Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Goose]

But again, my point is the limitation of the scientific method is that it cannot "prove" anything because it relies on a fallacy.

I get your point that science cannot prove things, but it doesn't rely on a fallacy either.

It doesn't so long as it doesn't try to prove anything. As soon as the scientific method tries to "prove" something it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent as I outlined here.

[unfogged]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

So then, you are not putting your faith in science, but rather, you are putting your faith in scientists, who already may have an agenda.

I don't put faith in anything; I do not have any faith in the sense that most theists seem to use it.

I put my trust in the scientific process, or perhaps, in scientists as a group. I'm well aware that individual scientists can have a bias or a blind spot but the self-correcting nature of the scientific method works to minimize that. As I said before, I accept science as the best tool discovered so far for gaining understanding of the universe. That doesn't mean that there may not be a better method that we just have not found yet or that I think science is perfect.

[Goose]

Depends what you mean by irrational.

By irrational I mean illogical.

It would seem to me to be irrational to reject something that has overwhelming evidence.

I will offer an example.

There is good evidence that I will, one day, die. However, I can't rigorously prove I will die. Nonetheless, I don't think it is actually irrational to suppose I will die. I rather think it would be irrational to think otherwise, n'est pas?

Ah, but here you are inferring from a valid and sound syllogism. It runs like this:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Keithprosser is a man.
3. Therefore, Keithprosser is mortal.

Here's an example of a classic affirming of the consequent fallacy:

1. If all life on the planet descended from a common ancestor then we would expect to see X, Y, Z.
2. We see X, Y, Z.
3. Therefore, all life on the planet descended from a common ancestor.

[Star]

Here's an example of a classic affirming of the consequent fallacy:

1. If all life on the planet descended from a common ancestor then we would expect to see X, Y, Z.
2. We see X, Y, Z.
3. Therefore, all life on the planet descended from a common ancestor.

I understand the logic you're describing, but your application of it to evolution and the point you're making, is in itself, a non-sequitur. Perhaps you are unaware of how much evidence there is supporting evolution, and how little evidence (none) that contradicts it? Since Darwin's days, science has amassed evidence they didn't know about, eg., genetics.

Evolution is the ONLY explanation for diversity of life. "God did it" doesn't quite cut it, even for "limited" science.

Oh, and they've already confirmed evolution in a lab, multiple times. It's a fact. Speciation happens. Zing.

[Goose]

I understand the logic you're describing, but your application of it to evolution and the point you're making, is in itself, a non-sequitur. Perhaps you are unaware of how much evidence there is supporting evolution, and how little evidence (none) that contradicts it?

How is it a non-sequitur? Is that just something you say when you don't know what else to say? The amount of evidence is irrelevant if the basis of the reasoning is faulty. You can't logically prove A on the basis of a logical fallacy.

Oh, and they've already confirmed evolution in a lab, multiple times. It's a fact. Speciation happens. Zing.

1. If evolution is true then we will observe speciation.
2. We observe speciation.
3. Therefore evolution is true.

Classic Affirming the Consequent fallacy. Zing.

[Star]

I understand the logic you're describing, but your application of it to evolution and the point you're making, is in itself, a non-sequitur. Perhaps you are unaware of how much evidence there is supporting evolution, and how little evidence (none) that contradicts it?

How is it a non-sequitur? Is that just something you say when you don't know what else to say? The amount of evidence is irrelevant if the basis of the reasoning is faulty. You can't logically prove A on the basis of a logical fallacy.

Do I come across as someone who doesn't "know what else to say" about science?

Goose, come on, you're obviously well-educated in English and philosophy, but your science is atrocious.

The problem is you don't demonstrate a complete understanding of science. You oversimplified the logic you think goes into confirming evolution to the point of misunderstanding it.

Do you do this every time you get medical treatment? Every time you log into your computer? Both of these rely solely on the application of science.

1. If evolution is true then we will observe speciation.
2. We observe speciation.
3. Therefore evolution is true.

Classic Affirming the Consequent fallacy. Zing.

See, this isn't how it actually works. There is quite a bit more to it than this. What else can I say? You have to do some reading. The pigeon strutting around on a chessboard like he's winning, knocking all the pieces over, comes to mind at this particular moment.

I doubt you read this link the first time I posted it, so here it is again, along with an excerpt, for your edification.

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations. Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

You also seem to be falsely assuming that science always follows the scientific method. It doesn't.

"The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders.

Scientists use all sorts of different reasoning modes at different times — and sometimes at the same time — when analyzing a problem. They also use their creativity to come up with new ideas, explanations, and tests. This isn't an either/or choice between induction and deduction. Scientific analysis often involves jumping back and forth among different modes of reasoning and creative brainstorming! What's important about scientific reasoning is not what all the different modes of reasoning are called, but the fact that the process relies on careful, logical consideration of how evidence supports or does not support an idea, of how different scientific ideas are related to one another, and of what sorts of things we can expect to observe if a particular idea is true.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/mis ... ons.php#b3
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_ ... ceworks_02

[keithprosser3]

I wonder who turned these guys onto this so-called fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'. I can see it being trotted out as the successor to 'evolution is only a theory'.

Well, guys it's a fair cop. Experiments can only provide support for a theory, never a rigorous proof. You have just discovered what scientists have known since the scientific method was invented. If we science types didn't make a song and dance about it before its because we thought it was obvious. Science isn't rigorous or certain. If you want rigour, you do maths, not science. And if you want certainty, you do religion.

[Star]

I wonder who turned these guys onto this so-called fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'. I can see it being trotted out as the successor to 'evolution is only a theory'.

I have no idea! It's a new one to me.

We have WinePusher insisting science is based on faith.

And we have Goose insisting science is based on fallacy. I suppose they think these two arguments complement each other.

But they turn on their computers every day with the expectation they will load, thanks to limited, faith-based, fallacious, and presumptuous science.

[Goose]

Do I come across as someone who doesn't "know what else to say" about science?

I'm not sure about that yet. But you certainly came across as someone that doesn’t really know what a non-sequitur is.

Goose, come on, you're obviously well-educated in English and philosophy, but your science is atrocious.

Well here’s your chance to edumacate me then.

The problem is you don't demonstrate a complete understanding of science.

Ah yes, it must be because I don’t understand science.

You oversimplified the logic you think goes into confirming evolution to the point of misunderstanding it.

What was it I oversimplified? I demonstrated the logic you use, and by implication the logic all Evolutionists use presumably, to prove evolution is a fact is built on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your response seems to be that I do not understand science.

Do you do this every time you get medical treatment? Every time you log into your computer? Both of these rely solely on the application of science.

Why do you think physicians regularly misdiagnose ailments? By the way, your computer doesn’t rely solely on science it relies on logic to operate.

1. If evolution is true then we will observe speciation.
2. We observe speciation.
3. Therefore evolution is true.

Classic Affirming the Consequent fallacy. Zing.

See, this isn't how it actually works. There is quite a bit more to it than this. What else can I say? You have to do some reading. The pigeon strutting around on a chessboard like he's winning, knocking all the pieces over, comes to mind at this particular moment.

Right. What else can you say. I showed your own reasoning for proving evolution to be a fact is built on a logical fallacy. Now, if you’d like to amend what you wrote to something like: the theory of Evolution is supported by how you interpret speciation thereby justifying your belief in Evolution, we have no argument.

I doubt you read this link the first time I posted it, so here it is again, along with an excerpt, for your edification.

I read the link before I posted it, don’t worry about that.

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations. Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

There’s nothing stated here that undermines my point.

You also seem to be falsely assuming that science always follows the scientific method. It doesn't.

I’m not necessarily assuming that. But the scientific method itself is a corner stone of the natural sciences. I’m arguing that science is limited since it can’t prove anything when it attempts to prove via affirming the consequent. To be fair, Science isn’t the only discipline limited by this constraint.

"The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders.

Scientists use all sorts of different reasoning modes at different times — and sometimes at the same time — when analyzing a problem. They also use their creativity to come up with new ideas, explanations, and tests. This isn't an either/or choice between induction and deduction. Scientific analysis often involves jumping back and forth among different modes of reasoning and creative brainstorming! What's important about scientific reasoning is not what all the different modes of reasoning are called, but the fact that the process relies on careful, logical consideration of how evidence supports or does not support an idea, of how different scientific ideas are related to one another, and of what sorts of things we can expect to observe if a particular idea is true.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/mis ... ons.php#b3
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_ ... ceworks_02

I have no issue with science that employs valid and sound reasoning.

[Goat]

However, that is not how these things are presented. People are not saying that it is most likely that man evolved from other life forms, or it is most likely that the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. No, these things are said to be proven.

It comes to what is easy for people to understand. Evolution is proven.. the alleles have been obersved to change over succeeding generations. Now, the TOE as a model is only 99% there.

As for AGW, that is in slightly less doubt, but it is beyond the point of reasonable doubt.

Howie, it's conjecture. There are way too many variables that can not be observed and/or isolated for either of these to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone fact.

On the contrary, a lot of it has been known for over 50 years. The progression of global warming, using the level's of CO2 predicted in the atmosphere, is extremely close to actual observations.. the predictions of the 1970's and the current temperature of the world is damn close.