FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


How do we decide?





spinout
You can look at the scientific method and see that it is not working, especially in the small bits of nature where the testers influence the outcome.
Secondly, in the relative phere there is no laws , just force aginst force. So again we can not decide.
Even things thats are supposed to be wrong in the scientific method does not neccesary be that, in the long run everything alters....

We can not decide via the scientific method!
How do we adopt from here?
SonLight
The scientific method is a great tool, and I think we should use it to understand nature whenever we can. It is wise to recognize the limits of scientific method also, and not think it can give us all knowledge. A proper use of scientific method is to measure and quantify what we can, and to include a disclaimer that part of our ideas are speculation. Unfortunately most other methods for analyzing things are very subjective. Among traditional philosophers it is very common to appeal to "the way most people see it". At a minimum, the certainty of such an idea is limited somewhat by anthropomorphism. Perhaps in many cases what we are interested in is how it is for humans, though.
Ankhanu
I think you'd better explain your reasoning better and back up your claims with some sources, Spinout. Your statements are fairly "airy fairy" and are lacking some substance.
kelseymh
spinout wrote:
You can look at the scientific method and see that it is not working, especially in the small bits of nature where the testers influence the outcome.
Secondly, in the relative phere there is no laws , just force aginst force. So again we can not decide.
Even things thats are supposed to be wrong in the scientific method does not neccesary be that, in the long run everything alters....

We can not decide via the scientific method!
How do we adopt from here?


Really? Without any actual information content, your statements have no meaning or validity. What exactly do you want to decide? Where to eat dinner tonight? Or whether a medication can or cannot cure a disease?

Are you sad because the scientific method has demonstrated that one of your personal prejudices is not supported by fact?
spinout
I have never had any personal prejudices. Hm, or hehe once upon a time I dreamed of an earth without wars but war is just more n more - but even in that case the scientific method is off.

I am just saying the scientific method is actually not working, and not in any scale! important.

So noone have heard of testers influence the outcome of the scientific method... ? hm, I shall see if I can get a link about that from the net...
Bikerman
spinout wrote:
I have never had any personal prejudices.
A ridiculous and rather stupid claim for anyone to make.
Quote:
I am just saying the scientific method is actually not working, and not in any scale! important.

See above...
kelseymh
spinout wrote:
I have never had any personal prejudices. Hm, or hehe once upon a time I dreamed of an earth without wars but war is just more n more - but even in that case the scientific method is off.

I am just saying the scientific method is actually not working, and not in any scale! important.

So noone have heard of testers influence the outcome of the scientific method... ? hm, I shall see if I can get a link about that from the net...


You're going to need lots of citations, of properly peer-reviewed and published research, in order to support your assertion ("just saying") from ignorance. Digital glossorhoea from fellow crackpots is evidence of nothing except shared ignorance.

You might also try stating what you think you are talking about when you say "scientific method." There is an excellent chance that that is the source of your ignorance. An intelligent person can reformulate their opinions in the face of new, learned understanding.
spinout
hehe, this isn't the first time in the history that the scientific method is summerized to be misleading. And well the word crackpot... never smoked it! And stupid??? well might be BUT I would never say such a word to someone! Hello, Any moderator here that can fix the language to a bit more pleasant?
kelseymh
spinout wrote:
hehe, this isn't the first time in the history that the scientific method is summerized to be misleading. And well the word crackpot... never smoked it! And stupid??? well might be BUT I would never say such a word to someone! Hello, Any moderator here that can fix the language to a bit more pleasant?


I never called you stupid. "Ignorance" is an accurate, factual description of "lack of knowledge." If you don't know what something means, and you use a term without understanding, then that is a reflection of ignorance. Ignorance can be corrected easily with learning.

If you choose to consider yourself a "crackpot," as opposed to an intelligent reader who has picked up mileading information from crackpot sources, well, that's certainly your choice.

We can provide you accurate information, and pointers to places where you can gain accurate information for yourself. If you would prefer not to do so, that's also your choice, but it means your contributions won't be particulary relevant, useful, or interesting.
spinout
Ha, I am foreign so "fellow crackpot" meant you and your associates who uses crack to me then, "Stupid" spelled another member...

Anyhow - what I meant is that in the small bit of the universe the method is not useful cos of 2 faults; influences of the tester and the old "measurement problem". In the large scale we have another problem called "no law just force vs force" and that is the case you have in the relative - everything changes, everything!

So the only thing the method does is saying some idea is wrong but since the method is useless to the circumstances above it can't even say something is wrong... i.e. the method is useless!
johans
Scientific method comes from scientific experiment. As a human being, we decide based on what happens, what is beneficiary and of course for the good.

Decision, is based on human experience and there capabilities to do it.
kelseymh
spinout wrote:
Ha, I am foreign so "fellow crackpot" meant you and your associates who uses crack to me then, "Stupid" spelled another member...

Anyhow - what I meant is that in the small bit of the universe the method is not useful cos of 2 faults; influences of the tester and the old "measurement problem". In the large scale we have another problem called "no law just force vs force" and that is the case you have in the relative - everything changes, everything!

So the only thing the method does is saying some idea is wrong but since the method is useless to the circumstances above it can't even say something is wrong... i.e. the method is useless!


You still haven't provided any useful information, just repeated what you said before.

1) What do you think you mean by "influence of the tester"? Please provide at least one concrete example.

2) What do you think you mean by "the measurement problem"? Please provide at least one concrete example, and also explain how this is different from (1).

3) What do you think you mean by "no law just force vs. force"? Please provide at least one concrete example.

4) Why do you think the scientific method "only says some idea is wrong'? This may be the fundamental point that you don't understand.
Ankhanu
Spinout, you're seriously straddling the fence to trolling territory here. If you're going to make claims and expect actual discussion of them, you're going to need to offer up some good source material, and/or well reasoned argument. Thus far you've offered neither, and seem to be poking around for a reaction.
Dennise
Spinout,

I really don't understand just what your point is and what your are driving at.

You say the scientific method isn't working?

Do you not believe the SM has given us these:

    vaccinations for many diseases
    proof and understanding of our sun centric solar system
    nuclear power .... and sadly - nuclear weapons
    the internet
    discovery and understanding of DNA
    radio and television
    airplanes
    remotely controlled Martian robots
    etc. etc. etc


Do you thing these accomplishments could have happened without the scientific method?
spinout
I'm still in search of the 1) link sorry...
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFhcvG0v50

The difference between 1 and 2 are that there is a parameter if influencing measurements on that level. still looking... But in short, the tester influence the outcome too much.

3) hm, this is macro - this a hot debate in the 60s 70s - I will come back on this.

4) I will now call up on a known face... some feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Listen about 3min 45 secs... and a bit forward. only says something is wrong BUT... my idea is that the SM is too errorful to even show something is wrong...

Trolling??? - hm, I call it a forum. Without any debate on something then it is dead. I am very tolerant!
Ankhanu
spinout wrote:
I'm still in search of the 1) link sorry...
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFhcvG0v50

The difference between 1 and 2 are that there is a parameter if influencing measurements on that level. still looking... But in short, the tester influence the outcome too much.

I don't have an hour and a half to watch that lecture; I'm leaving within 30 minutes. Can you distill the point out of the material that you're trying to make?

In most scales, observer effects are negligible... though, yes, at the quantum level it can have some influence. Most studies in which this may be a real influence acknowledge the problem in observation in their interpretation and/or resulting equations.

Observer bias, however, is something the scientific method deals with quite well; in conjunction with peer review and (perhaps more importantly) independent verification, it can quite effectively be weeded out of resulting theory. Scientific method is designed (in concert with good experiment design), in part, to minimize bias; it's not eliminated exactly, but it's certainly minimized... and if you think the peer review community isn't rabid about rooting out bias, well, I can only assume you've never read the "letters" section of a reputable journal Razz

spinout wrote:
4) I will now call up on a known face... some feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Listen about 3min 45 secs... and a bit forward. only says something is wrong BUT... my idea is that the SM is too errorful to even show something is wrong...
Perhaps you should keep watching through the part starting at 5:10; it's pretty relevant Razz

For the record, I rather agree about the scientific method only proving ideas wrong, not right... it is a somewhat semantic topic, however... when applying the scientific method, we have two primary options: 1) demonstrated wrong, and 2) supported... supported isn't necessarily right, but, it is assumed to be provisionally right, until 1 is demonstrated. Supported/assumed to be right is a much more honest position to take than attempting to prove something is right; it recognizes that knowledge may be incomplete, and that there may be factors that haven't been taken into consideration, leaving theory open to modification (or abandonment) when new evidence is present. This is a very powerful tool built into the scientific method.

spinout wrote:
Trolling??? - hm, I call it a forum. Without any debate on something then it is dead. I am very tolerant!
Oh yes, this is a forum... forums tend to be full of trolls.
Debate is a wonderful thing, an EXCELLENT use of a forum. However, a good debate includes well formulated and (ideally) well supported arguments. Many trolls make good use of assertion and vagueness to stir up reactions in those looking for a quality discussion.



You may be correct that Scientific Method is imperfect, however, it is certainly the best tool we have for assessing the nature of reality. Like attempting to overthrow any established theory, you're going to need to bring your A-game to this debate and present well supported arguments and demonstrations to demonstrate a better method, or why the current method is inadequate. Actually expressing what your goals are for engaging this discussion might be a start too.
Also, like kelseymh said, it would be a fantastic idea for you to explain, in your own words, what you think the scientific method is, as I think many of us don't think you have much of a grasp on what it is you're denouncing... and we can address that directly.
spinout
It is not observer bias I had in mind, I feel glad that you mentioned it. It is a fun property that works on 50% off the people, that is why it is banned in Sweden from radio transmitted signals since the wars.

I am thinking off an effect that the human can influence the results off mesurements of the nature, still searching, I saw a study of it about 14 days ago...

SM is surely the best method. nothing against that.

The measurement problem in q-fysics... i'll be back... an associate calls for iceceream...
spinout
Icecream and berries... hm, not bad for a thursday at work...

What SM is? I am thinking precisely as Feynman in the retro video. Just a way to say a statement is wrong, nothing more. - >then when you look upon the problems the method is facing it is hard to even concider that it can tell that a statement is wrong.

the 5:10 - well vague statements are not what I am gaining for as the problem with the SM. They kind of as Feynman says be too loose to even to a statement about.
Ankhanu
Here's another little excerpt from a chat with Feynman that's relevant to your impressions of scientific method:
spinout
Well, ok I can go for that I seem as pessimistic as Feynman. No problem.

Now I am on summer holiday and will be on the beach n in my old chevy for a while, so that hunt for the lost evidence of scrambled results when measuring will probably later, sorry.

But in general I think it is more fun with an optimistic view that the scientific method works in fully, still I have my strong doubts.
Radar
I think it's more interesting to consider the point that we can't use science to decide the value of science. The system can't evaluate itself.

It doesn't have practical value as such, but it's an interesting thing to note.
Klaw 2
Radar wrote:
I think it's more interesting to consider the point that we can't use science to decide the value of science. The system can't evaluate itself.

It doesn't have practical value as such, but it's an interesting thing to note.



Indi wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
You can’t prove the scientific method is valid…

(The 1st is broken into two parts, because it was two different claims.)

This is a non sequitur - a sentence strung together made of words that looks like it makes sense, but doesn't.

In particular, what does "valid" mean? Sounds like a good word, but it's meaningless in the context. It's like saying: "You can't prove that walking is valid." The scientific method is a means of gathering knowledge about the natural universe; walking is a means of getting from point A to point B. What does "valid" mean, when talking about the scientific method, or walking? That the method actually works? Well, it's pretty plainly obvious that it does. That it's BEST method for accomplishing the goal? "Best" is subjective, and even where it's not, it depends on things other than the goal (for example, walking is "better" than driving if you're concerned about the environment).

So next time you hear this claim, ask what "valid" really means. Does it mean that the scientific method is only valid if it can find out the "truth"? That's another non sequitur: the scientific method makes no claim that it is able to find out the truth. The scientific method only helps us uncover knowledge about how the natural universe works, nothing more, nothing less.

Klaw 2 wrote:
You cant prove the scientific method with the scientific method….

This is a silly claim. The only correct response to this is: "so what?" You can't prove addition with addition; does that cast doubt on whether 2 + 2 is 4?

Even if you could use the scientific method to prove itself (again, prove itself what? functional? effective? "valid"?), that wouldn't mean anything except that the scientific method is self-consistent, which would be neat, but meh. Proving something with itself is a logical fallacy - it's begging the question. For example: proving Christianity is true because Christianity says it's true. That would be a stupid way to prove Christianity true, and it would be no less stupid for proving the scientific method as whatever (functional, effective, "valid").
dansm01
kelseymh wrote:

Really? Without any actual information content, your statements have no meaning or validity. What exactly do you want to decide? Where to eat dinner tonight? Or whether a medication can or cannot cure a disease?

Are you sad because the scientific method has demonstrated that one of your personal prejudices is not supported by fact?


The best explanation that I've come across regarding how we make decisions and come to conclusions is in Daniel Dennett's books Consciousness Explained, and Freedom Evolves, in which he posits (if my understanding is half correct) that it's not a case of a single entity (or homonucleus) calmly considering the options and deciding, but more a case of a chorous of conflicting voices shouting, and the loudest voice getting the guernsey. I just wish my eat chocolate-shouting voice wasn't louder than my eat sensibly-shouting voice.
Related topics
Too much spam
Countering Computer Game Addiction: Step Away from the Scree
eBay wins stay in MercExchange case
how about put google ad in cpanel?
The Unofficial Jokes Thread
Yahoo 360!
Site under construction?
Cutest actress ! add your favourite
Help me decide what to do with my FriHost site...
[tecg]Microsoft decide que Windows sea compatible con Linux
St Andrews vs. Edinburgh (help me decide on a university?)
Computer Programmer
Dog or Cat... Can't Decide!
How do you decide what size moniter for a computer?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.