A badly written introduction to the scientific method

A forum for guides, lessons and sharing of useful information.
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Xing »

Ahzoh wrote:Well I obviously knew that and I didn't refer to YECs only, but it doesn't matter because it's all pseudoscience.
Not all forms of creationism can be pseudoscience, because not all forms of creationism even pretend to be science. (Then it might also depend one's notion of science; if it's limited natural sciences, it's obvious that "creationism" is not "science" - and IME most "creationist" are inclined to agree on this; if we count philosophy of religion as a science, then certain forms of creationism might count as science.)


Now there seems to be a whole bunch of issues intertwined in this discussion:
1) What is a proper "scientific method"?
2) What is the relation between science and reality?
3) What is the normative aspect involved in science?
4) What is the status of other means of gaining knowledge than science?
5) What is the epistemic status of theism?
6) What is the truth status of theism?
7) Etc etc etc

In order for the discussion to be fruitful, I think it's best to try to keep the different questions apart, and be careful about which one(s) one is talking about at the moment.
Ahzoh wrote:Communism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy.
Are you telling me you can't distinguish the two?
The distinction between "religions" and "non-religions" is not clear-cut. Communism (and various other philosophies) lacks some of the traditional characteristics usually associated with "religions" - such as beliefs in deities or in life after death. But it can still have other characteristics that makes it similar to a religion - such as providing an overarching framework according to which things are interpreted, a view of history and various ethical guidelines, as well as its psychological grip of its faithful adherents. (Yes, it's not uncommon to hear ex-members of communist groups to compare their former beliefs to those of a religious cult.)
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Salmoneus »

I can't distinguish political philosophies from religions, no.

True, theism is a potential difference. But it's hardly an absolute ones. There are religions without deities (some forms of Buddhism) or an afterlife (some forms of Judaism), and on the other hand there are many political philosophies with deities (divine right of kings).

The most obvious difference is that a religion tends to be more cohesive, have more institutions and organisations associated with it, be more concerned with highlighting and enforcing doctrinal purity, make positive claims about future-historical developments, seek to influence believer's broad social life and so forth, whereas political philosophies tend to be less defined and structured, less associated with specific organisations, less interested in purity and orthodoxy, more limited to normative claims rather than outright predictions, and to exert less influence on a believer's social life.

However, those guidelines all suggest communism is more religion-like and less philosophy-like...
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

Salmoneus wrote:The most obvious difference is that a religion tends to be more cohesive, have more institutions and organisations associated with it, be more concerned with highlighting and enforcing doctrinal purity, make positive claims about future-historical developments, seek to influence believer's broad social life and so forth, whereas political philosophies tend to be less defined and structured, less associated with specific organisations, less interested in purity and orthodoxy, more limited to normative claims rather than outright predictions, and to exert less influence on a believer's social life.

However, those guidelines all suggest communism is more religion-like and less philosophy-like...
Only some communistic ideologies (the anti-revisionist ones) could be more religion-like. But they are still not a religion.
I define a religion as believing in supernatural things be they theistic or not. A religion also has, yes, a cohesive structure and rituals and ethics.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3283
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Shemtov »

Ahzoh wrote:
Shemtov wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Badly written or not, this would be useful to explain to creationists and other scientifically illiterate people.
You do releize that "Creationism" is a broad label which includes people who accept the science, such as some Gap Creationists and progressive creationists? It is far more then Young Earthers.
Well I obviously knew that and I didn't refer to YECs only, but it doesn't matter because it's all pseudoscience.
There is the unfalsifiable claim that a deity might have created life on this planet and kick-started evolution, but the concept of abiogenesis seems more plausible.
.
If non-YEC's claims are unfalsifiable, then by definition, are we not dealing not with science but with theology?
Would you agree that Communism is unfalsifiable, and yet is not psuedoscience because it's not dealing with science or the scientific method?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

Shemtov wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
Shemtov wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Badly written or not, this would be useful to explain to creationists and other scientifically illiterate people.
You do releize that "Creationism" is a broad label which includes people who accept the science, such as some Gap Creationists and progressive creationists? It is far more then Young Earthers.
Well I obviously knew that and I didn't refer to YECs only, but it doesn't matter because it's all pseudoscience.
There is the unfalsifiable claim that a deity might have created life on this planet and kick-started evolution, but the concept of abiogenesis seems more plausible.
.
If non-YEC's claims are unfalsifiable, then by definition, are we not dealing not with science but with theology?
Would you agree that Communism is unfalsifiable, and yet is not psuedoscience because it's not dealing with science or the scientific method?
Yes, technically, on the otherhand, creationism could be proven false if there is better explanation for the creation of life, e.g. abiogenesis. But let us be real here, theology is just speculation.

I say about pseudoscience with regards to claims like "God's name is found within DNA code" or that one-hour oil disproves that the Earth is billions of years old.

Marxism is a science... and I don't know if Communism as a whole is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Certainly the theory that workers would rise up and create a stable marxist-leninist society has been proven false. But now there are new theories and new considerations.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3283
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Shemtov »

Ahzoh wrote:.



Marxism is a science... and I don't know if Communism as a whole is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Certainly the theory that workers would rise up and create a stable marxist-leninist society has been proven false. But now there are new theories and new considerations.
I was more directing my statement to the belief that a true communist society would be happier or more productive. While statistics can be taken, I feel human nature has s many factors that measuring the superiority of any system is almost impossible because of false positives and such, and thus comes close to being unfalsifiable.
Ahzoh wrote:.

I say about pseudoscience with regards to claims like "God's name is found within DNA code" or that one-hour oil disproves that the Earth is billions of years old.

.
OK, it looks like we using the word "Creationism" a bit differently; ie the pure idea of ID vs. the baggage such idea carries.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

Shemtov wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:.



Marxism is a science... and I don't know if Communism as a whole is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Certainly the theory that workers would rise up and create a stable marxist-leninist society has been proven false. But now there are new theories and new considerations.
I was more directing my statement to the belief that a true communist society would be happier or more productive. While statistics can be taken, I feel human nature has s many factors that measuring the superiority of any system is almost impossible because of false positives and such, and thus comes close to being unfalsifiable.
Any system can be better than Capitalism or its predecessor Feudalism...
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
HoskhMatriarch
roman
roman
Posts: 1500
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by HoskhMatriarch »

Ahzoh wrote:
Shemtov wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:.



Marxism is a science... and I don't know if Communism as a whole is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Certainly the theory that workers would rise up and create a stable marxist-leninist society has been proven false. But now there are new theories and new considerations.
I was more directing my statement to the belief that a true communist society would be happier or more productive. While statistics can be taken, I feel human nature has s many factors that measuring the superiority of any system is almost impossible because of false positives and such, and thus comes close to being unfalsifiable.
Any system can be better than Capitalism or its predecessor Feudalism...
Yes, literally any system is better than capitalism...

Also, Marxism is a philosophy. Just because you believe in something and you believe in science doesn't make what you believe in science, just like how I see a lamp and I see a cello doesn't make a lamp a cello. Also, why do you only want to believe in science? Everything in science is being overturned all the time. Freud used to be the rage, but now Freud's a laughingstock. Many scientific theories are almost just a matter of upper-class old white men's intellectual fashion choices (although obviously not all of them and probably not even most of them, definitely not most of them if you include every little one like "gravity"). I mean, science is generally awesome (this is a forum for language science people, after all), but not everything actually has to be science, and Marxism definitely isn't science.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

Also, Marxism is a philosophy. Just because you believe in something and you believe in science doesn't make what you believe in science, just like how I see a lamp and I see a cello doesn't make a lamp a cello. Also, why do you only want to believe in science? Everything in science is being overturned all the time. Freud used to be the rage, but now Freud's a laughingstock. Many scientific theories are almost just a matter of upper-class old white men's intellectual fashion choices (although obviously not all of them and probably not even most of them, definitely not most of them if you include every little one like "gravity"). I mean, science is generally awesome (this is a forum for language science people, after all), but not everything actually has to be science, and Marxism definitely isn't science.
I'm not saying that Marxism is a science because "I believe in something and I also believe in science". That's a blatant insult to my intelligence to assume that.
That everything is "being overturned" only proves how effective science is.

Fuck, why do I even bother responding to your posts? They are now becoming just assumptions and misrepresentations of my position. Of course, not everything has to be a science. And the claim that many theories are "just a matter of upper-class old men's fashion choices" is an assumption.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
HoskhMatriarch
roman
roman
Posts: 1500
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by HoskhMatriarch »

Ahzoh wrote:
Also, Marxism is a philosophy. Just because you believe in something and you believe in science doesn't make what you believe in science, just like how I see a lamp and I see a cello doesn't make a lamp a cello. Also, why do you only want to believe in science? Everything in science is being overturned all the time. Freud used to be the rage, but now Freud's a laughingstock. Many scientific theories are almost just a matter of upper-class old white men's intellectual fashion choices (although obviously not all of them and probably not even most of them, definitely not most of them if you include every little one like "gravity"). I mean, science is generally awesome (this is a forum for language science people, after all), but not everything actually has to be science, and Marxism definitely isn't science.
I'm not saying that Marxism is a science because "I believe in something and I also believe in science". That's a blatant insult to my intelligence to assume that.
That everything is "being overturned" only proves how effective science is.

Fuck, why do I even bother responding to your posts? They are now becoming just assumptions and misrepresentations of my position. Of course, not everything has to be a science. And the claim that many theories are "just a matter of upper-class old men's fashion choices" is an assumption.
Well, explain to me exactly how Marxism is a science then. I mean, I guess it's a science since it has the -ism on it, like physicsism, geologyism, biologyism, astronomyism, etc. usw. and so forth, and unlike philosophies such as Stoic, Transcendental, and Absurd.

As long as everything is being overturned, why should anyone believe anything? It's just going to be outdated tomorrow. It's not like the old stuff is being corrected, but the new stuff is here to stay. (Note: I'm not saying people should just believe whatever they want. But things easily become outdated, therefore they're good, what?)

What exactly am I doing to misrepresent your position? Just lay down your position instead of being indirect if you feel people are misrepresenting it. Also, if you don't want to respond to me, just don't.

Do you agree with Freud or Social Darwinism then, if you don't think that scientific theories are subject to the same popularity trends as everything else? Or were we so dumb back then, but we know what we're doing now?
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

HoskhMatriarch wrote:Well, explain to me exactly how Marxism is a science then. I mean, I guess it's a science since it has the -ism on it, like physicsism, geologyism, biologyism, astronomyism, etc. usw. and so forth, and unlike philosophies such as Stoic, Transcendental, and Absurd.
That's now how the -ism suffix works: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ism (particularly definition 2 applies to Marxism)
As long as everything is being overturned, why should anyone believe anything? It's just going to be outdated tomorrow. It's not like the old stuff is being corrected, but the new stuff is here to stay. (Note: I'm not saying people should just believe whatever they want. But things easily become outdated, therefore they're good, what?)
Because this knowledge is additive. What is considered outdated only lays the foundation to new knowledge. Have you not read the Original Post?

Even if Einstein's Theory of General Relative were proven outdated, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't affect light and its speed and time.
What exactly am I doing to misrepresent your position? Just lay down your position instead of being indirect if you feel people are misrepresenting it.
I have many times expressed my position directly. It is only you who is misrepresenting it and I think it's intentional.
Do you agree with Freud or Social Darwinism then, if you don't think that scientific theories are subject to the same popularity trends as everything else? Or were we so dumb back then, but we know what we're doing now?
I would not say dumb. But no-one knows as much as they do now as they would in the future. Those were only the most that they knew.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1617
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by gestaltist »

Ahzoh wrote: I'm not saying that Marxism is a science because "I believe in something and I also believe in science".
I’m curious. Do you believe that Marxism/communism is a science, or a part of a science? Please elaborate.
User avatar
Ahzoh
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4191
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Canada

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Ahzoh »

gestaltist wrote:
Ahzoh wrote: I'm not saying that Marxism is a science because "I believe in something and I also believe in science".
I’m curious. Do you believe that Marxism/communism is a science, or a part of a science? Please elaborate.
No, Communism as a whole is not, but Dialectal Materialism is, of which the former is ultimately based upon.
Image Śād Warḫallun (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
HoskhMatriarch
roman
roman
Posts: 1500
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by HoskhMatriarch »

Ahzoh wrote:
gestaltist wrote:
Ahzoh wrote: I'm not saying that Marxism is a science because "I believe in something and I also believe in science".
I’m curious. Do you believe that Marxism/communism is a science, or a part of a science? Please elaborate.
No, Communism as a whole is not, but Dialectal Materialism is, of which the former is ultimately based upon.
Dialectical materialism is a philosophy of science, not itself a science. Dialectics and materialism themselves are also philosophies rather than sciences.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light
Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2399
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

Re: A badly written introduction to the scientific method

Post by Keenir »

Salmoneus wrote:The most obvious difference is that a religion tends to be more cohesive, have more institutions and organisations associated with it, be more concerned with highlighting and enforcing doctrinal purity, make positive claims about future-historical developments, seek to influence believer's broad social life and so forth, whereas political philosophies tend to be less defined and structured, less associated with specific organisations, less interested in purity and orthodoxy, more limited to normative claims rather than outright predictions, and to exert less influence on a believer's social life.
but isn't that only true (or more true, at least) for religions who focus on orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy?
HoskhMatriarch wrote:As long as everything is being overturned, why should anyone believe anything? It's just going to be outdated tomorrow. It's not like the old stuff is being corrected, but the new stuff is here to stay. (Note: I'm not saying people should just believe whatever they want. But things easily become outdated, therefore they're good, what?)
So, are you saying its bad to have laws limiting chemicals that were formerly considered safe for food or skin?
(oh hi arsenic)
Ahzoh wrote:Any system can be better than Capitalism or its predecessor Feudalism...
You make baby Churchill cry.
:) (for the reference)
Ahzoh wrote:Marxism is a science... and I don't know if Communism as a whole is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Certainly the theory that workers would rise up and create a stable marxist-leninist society has been proven false.
The workers keep rising up...the problem is the ship of state keeps getting derailed.
:)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799
Post Reply