A small Discussion on Atheism and scientific method..
Atheism does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. The scientific method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentation, logic, etc. Religion is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof". Atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position when we come in to practical explanation...
The above statement is correct or not... shall we can give an answer... we can..
Look In the past; we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. The scientific facts that were declared as truth, but were later found out to be false or in doubt.
For example: One research study says tomatoes cause cancer, another says Tomatoes Help Prevent Cancer. It’s the same scientific study called “scientific method” Which one is correct?
Damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate.
Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc. Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, but scientists still have to "interpret them. The interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions.
Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.
Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?
you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simply because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."
How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it’s “scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority?
"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method.
" If you say "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)." Who decides what is axiomatic? Does the scientific method decide it?
Then science will be wrong in the example of tomato. Today's truth will wrong in tomorrow when science gives another explanation..
Now It’s simple, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them are not lying to me. You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth.
Atheism does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. The scientific method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentation, logic, etc. Religion is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof". Atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position when we come in to practical explanation...
The above statement is correct or not... shall we can give an answer... we can..
Look In the past; we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. The scientific facts that were declared as truth, but were later found out to be false or in doubt.
For example: One research study says tomatoes cause cancer, another says Tomatoes Help Prevent Cancer. It’s the same scientific study called “scientific method” Which one is correct?
Damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate.
Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc. Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, but scientists still have to "interpret them. The interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions.
Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.
Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?
you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simply because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."
How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it’s “scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority?
"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method.
" If you say "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)." Who decides what is axiomatic? Does the scientific method decide it?
Then science will be wrong in the example of tomato. Today's truth will wrong in tomorrow when science gives another explanation..
Now It’s simple, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them are not lying to me. You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment