4 ms·
I'm not saying humans are infallible, but trying to argue that "the scientific method isn't perfect because people aren't perfect" is nonsense, especially if th
by mfoy_ 8y ago
I'm not saying humans are infallible, but trying to argue that "the scientific method isn't perfect because people aren't perfect" is nonsense, especially if the conclusion you want to draw is that "therefore we should respect faith as an alternative means of determining truth".
The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. In fact, it's practically the only tool we have. Almost every major advancement our species has made has been because someone had a theory, figured out a way to test it, and came to a conclusion with some degree of confidence that they were then able to act upon and share with others.
Since this is a thread about philosophy, "truth" (and how one determines it) is extremely relevant. Epistemology is a whole branch of philosophy. If you're truly skeptical, one could even argue that true knowledge cannot be attained at all, and all we can hope to do is arrive at conclusions with as high a degree of confidence as possible.
My point is that science offers a way to increase confidence in a conclusion, religion does not.
It's as simple as that.
- JackFr 8y ago> The scientific method IS the best tool our species has when it comes to determining truths about the laws of nature. I agree. But I also believe freedom is better than slavery. I value wisdom over ignorance. And I believe those things without any proof. The scientific method cannot prove to me that murder is wrong, and yet I hold it to be true. So despite the fact that I agree with the power of the scientific method, I'll cop to truths that I believe without proof.
- mopierotti 8y agoProof is a hard goalpost in any domain, but science, and by extension the scientific method, can support the belief that murder is wrong through a couple plausible paths. The study of evolution gives a mechanism through which a sense of morality is 'hardwired' into us for its adaptive benefits. Or, less teleologically, the study of our own brains can provide evidence for us as humans just not liking certain things. Additionally, a technique like group simulation could show that allowing murder is against the average individual's interest. I'm not claiming I come to my beliefs through deliberate scientific reasoning, but I do think that science has important things to say about most things.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago>But I also believe freedom is better than slavery. I value wisdom over ignorance. And I believe those things without any proof. You believe these things on the same kinds of evidence you use for believing the sun will rise tomorrow.
- canhascodez 8y agoI think that it's a problem when we talk about the outputs of different forms of verification as if those things shared a common identity. They may share a similar property of undeniability, but they are not the same thing, and in point of fact, they are not comparable. The phrase "freedom is better than slavery" is not better or worse than "1 + 1 = 2" or "water boils at 100 C". I think that the idea of a singular thing called "truth" is actually fairly harmful.
- JackFr 8y agoSo when I say "I believe freedom is better than slavery" and "I believe 1+1=2" that they are two distinct, possibly incomparable forms of belief. Maybe. >I think that the idea of a singular thing called "truth" is actually fairly harmful. I disagree with that.
- canhascodez 8y ago> I disagree with that. Duly noted.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> Almost every major advancement our species has made has been because someone had a theory, figured out a way to test it, and came to a conclusion with some degree of confidence that they were then able to act upon and share with others. Citation please.