Is the scientific method infallible?
yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
no
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
Is the scientific method infallible? Not at all--there are some inherent problems with the Scientific Method that (good) Philosophers wrestle with all the time. Also, it is already understood that the modern methods of Mathematics are superior in finding out what is "true" or "false"--however, unlike science, Math is entirely internal and not at all dependent on the external world while science is entirely dependent on our subjective interpretation of the "objective" external "real" world. Side: no
t is already understood that the modern methods of Mathematics are superior in finding out what is "true" or "false"--however, unlike science, Math is entirely internal and not at all dependent on the external world That's why I think our current understanding of things is skewed by an over-reliance on mathematics. Math can work well for solving physical problems but it can also lead one to contrive a system of physical mechanics based upon the false assumption that what you have factored into the equation physically exists. For example if you write an equation with the relative location of certain objects within 3 dimensional space, the 3 dimensions appear in the equation as X Y and Z, and thus they are just as "physical" as the objects themselves according to the math. But for all we know only the objects themselves exist in physical reality and the concept of space being an actual physical construct is contrived entirely from our reliance on math. Side: yes
@Factology What is typically one of the most glaring problems is that experiment to result shows you something very limited in depth of insight about fundamentally "what is going on", even though it can provide a very precise basis for calculations. Then people start to infuse "philosophy" and call it "science" as it is their personal/camp interpretation of what they think may be going on to explain the results and why the calculations work. One area where this comes up so blatantly is in quantum mechanics--where there are various interpretations, all of which may in fact be Sci-Fi. Now, the uncomfortable truth is, that is how basically everything in Science is--as it is the current best attempts to grapple with the results seen/observed. "Gravity" is amongst another where this is seen very readily; to name just another example. Now, in Mathematics, the rules of the game are all internally constructed, which means they can be absolutely proven given the definitions and certain axioms (which, in it of itself, can prove problematic if one wants the "proof" to be 100% "airtight"). Also, what is currently "proven" in Mathematics actually is in reality much more like "yet to be disproven--as a mistake has yet to be spotted". So, Math itself is still very much subject to change and various interpretation--again, something many find a bit uncomfortable as if a fundamental mistake were ever found, the entire system would have to undergoes a complete paradigm shift to accommodate. Humans in all time periods like to believe we have figured out/achieved more than we objectively have--whether it be Science, Math, Athletic competition, Art, Music, or any aspect of being human. The history books are filled with such examples, but we keep walking into the same mental traps. Side: yes
1
point
That's why I think our current understanding of things is skewed by an over-reliance on mathematics. I consider math to be an objective language (i.e. the opposite of internal) which helps us explain reality coherently. The problem you described is real, but it is caused by the fact that the sensory data we receive is written in different language. The math has to be translated into sensory data before its effects on reality can be understood, and that is the root of the problem. We are losing things in translation. Side: yes
0
points
Math is entirely internal and not at all dependent on the external world False. Many things disprove you, but for simplicity let us focus solely on F = Gm1m2/r2. This is an example of math which is dependent on the external world. You try extremely hard to create the impression of knowledge and I'll give you a useful tip: it's exactly what exposes you as a know-nothing. Side: yes
@Nomenclature No, we use Mathematics to describe phenomena subjectively observed in the external world. However, the construction of Mathematics itself is entirely internal. That is very different and very important to understand. In fact, in the first introduction to Mathematical Theory course one would find at any University system--it is often assigned to students to construct the number systems from scratch. That is; the Rationals, the Reals, the Integers, etc. It is a very interesting exercise and highlights the important difference between Math & Science. Side: no
|
