Thoughts on Benner’s “Life, the Universe, and the Scientific Method”

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Cleland
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
The Universe

Is There Scientific Method In Creationism Madness?

1984 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 3-26
Author(s):  
David R. Schwimmer
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Positive Approach ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Occam’S Razor ◽  
Hypothesis Theory ◽  
Logical Fallacies ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Occam's Razor

While no consensus exists among philosophers of science on a definition and paradigm for the “Scientific Method,” certain principles and methods of inquiry are nearly universal among working scientists and constitute a minimum framework for the concept. These include: the use of logic and Occam's Razor, objectivity, a positive approach to knowledge (i.e. that the universe is knowable and the knowledge should be obtained), and at least implicit application of the hypothesis/theory/law/fact hierarchy of generalization. Investigations of natural phenomena within these parameters may be termed “scientific” and, conversely, the circumvention of even one essential principle should remove the cachet of “Science.”A sample of “Creation Science” literature is examined to determine whether it adheres to the minimum “Scientific Method” described. Examination reveals that, indeed, all of the enumerated criteria are violated. Objectivity and the positive approach to knowledge are flouted overtly in several documents, whereas logical fallacies, violations of Occam's Razor, and misapplications of the heirarchy of generalization are rampant among (and intrinsic to) “Creationist” arguments, but typically must be ferreted out. Most distressful logical fallacies are non-factual statements, false assumptions, anachronisms, and a set of novel errors which may be termed “apparent scientism” (e.g. the citation of nonrefereed polemical writings, using conventional journal format). It is concluded that the methodological bankruptcy evidenced in materials examined removes the philosophy espoused from “Science” and leaves only the “Creationist” component.

The Moderate Fallibilism of Science

1970 ◽  
pp. 79-128
Author(s):  
Francis E. Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
Adequate Representation ◽  
The Universe

This chapter considers how valuable scientific knowledge is, and how certain and permanent is the knowledge gained through this method. Peirce repeatedly and firmly asserts that scientific knowledge is not a completely certain and adequate representation of its object. Science never achieves the final and absolute formulation of the universe. Pierce calls the acknowledgment of this necessary limitation of scientific knowledge “fallibilism.” It is an attitude of reserve toward science, a deliberate withholding of a complete and final commitment toward the achievements of the scientific method. At the same time, there is a spirit of confidence in science, and an assurance that science really does converge on the truth. Peircean fallibilism, then, is not a complete distrust of scientific knowledge. Rather it is tempered by the reasoned conviction that scientific knowledge is the best knowledge we have, and that the method of the sciences is the only reliable method of settling opinion, hence why his attitude is considered a “moderate fallibilism.” This chapter considers the moderate fallibilism of science as a consequent of the method of the sciences, and of the object which the sciences study, namely, the universe.

Letters to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-161
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Mechanism Of Action ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Knee Jerk ◽  
Homeopathic Medicine ◽  
The Universe

Mr Shoultz's letter typifies the conventional knee-jerk response to homeopathic medicine—"We don't understand how it works, therefore it must be a fraud." This type of thinking is the antithesis of the scientific method. In science, one must observe what occurs in the universe, then set out to determine causality. It is true that the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines is not understood. Indeed, as Mr Shoultz points out, homeopathic theory is inconsistent with current scientific belief.

scholarly journals Temporal Naturalism—Analysis of the Paper by Lee Smolin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Vesterby
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Block Universe

Lee Smolin wants to convince physicists that time is real. His biggest problem is that he does not know what time is—its intrinsic nature and its basis in the universe. He cannot answer the questions: What is time? Why does time exist? and Why does time have the specific qualities that it has? As a result, in this essay Smolin does not focus very much on time itself. Instead he focuses on discussion of extraneous issues and unrealistic speculations. He wants to promote temporal naturalism, but does so by contrasting it with timeless naturalism, the block universe view of time, which is an unrealistic fiction. He brings up timeless naturalism, panpsychism, and relationalism, all of which distract from any attempt to show that time is real. This paper clarifies why these extraneous issues have no place in a discussion of the reality of time. Further, Smolin believes there is no such thing as the scientific method, which blocks him from any realistic attempt to understand time. Included here is a description of the scientific method and why that method is required to achieve an understanding of time.

scholarly journals Scientifically proving God's existence

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John joseph Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Do So

It is possible to scientifically test/prove the existence of an ultimate form of consciousness. However, it is not possible to scientifically conclude whether this supreme form of consciousness, is indeed God (which is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe). Moreover any contention, which seeks to prove the existence of God scientifically, must do so by modifying arguments which have premises that when added together undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that God exists. The premises themselves must be modified, so that they can be tested by the scientific method. It is also implied at the end of this paper, that the methods suggested in this article, could be applied to other areas of philosophy in order to empirically test various ideas.

Causality Within Complexity

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-156
Author(s):  
Nicanor P. G. Austriaco ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Complex Systems ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Philosophy Of Nature ◽  
The World ◽  
Philosophical Framework ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
The Universe

By nature, every man is a philosopher who continuously seeks explanations for both the universe and the human condition. In the modern era, scientific explanations based on the scientific method and its accompanying philosophical framework of quantification, naturalism, and reductionism have obscured other approaches to explaining the world. Curiously, the emerging science of complexity and complex systems is challenging scientists to develop a more holistic approach to nature. The resulting more comprehensive view of nature combines traditional modeling based on the scientific method and empirical verification, complemented by modeling based upon philosophical principles. Aristotle's philosophy of nature suggests a model of complex systems which is both intellectually satisfying and complementary to the mathematical models already in use. The rediscovery of a philosophy of nature would contribute to a holistic worldview, providing a neutral middle ground in the science-religion dialogue.

The Wilkins Lecture, 1967 - Bacon, Harvey and the originators of the Royal Society

1967 ◽  
Vol 169 (1014) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
General Question ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Garden Of Eden ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Thomas Sprat ◽  
The Voice ◽  
The Universe

Much has been written on the origin and originators of the Royal Society, since 1662 the most effective body ever assembled for the true advancement of science and scientific method. There are two aspects of this climacteric event to be con­sidered in relation to the history of our civilization. The first is, how was the atmosphere, or climate of opinion, created for the blossoming and consolidation of the resulting conquests of science? The second is the identification of the indi­vidual human beings whose minds were first set to envisage the vast problems presented to them and what exactly did they do. Thomas Sprat, the first historian of the Royal Society, in his book published in 1667 only five years after the Society received its Charter, had no doubt about the answer to the more general question as to the climatic origin. He was discussing the old philosophy based on Aristotle and the new sort of philosophers ‘who have not only disagreed from the Antients, but have also proposed to themselves the right course of slow and sure Experimenting’. Of these, Sprat said, he would ‘mention only one great Man, who had the true Imagination of the whole extent of this Enterprize, as it is now set on foot, and that is the Lord Bacon’. There should be, he wrote, no preface to the History of the Royal Society other than some of Bacon’s writings. He was a man of strong, clear and powerful imagination, with a vigorous and majestical style, a bold and familiar wit. In fact Sprat seemed to answer both my questions by reference to a single name. Nevertheless, he had to admit that no one mind, not even Bacon’s, could grasp the whole design, for he tried to take all that comes, and to ‘heap rather than to register’. He might have added, as we shall see, that Bacon was no advocate of ‘the slow and sure experi­menting’ he had just mentioned. From that time to the present, Bacon as the Great Originator has received the lip-service of many people, few of whom have read his works. It would be well to examine a little more closely the role filled by Bacon. It is perhaps fair to say that he was the human mouth-piece of that impalp­able thing, the Zeitgeist , a presence which would have made itself felt even if Bacon had never been born. The scientific revolution was in the air. It had been slowly gathering force in Europe through the sixteenth century and questions of the old dogmatism were beginning to be asked. It fell to the lot of Bacon to be the voice of this spirit in England as the first statesman of science. His main interest, it has been said, was in ‘the science of science’. His grand idea was to establish a view of scientific possibilities so all-embracing that it would restore mankind to his position as it was before his fall in the Garden of Eden. Man was to re-establish his conquest of the universe and Bacon was to be his prime agent; but in order to organize science for the benefit of the human race he needed power, a thing only obtainable through politics.

scholarly journals Technology of an Unfree World. I. Primary Code

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-109
Author(s):  
Hauke RITZ
Keyword(s):  
Natural Science ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Technological Progress ◽  
New World ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
Scientific Image ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
The Universe

The actual technological revolution challenges our ideas about civilization to a much larger extent than all previous technological breakthroughs. Does it not lead us into a new world where there is no place for human freedom, and what has made possible such a trajectory of technological progress? To answer the latter question, it is necessary to analyze the logic of natural science development as well as the currently dominant scientific image of the universe. In the first part of his research, the author focuses on the premises of the scientific method, on the basic assumptions about the nature of our reality, which precede any scientific research and unconsciously structure the perception of reality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document