What did they mean by this? What PRACTICAL limits does the scientific method have in principle, beside certain experiments being too hard to perform? Is there another method that fills in the gaps?
No mental masturbation please.
What did they mean by this? What PRACTICAL limits does the scientific method have in principle...
Joshua Anderson
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Brody Russell
> Scientific method has limits
It's not the fact that it has limits, It's the fact that scientific method is the most reliable and logical method for finding out answers, which is why it's the only option.
Samuel Brooks
>Is there another method that fills in the gaps?
no. If our current "understanding" of the world has shown one thing, it's that humans are notoriously bad at reasoning about how the world works in absence of any evidence in one direction or the other.
Caleb Wood
Science explains everything, except for where science contradicts my political ideology. In those cases, only continental philosophy is sufficient.
Jeremiah Baker
I sort of agree with this.
Science is mostly a tool to me. I don't see it as an "answering" kind of thing.
Grayson Rivera
When appropriate statistics/findings do not currently exist to arrive at an appropriate hypothesis, such as chaining findings for other findings (aggregate statistics).
Or determining relevance and cultural interest in specific findings or potential findings.
Jayden Wood
Maybe they mean like the flaw of the calculator where if you put in the wrong numbers you'll get a wrong answer.
kek.
Christian Fisher
By studying human knowledge excessively students of science and professional scientists can often begin to suffer from the illusion that through the scientific process we can make an accurate hypothesis about any phenomena in the universe, even if we don't have the slightest whim of actual data to base it on. All these 'consciousness' theories are the perfect example of this.
This isn't to say that there's more value in religion or philosophy, but as intellectuals we have to be careful not to become arrogant and consider ourselves greater than we really are. We know practically nothing and many of the accepted theories of today will be laughed at in 50 years.
Carter Myers
The only flaw the scientific method has is that it's usually performed by humans.
Isaac Diaz
> What did they mean by this?
All they mean is that by adding 'ism' to science they can make it sound like an opinion instead of an institution.
Nathaniel Reed
Most published "science" is trivial circle-jerking citation farming. This prevents people who want to do actual science from getting funding, since more citations = more funding. Furthermore, most studies are payed for and influenced by one interest or another.
People don't even do anything approximating the supposed scientific method most of the time (not that they should, since it's a silly abstraction that has little to do with reality). It's mostly a bunch of failure, bullshit and procrastination, then you write the best paper you can when the time's up, whether it's actually any good or not.
Jaxson Long
t. engineer
It's not even funny anymore.
t. engineer
Liam Green
Science cannot explain that which cannot be tested, and that from which data cannot be collected. Assuming there exist phenomena which cannot be tested, and from which data cannot be collected, then science has limits in understanding existence. (I.e. The source of the Big Bang, undetectable cosmic Angels)
Does this seem about correct?
Colton Peterson
>Is there another method that fills in the gaps
"Filling in the gaps" is pointless if you use a substandard methodology to the information you've already attained.
You just have to accept that not everything will be known in your lifetime, or maybe ever.
Julian Williams
itt:engineers
Levi Adams
>scientism
fgt pls
Jordan Howard
>What practical limits does the scientific method have in principle.
Can't know about anything that isn't part of reality, can't determine what was going on before reality existed.
>Is there another method to fill the gaps?
If there is one which is reliable, I haven't ever heard of it. From what I've seen, if there's a gap humans will usually fill it with stupid conjectures and science eventually comes around and fills that gap because that's what it was designed to do as a tool. The basic scientific method has already been proven to be sound, we can use it to draw increasingly accurate pictures of reality, and the only way that will change is if the fabric of reality itself changes.
Also, as to your shitty bait image.
>Faith, the persistence in believe without evidence.
>Having anything to do with a human created tool designed specifically to draw conclusions based on evidence while attempting to eliminate bias or human error.
You don't have to have faith in science because science that's done well is supported by evidence, which means you can base your belief on said evidence. You only need faith if you want to believe something without evidence or in spite of evidence.
Benjamin Wood
>What PRACTICAL limits does the scientific method have in principle
The only practical limit is the restriction on the kind of problems it can solve: metaphysical mind jerking just can't be solved because there's absolutely no way to gather data about that class of statements.
Cameron Long
hard to answer
simple fact is that a world without god is impossible
the scientific method is epistemologically unsound cuz it relies on a method of probbility
Robert Garcia
Colton Perez
en.wikipedia.org
Speak for yourself, and control for the limitations of your anecdotes.
Jason Nguyen
>this dude wasn't completely wrong while making baseless assumption
Hunter Collins
>science unravel the mysteries of the universe
t. TBBT fan
Cooper Fisher
>baseless
Moronic words from someone who doesn't actually know anything about anything. This isn't a matter of knowledge about the history of philosophy, it's just knowledge in general. If you'd ever thought about the world yourself, and was the type who was inclined to, you'd have a decent idea the chain of reasoning that might cause someone to formalize something like this in 500 BC.
Easton Butler
the scientific method is a process for testing ideas.
You do the experiment and analyze the result. But its plenty easy to make mistakes along the way. which is why scientists try to keep the majority of variables the same in the hopes of isolating a single variable.
Also if you don't have the theory or idea to begin with, you can't do much.
Hunter Hill
>PRACTICAL
keyword
Grayson Edwards
...
Anthony Nguyen
maybe just that the very basis of the scientific method and all scientific evidence is inherently unjustifiable