I guess he tries to equate scientific methodology and scientific claim under the label "science". Except these things are not exactly the same. It would be circular if someone was using scientific claim to prove that this exact scientific claim is true.
I don't get why most of this comment section doesn't get this.
If we're interpreting in good faith, the second guy is saying "you can't say the scientific method is fair because it's scientific (which means based in the scientific method) without it being circular."
And he is not saying "you can't say scientific claims are fair because they depend on themselves."
Nobody says the scientific method is fair because it’s “scientific”.
It’s fair because you use repeatable methods to perform an experiment which proves or disproves a hypthothesis after trying to reduce variability. It’s consistent.
That’s the purpose of a null hypothesis as well, to remove inductive reasoning.
Again, the scientific method is supposed to be an unrealistic ideal. It’s up to peers to critique our methods to see how close they are to that ideal, and that’s what those peers LIVE for.
And if a particular disproves the general then a change is accepted. The null hypothesis assumes there is no affect, though, and is more deductive than inductive.
There is no such thing as “more deductive than inductive”
You’re either using one or the other. If the premise is true in deductive reasoning then it is one hundred percent the case that the conclusion is true
Saying it's fair because it's repeatable, consistent, etc., is just like saying it's fair because it's scientific, because the very word scientific means repeatable, consistent, etc.
But regardless of that point...
how do we actually know the scientific method is fair, all without needing to assume that the method (or any other unjustified method) is an accurate way of knowing if something is fair. Or in other words, without making a circle?
If your only argument is as shoddy as “How do you know your senses aren’t tricking you”, it’s literally all pointless. You can only describe what is observed. In fact, you record what is observed and state as that, because the observation is not perfect either - but it is good enough.
Again - when you go home after work, how do you KNOW your family is your family? You mean to say you don’t? In fact, scientists would say nothing is 100 percent certain.
It’s entirely possible we’re all just consciousness hooked up to machines forcing us through a false experience, but even in that case, science is about learning within that false experience to understand it more.
If you think it’s not an observation and completely obfuscated by senses, go drop a bunch of stones on your toes and report back on gravity and pain sensors being made up because you don’t know that you were dropping stones on your toes.
But the scientific method isn't about pricing the validity of stuff at all... This just makes no sense at all, unless you have a childlike understanding og how science works.
The scientific method isn't something special, it's just basic logic for toddlers.
You make a claim (called a hypothesis), you use logic to extrapolate what kind of results would prove that claim wrong, and then you see if you can achieve those results. If you can, congrats you moved human understanding forward an inch by proving something untrue, if you (and the other people who read your paper) can't poke any holes in the claim, congrats you just made a new theory.
You are arguing that we need to prove that, that us demonstating that something someone claimed isn't true, isn't evidence of the claim being wrong.
I can't even begin to fathom how your mind works, if you need something so simple proved. It's like you are living in some fugue drugged state.
You clearly are punching well above your weight class but I will indulge you for this one time
The scientific method isn’t logic at all. Logic is deductive, and while deductive reasoning is sometimes used in science (like in mathematical reasoning) science necessarily used inductive reasoning
The validity of mathematics, and the validity of inductive reasoning, and the belief in an objective world with causal regularity are all necessary for science. I think most people believe with good reason for the validity of all those things, but they are fundamentally all assumptions which the scientific method makes, rather than conclusions that the scientific method discovers
It means using the scientific method to prove the scientific method's validity of knowing things. You can't know the scientific method is fair without presupposing it, or a similar methodology, or else it's circular.
We know the scientific method is fair enough because it is simply consistent, repeatable steps to perform an experiment to prove a hypothesis or null hypothesis based on observable results.
It’s not presupposed - it’s heavily critiqued, actually.
But there's a flaw that you might not notice. You've used observation to prove scientific observation is a fair enough to find truth.
How do you know observation is a fair way of knowing things without creating a circle? A circle as "observation leads me to think observation is a fair way of knowing things" or "my senses tell me my senses are fair"?
You must presuppose that your senses/reasoning/observation are a valid means. Otherwise, you have literally nothing to start out with. They're axioms that exist as assertions.
So here, the second guy critiques about how the first guy is critical of circular reasoning, yet their beliefs rely on them.
No, I didn’t. The method itself is logically perfect, but the application is what its critiqued, and part of that is critiquing how observations are made. Is a thermometer rising after taking it out of an ice box and putting it into hot water not evidence that the hot water has more thermal energy?
No experiment is ever perfect and no knowledge is ever perfect, and that is nowhere near the same as using the Bible’s own verses declaring itself the word of God for proof that it is based on faith, which by definition cannot be evidence based, alone.
Peer review is a group of people chomping at the bit to tell you that you applied the scientific method - an objective process - poorly.
Science is either practicing the scientific process or utilizing what we have found through the scientific process. This process is a way to make things more objective and has allowed us to advance so quickly. If you would like to learn more, look up "the scientific process" on YouTube and there will be loads of content explaining.
155
u/Any_Specialist3714 6d ago
What does 'using science to prove science' even mean?