The Scientific Method For Dummies

[rdean]

Well, there may be no evidence supporting the Grand Canyon being carved from Noah's Flood or Samson weakened merely from having his locks shorn, but those children's fables are certainly entertaining and they could make great Disney movies.

 

[antagon]

when i get kiddies, im going to put them to bed lecturing on dark matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

 

[Bill Angel]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

Some years ago I was polygraphed as part of the procedure for obtaining a Government security clearance. The big thing when I went through the procedure was checking potential employees to see if they had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. This was back in the 1980's. They didn't however ask questions of a political nature like "Are you are Communist?"

The question about "resonable suspicion" is an interesting one, in the sense that the interviewer can question you about aspects of your life without having evidence (or proable cause) to believe that you personally have been involved in such questionable activities such as substance abuse or membership in a terrorist organization. After all, your participation in the lie detector interview session is totally voluntary.

 

[antagon]

my take on the six principles is that they fail to expound on "emperical" this is central to the scientific method which i argue is set as a bar for actual scientists practicing in the sciences. some of the other stuff is out of left field. 'falsifiability' is one such to the extent that it discredits the list as an exam of practical scientific method at all.

by no means is a theory valid because it can be falsified. if it provides no emperical support it is pedestrian conjecture.

 

[rdean]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Depends on the people. Millions of Republicans believe Obama is the "anti Christ". Will scientists start to look for "evidence"?

 

[antagon]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

Some years ago I was polygraphed as part of the procedure for obtaining a Government security clearance. The big thing when I went through the procedure was checking potential employees to see if they had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. This was back in the 1980's. They didn't however ask questions of a political nature like "Are you are Communist?"

The question about "resonable suspicion" is an interesting one, in the sense that the interviewer can question you about aspects of your life without having evidence (or proable cause) to believe that you personally have been involved in such questionable activities such as substance abuse or membership in a terrorist organization. After all, your participation in the lie detector interview session is totally voluntary.

ahh. so if this was poker, and i have reasonable suspicion, does that beat probable cause or vis versa?

 

[California Girl]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Depends on the people. Millions of Republicans believe Obama is the "anti Christ". Will scientists start to look for "evidence"?

Link for the 'millions of Republicans believe Obama is the 'anti Christ' claim?

 

[Bill Angel]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

Some years ago I was polygraphed as part of the procedure for obtaining a Government security clearance. The big thing when I went through the procedure was checking potential employees to see if they had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. This was back in the 1980's. They didn't however ask questions of a political nature like "Are you are Communist?"

The question about "resonable suspicion" is an interesting one, in the sense that the interviewer can question you about aspects of your life without having evidence (or proable cause) to believe that you personally have been involved in such questionable activities such as substance abuse or membership in a terrorist organization. After all, your participation in the lie detector interview session is totally voluntary.

ahh. so if this was poker, and i have reasonable suspicion, does that beat probable cause or vis versa?

If the issue was whether your opponent in a poker game was cheating, probable cause requires a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion does. Probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest. Reasonable suspicion would authorise the police to detain and question your poker playing opponent.
I ain't a legal authority on this (smile), but this explaination reflects my understanding of
the difference between Reasonable suspicion and Probable cause.

 

[Madeline]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

What are you asking, anatagon? If a polygraph test result would support a probable cause for arrest warrant? The answer is no. Such warrants have to be supported by admissible evidence...but a search warrant does not. "Reasonable suspicion" is the standard for searches...I suppose a failed polygraph would suffice, but off-hand I can think of no case where a search was authorized on a warrant application supported only by polygraph results.

I have a feeling many judges would be reluctant to sign such an application, even though it at least seems as if it would be legally sufficient.

 

[Madeline]

Then what's up with all the analysis of bank robbery notes and the ZODIAC's letters?

i digress back to how a lack of real shit inspires weirder and weirder surrogates. the dalai lama would have been called in if the zodiac was still knocking them off.

So, even a scientist will consider bad information if there is no information available? That is so totally counter-intuitive, anatagon. Data does not grow in reliability depending on how scanty it is.

Right?

The assertion that reliable clues to a person's character1 and some of his capabilities may be derived from analysis of his handwriting usually evokes a vigorous pro or can reaction which seems to originate somewhere in the subconscious mind and not to reflect a reasoned consideration of the proposition. The reaction is at times so strong as to give a psychologist the impression that those who shrink from the idea do so because they fear exposure and those who eagerly embrace it are the kind who like to snoop and pry. Whatever the psychological reasons, one thing is certain: the proposition is a good one for starting a controversy.

The art of handwriting analysis-graphology, as it is more commonly called, especially in Europe--has two branches: an established and "respectable" one devoted to the identification of individuals by their handwriting, and a black-sheep branch dealing with the assessment of personality. The latter is the subject of this paper. I am not a professional graphologist, but I have explored the subject enough to be convinced that this black art has a practical application in the assessment of persons to whom access for other character tests is limited.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol3no3/html/v03i3a03p_0001.htm

 

[Madeline]

when i get kiddies, im going to put them to bed lecturing on dark matter.

 

[Madeline]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

You are funner than a basket of kittens to debate, miss.

Logic:

An argument is said to be “valid” if its conclusion follows unavoidably from its premises; it is “sound” if it is valid and if all the premises are true. The rule of logic thus governs the validity of inference. Although philosophers have codified and named the various forms of valid arguments, it is not necessary to master a course in form logic in order to apply the rules of inference consistently and correctly. An invalid argument can be recognize by the simple method of counterexample: If you can conceive of a single imaginable instance whereby the conclusion would not necessarily follow from the premises even if the premises were true, then the argument is invalid.

From the article linked in the Op.

Now, applying this standard, are all atheists in error? Is their reasoning "unsound"? For example, if God exists, why would he have created small pox viruses or HIV viruses? (I am not an atheist; mebbe one will wander by and provide better examples.)

I posit that you cannot prove God exists scientifically because you must assume God exists to prove it...the reasoning is circular, and invalid.

Comprehensiveness

For obvious reasons, it is never reasonable to consider only the evidence that supports a theory and to discard the evidence that contradicts it. This rule is straightforward and self-apparent, and it requires little explication or justification. Nevertheless, it is a rule that is frequently broken by proponents of paranormal claims and by those who adhere to paranormal beliefs.

For example, the proponents of biorhythm theory are fond of pointing to airplane crashes that occurred on days when the pilot, copilot, and navigator were experiencing critically low points in their intellectual, emotional, and/or physical cycles. The evidence considered by the biorhythm apologists, however, does not include the even larger number of airplane crashes that occurred when the crews were experiencing high or neutral points in their biorhythm cycles (Hines 1988:160). Similarly, when people believe that Jeane Dixon has precognitive ability because she predicted the 1988 election of George Bush (which she did, two months before the election, when every social scientist, media maven, and private citizen in the country was making the same prognostication), they typically ignore the thousands of forecasts that Dixon has made that have failed to come true (such as her predictions that John F. Kennedy would not win the presidency in 1960, that World War III would begin in 1958, and that Fidel Castro would die in 1969). If you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat.

Many people argue God exists because they have had a personal experience that they strongly feels demonstrates his grace....in fact, I am just such a person. But this fails to account for the bad outcomes that occur even when people pray like mad.

Honesty

The rule of honesty is a corollary to the rule of comprehensiveness. When you have examined all of the evidence, it is essential that you be honest with yourself about the results of that examination. If the weight of the evidence contradicts the claim, then you are required to abandon belief in that claim. The obverse, of course, would hold as well.

In practice, the rule of honesty usually boils down to an injunction against breaking the rule of falsifiability by taking a multiple out. There is more to it than that, however: The rule of honesty means that you must accept the obligation to come to a rational conclusion once you have examined all the evidence. If the overwhelming weight of all the evidence falsifies your belief, then you must conclude that the belief is false, and you must face the implications of that conclusion forthrightly. In the face of overwhelmingly negative evidence, neutrality and agnosticism are no better than credulity and faith. Denial, avoidance, rationalization, and all the other familiar mechanisms of self-deception would constitute violations of the rule of honesty.

I freely acknowledge, I choose to believe God exists...but if I were to examine the premise in a dispassionate light, I would say he does not. There is far too much suffering and injustice in the world to conclude scientifically that we all have an invisible, omnipotent sky friend.

This does not mean I oppose faith or even religion -- but it does mean I oppose the injection of faith and religion into matters of science, public health, etc.

 

[Foxfyre]

I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that I am looking forward to seeing an old friend or that I hope for a certain outcome or that I want to be a millionaire. Yet the most staunch Atheist does not question my reported feelings of anticipation or desire or anticipation even though these cannot be tested, falsified, or replicated by any scientific process.

Yet that same Atheist will deny that I have experienced God based purely on his/her insistance that there is no way to prove it.

For me that is totally illogical.

Maddie raises the question of how there can also be God and an imperfect world with grief, pain, suffering, injustice, etc. etc. etc.

Yet she does not question how there can be millionaires who experience no joy from their wealth. She doesn't question that some people enjoy alcoholic beverages with no ill effect while others become ill, hallucinate, or become hopelessly addicted. It doesn't bother her that the automobile gives us tremendous freedom and mobility and safety even as it is involved with thousands who lose property or loved ones or who incur pain, maiming, suffering, death.

For me it is illogical to accept that many wonderful things exist imperfectly but reject that a deity can exist in an imperfect world.

For me, who has experienced God, it is incomprehensible to not believe in that experience. There is no way to falsify or replicate that experience any more than I can falsify or replicate the hope, desire, or anticipation that I experience in other things.

He who has not experienced may doubt or accept the validity of the experience of another. But in all cases, both doubt and acceptance require faith.

And as for sufficiency of my belief, experience, faith or whatever one wishes to call it, I go back to logic that tells me that if I could fully understand, comprehend, or explain the God I experienced, he wouldn't be much of a God.

 

[antagon]

Then what's up with all the analysis of bank robbery notes and the ZODIAC's letters?

i digress back to how a lack of real shit inspires weirder and weirder surrogates. the dalai lama would have been called in if the zodiac was still knocking them off.

So, even a scientist will consider bad information if there is no information available? That is so totally counter-intuitive, anatagon. Data does not grow in reliability depending on how scanty it is.

Right?

The assertion that reliable clues to a person's character1 and some of his capabilities may be derived from analysis of his handwriting usually evokes a vigorous pro or can reaction which seems to originate somewhere in the subconscious mind and not to reflect a reasoned consideration of the proposition. The reaction is at times so strong as to give a psychologist the impression that those who shrink from the idea do so because they fear exposure and those who eagerly embrace it are the kind who like to snoop and pry. Whatever the psychological reasons, one thing is certain: the proposition is a good one for starting a controversy.

The art of handwriting analysis-graphology, as it is more commonly called, especially in Europe--has two branches: an established and "respectable" one devoted to the identification of individuals by their handwriting, and a black-sheep branch dealing with the assessment of personality. The latter is the subject of this paper. I am not a professional graphologist, but I have explored the subject enough to be convinced that this black art has a practical application in the assessment of persons to whom access for other character tests is limited.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol3no3/html/v03i3a03p_0001.htm

cops aren't scientists or utilizing science alone in their investigations. that's good ol' human pragmatism. maybe some desperation in the mix.

 

[geauxtohell]

There are many reasons for the popularity of paranormal beliefs in the United States today, including:

* the irresponsibility of the mass media, who exploit the public taste for nonsense,

* the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, (Whoops...I did think polygraphs had some validity) and

* the ineffectiveness of public education, which generally fails to teach students the essential skills of critical thinking.

As a college professor, I am especially concerned with this third problem. Most of the freshman and sophomore students in my classes simply do not know how to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence. At most, they've been taught in high school what to think; few of them know how to think.

In an attempt to remedy this problem at my college, I've developed an elective course called “Anthropology and the Paranormal.” The course examines the complete range of paranormal beliefs in contemporary American culture, from precognition and psychokinesis to channeling and cryptozoology and everything between and beyond, including astrology, UFOs, and creationism.

I teach the students very little about anthropological theories and even less about anthropological terminology. Instead, I try to communicate the essence of the anthropological perspective, by teaching them, indirectly, what the scientific method is all about. I do so by teaching them how to evaluate evidence. I give them six simple rules to follow when considering any claim, and then show them how to apply those six rules to the examination of any paranormal claim.

The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method.

To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them: Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word ”FiLCHeRS” stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief.

You'll be filch-proof.

CSI | A Field Guide to Critical Thinking

Any thoughts, folks?

Me, I liked his "Falsifiability" tenet. It had not occurred to me before but seems true: any belief that is never going to be susceptable to being proven false has to be considered magical thinking or religious belief, not "fact".

The concept of falsifiability always throws the non-science people.

It's a pretty simple concept, but to really understand why it is relevant, you need study some bio-stats and type 1/type 2 errors.

 

[geauxtohell]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

It's also a violation of a person's fifth amendment rights, which is why you have to consent to a polygraph.

I would never consent to a polygraph, even if I knew I were completely innocent.

 

[geauxtohell]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

 

[zzzz]

that says a bit about scientific method, but in becoming a scientist, you are subject to a year of scientific philosophy covering the method and the history of study as well as the current approaches. in the end, the method is deeper than what any summary can confine, certainly beyond the capacity of a word like demonstrable or falsifiable. it is flexible enough to address (hopefully all) physical issues, some of which are forensic, or requiring explanations which might not make repeatable experiments achievable or accessible.

I have no doubt, antagon...but presumably, this was written for lay people. We have so much muddled thinking here that there are two new palm readers doing a fire sale business in my neighborhood. They are competing against the third, which has been here as long as I have, and all three are advertising against each other.

Yet, every month, another real business in my neighbor is closed. We've lost two fast food restaurants, KFC and Arby's. I dun understand people who have no money for food spending their last $5 to be entertained by a good story teller.

This trend alarms me, and I had hoped we could discuss ways to reach the public with some basic training in reality-testing.

This is the reason. Hope. They hope for a better life and they hope that the fortune tellers will reinforce that hope.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

That's only if you take the position that if it isn't science, then it isn't real. I don't take that position. I see science as one compartment in all knowledge that exists, and perhaps all that exists fits into science somewhere, but we sure as heck can't either falsify or replicate all that we know exists.

I take the position that there is much that is real that science can't explain. And that's okay. I also take the position that we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know and that we will discover or that will be revealed to us later on.

For me it is illogical and irrational to disbelieve something purely because it cannot be falsified or replicated scientifically.