|
|
|
|
|
|
by lisper
775 days ago
|
|
|
What premises? The scientific method has no premises, it's just a method. If you are "unable to consider" some possibility that is not the fault of the scientific method, that is a shortcoming in your mental abilities. The scientific method doesn't stop you from considering anything. All it forces you to do is reject ideas that are at odds with experiment. |
|
|
- The objective fact of the matter
- the scientific method produces vastly more accurate predictions than anything else humans have ever tried
- This is the whole reason science is even a thing
- I think
- that justifies
- a little bit of cockiness
- until someone actually comes up with something better
- [reality], the phenomenon that shall not be discussed, upon which your entire argument/experience/reality rests
> The scientific method has no premises
https://www.google.com/search?q=axioms+of+science+site%3Aphi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
> it's just a method.
By "just", do you mean only?
If so, you have a burden of proof on your hands (and proofs of nonexistence are some of the trickiest, in no small, part because they typically have the appearance of being (thus "are") the easiest).
If not, what do you mean?
An angle to test your claim against: are scientists a part of science? If not, how does "science" accomplish anything in the material plane (concrete reality)?
> If you are "unable to consider" some possibility that is not the fault of the scientific method, that is a shortcoming in your mental abilities.
a) Is "I am unable to consider..." actually happening though, in shared reality? (Is this mind reading, or persuasive, misinformative rhetoric?)
b) What if your "Science is just (only) a method" premise is not true though? What if science also has culture (like most any organization involving Humans), or even a style of thinking (say, delusions of omniscience, or Pure Perfect Rationality)?
c) Might you have any shortcomings in your mental abilities, and is it possible that those shortcomings could cause unrealized/unrealizable (due to your cultural thinking style) error in your evaluation of my mental abilities?
> The scientific method doesn't stop you from considering anything. All it forces you to do is reject ideas that are at odds with experiment.
If these claims are True (in JTB, be careful your mind doesn't get so obsessed with the "J" that you forget all about the "T", or forget that the "B" is ever present, and very misleading), you should be able to present a proof (an articulation of one of your own, or simply link to or reference by name an existing one).
Do you have the ability do do that, and if so can you demonstrate you actually have the ability, by actually doing it, physically, in this thread?
(inb4: "well of course I'm just expressing my opinion, that's all everyone is ever doing", and various other rhetorical get out of jail free (or, look over there) cards science folks appeal to when they get caught engaging in Scientific Soothsaying.)
Also, let the record show that you did not even attempt to address the majority of my comment (perhaps you will later, I am just pointing it out).