It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Limitations of Science

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method

I had a read of this article earlier and believe there is merit to it. A lot of hard-line pro-science people give off the impression that science is infallible and has all the answers; that which cannot be observed or replicated through the use of the scientific method is not real. I disagree with such an assertion and urge even the most staunch proponent of the method to at least consider the plausibility of the article above.

My own example of the limitations of the scientific method are illustrated in the following example. Let's imagine I had a vivid dream last night involving a hovercraft, dragons and large ocean waves. While I am certain I had this experience, I have no way of proving or accurately replicating such a dream. There is no way (for other people) to test whether my experience took place or not. How can the most subjective of experiences be viewed in an objective manner?




posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I think its like asking how you can prove that my yellow is really your yellow. There are some subjective issues you can relate only with general ideas. So yes, in my opinion science is limited. I think that maybe mysticism is a better approach than science to analyze our existence



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark GhostScience is impeded by religion, and most of the planet is religious.

Science in the US only gets major funding if it is tied to the military police state,
or the security police state.

We know how to solve all the problems of the world, but a small group of
people find divide and rule a useful way to "manage the herd".

They see us as their herd animals much as Orwell alluded to in Animal Farm.

You can see the world slowly slipping into the Dystopia of 1984/Brave New World.

So with insane billionaires dancing politcal puppets on multiple continents, and
the majority of resources going to War, Sports, Religion, Entertainment, etc...

Science has been taking the back seat budget wise for a long long time,
and it gets what scraps it can by surfing the budgets of the bread and circus
merry go round that has been in play since the polticians of the time of rome.

And thank you to the nut jobs that called one of their groups the club of rome
to make the parallel too easy to see.

Watch "The Thorium Dream" to see just how much the future of humanity
has been held back for ulterior motives.




edit on 30-3-2015 by Ex_MislTech because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Science of course has many fields ... speaking to scientists you learn that it is very much compartmentalised ... Each "Expert" in their field may be unaware of the findings of others in other fields ... It is a division ... Of course the work of scientists can be labourus ... Years and even lifetimes spent in the pursuit of proof or not within their limited field. It is a form of obsession as are many other pursuits.

Yet if Science is arrogant in dismissing others input because it does not fit their narrow view ... then they need to think again ...



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


I had a vivid dream last night involving a hovercraft, dragons…

Unless you can produce a dragon scale to science for examination there isn't much they can do to verify your claims. Imagination is even more rampant during sleep.

Instruments don't go there.

Maybe one day they will invent a dream camera or mass spectrometer that works in both worlds.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
There are no limits to science. The 'scientific method' is merely a means of obtaining the purest, most truthful results.

As for areas that aren't as easy to scientifically test, such as dreams, it is not science ( knowledge) that is limited, nor it's methodology, but the parameters of the human brain in conceptualising the realms in which it communicates.

en.wikipedia.org...


Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[2]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method

I had a read of this article earlier and believe there is merit to it. A lot of hard-line pro-science people give off the impression that science is infallible and has all the answers;


Uh... No. That isn't true at all. One of the chief reasons that people deny science is because it DOESN'T have all the answers. That is how science operates. It answers the questions for which it has evidence to answer. The only people who try to tell you that science has all the answers are religious people building a strawman to try to discredit science.

I notice that your source is from the ICR. No surprise there. All they do is deal in science denialism. Though, most of what they deny is straight up made up science.


that which cannot be observed or replicated through the use of the scientific method is not real. I disagree with such an assertion and urge even the most staunch proponent of the method to at least consider the plausibility of the article above.


It's called Occam's Razor. The theory with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. Nothing about that statement is definitive though. Science doesn't say that god doesn't exist. Science says that god likely doesn't exist because we can't produce any evidence for existence. However, if evidence comes forward for the existence of god, Science is willing to change its mind.

Another way of looking at it is, Science just says that it doesn't know the answer to that question. There is no point in theorizing about something that we cannot even show proof of existence for. That's like theorizing on the biology of unicorns.


My own example of the limitations of the scientific method are illustrated in the following example. Let's imagine I had a vivid dream last night involving a hovercraft, dragons and large ocean waves. While I am certain I had this experience, I have no way of proving or accurately replicating such a dream. There is no way (for other people) to test whether my experience took place or not. How can the most subjective of experiences be viewed in an objective manner?


Your argument doesn't make sense. Science can prove that people dream through brain scans. They know that the point where dreams become very vivid and trippy is called REM sleep. Scientists also have an understanding of how experiences are stored in your head. While, science currently lacks the ability reproduce your dream from your head, that doesn't mean that science doesn't believe you had the dream. Science may be a bit skeptical on your remembrance of the dream though since dreams fade quickly and the human brain has a tendency to remember things wrongly.

Your entire argument can be summed up as such. "Science is flawed because it cannot answer this one concern of mine." Science doesn't cater to the individual concerns. Science collects evidence then interprets that evidence. Through the course of interpreting evidence we come to understand more about the universe. Sometimes that tells us things we don't want to hear, and it ALWAYS creates new questions for us to answer.

Stop listening to crappy articles from biased science denialism sites. You won't get real information from there. Just propaganda.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Here's a huge limitation:

When I was studying for my BSc I had to prepare research papers. A lot of my research was original, yes, believe it or not I had original ideas - like all young students.

When it came to writing up my research papers I wasn't allowed to include my original research - I was only allowed to include research from sources I could reference, things that had been done before.

Now get that for BS.

I stuck my fingers to the system, did it all my own way and handed it in for marking. I got good marks but lost 10% as a penalty for not obeying their rules.

That's what I call cutting it off at the pass!



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

It is an Educational standard, Literature, Art etc have the same criteria.

One could mention ''it could be argued that...'' or ''it could be considered that..'' and to use 'accepted' /'verified' professional sources as the basis for the analysis.

Own opinion has to be backed / countered by professional referenced sources for accurate marking.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Freeman Dyson could be right. Science could be too limited and clumsy to prove something that most people experience.

"If one believes, as I do, that ESP exists but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing."

-Freeman Dyson

👣



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

I suggest you read about Quantum theory and dimensional universes, which are theories postulated by science.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

All forms of science is not facts but starts as a theory from an educated person (an educated guess) in what he/she believes though the word "theory" is seldom used in their journals/white papers.

Science is often wrong more than it is right as technology evolves. IMO there are just as many conspiracies in the field of science as there are in the UFO files. Getting people on board with money to support their "theory" makes it a part of accepted "standarized practice in their field of science."
edit on 30-3-2015 by DeathSlayer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

In my opinion its not Science that has limitations its Humanity.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


A lot of hard-line pro-science people give off the impression that science is infallible and has all the answers; that which cannot be observed or replicated through the use of the scientific method is not real.

Are they scientists? Which ones?

Give us a few quotes.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: BlueMule

I suggest you read about Quantum theory and dimensional universes, which are theories postulated by science.


If you're suggesting that such things provide a theoretical framework for ESP, I agree. But that's not the same thing as proof.

👣


edit on 681MondayuAmerica/ChicagoMaruMondayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I understand what you're saying. My issue is if I had groundbreaking assumptions I wanted to prove by researching, assumptions that had never previously been made.... I couldn't because there was no previous research for me to use as a starter like uni wanted.

To add ... I didn't have any groundbreaking new area to research but I'm sure some geniuses out there do and perhaps they're cut off at the pass?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Science is knowledge, it has to have parameters with which to measure/ analyse, for accuracy.

If a concept has less measurable parameters, it isn't the fault of science, it is the limitations of the concept or the ability for humanity to accurately determine the measurable factors in the concept.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Science is simply our best guess based on the information we have available at the time.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

At PhD level such research is more valid, at BSc, BA etc, the measure is proving one's faculties and ability to comprehend rational and ordered processes via demonstrating knowledge.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263
That is largely because a bsc is still about learning the basics. You don't really do any original research till phd level in any field. No conspiracy just the practicalities of academia.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join