead to something else and so on.

The scientific method is just a means of communicating ideas to other people. But, can you use scientific method on itself? That is, can you communicate a scientific method to generate scientific methods (basically only the hypothesis) for a particular subject? What about "hunches"? Can I have them?

If you can, you hit jackpot. But if you don't, then you might want to think more about discarding the unexplainable.

Go beyond that and try to imagine an 4d or 5d space. Then extrapolate and do a bijection from that to understanding what God is. Why do you think that you can do that? What does this prove about all this thing?

[Nursie]

I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about any more.

You seem to be trying to say that the use of hunches and soft knowledge to form the basis of inquiry and test somehow contradicts or weakens the idea that the world around us can be best understood by the scientific method.

"Hypothesis" is not knowledge, nor are such generated by magic, and they only become knowledge when tested (or contradicted).

As for the last bit, sorry you've degenerated into talking nonsense.

[crististm]

Let's go from "hypothesis" are not being generated by magic.

I'm asking: how can I generate hypothesis? Are you in possession of a scientific method for generating hypothesis? Can you share it?

Scientific method can do so much but I guess you have made up your mind already.

[Nursie]

And I'm asking you why that's important?

Hypothesis is not knowledge until tested.

[crististm]

Without hypothesis you don't have scientific method on a particular subject. This is the weakness I was talking about.

Since you can't use scientific method to bootstrap itself - as far as anyone can tell - this is enough to question scientific method's ability to resolve _all_ issues and declare any result on things not applicable to it.

Is this important? You tell me. You may find it useful not to apply unsuitable methods to all situations.

[Nursie]

Why does a hypothesis need to be defined by the scientific method? I can pull an idea out of my butt (all grasshoppers are blue!), state it formally as a hypothesis and then apply scientific investigation to it. I don't see this bootstrap problem you're talking about.

Scientific method likely cannot resolve all possible categories of question, no. Empiricism is a fundamental assumption, that things are repeatable and hold true under investigation.

However this is a very different sort of assumption to the rejection of evidence based on faith that is implicit to creationism. One is our best effort to understand the world around us, the other is wilful ignorance.

[Karunamon]

Why does a hypothesis need to be defined by the scientific method?

Because a thing which you believe and yet is not defined by the scientific method (or rather, empiricism) is known as "faith", a concept which you and the rest of this thread has spent a good deal of energy attacking.