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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
I don't have the energy needed to debate those disagreeing with the opening post. I do think it would benefit some members to re-read it and refrain from indulging in unfounded assumptions.


You're aware that the actual members whom are involved in discussion deviate from the op as the thread matures correct? Remaining on the op would solve absolutely nothing...ride the train, or jump off.

I've addressed the op and have began a discussion still on topic, even though some may disagree. That's the point of ats...meaningful discussions and learning.
edit on 31-3-2015 by Jenisiz because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Yes, the OP is correct that the scientific method has limitations. It requires the use of empirical data. I realize that subjective data can also be used depending on the study (such as in psychology), but that is somewhat of a separate topic. Regardless, data is limited by the current tools we have at our disposal. As technology progresses, our tools advance, and we are able to gather data where we were previously unable. Thus, we are then able to explore those subjects through the scientific method.

In the example the OP gives, it is not currently possible to be able to recreate the dream sequence. However, we are getting there. There are researchers who study brain imaging and their corresponding waves to be able to discern what images, objects, or ideas they are. Pretty cool stuff. Maybe one day science can be able to test dreams much more thoroughly.

Now, is it possible to explain all of the mysteries of the universe using the scientific method? Of course no one knows. However, its success rate has been unprecedented, and is currently the best method for understanding our universe. Unless I am missing something (I very well could be; it certainly would not be the first time) this is all very basic fundamental information that a person can learn in an introductory science course.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jenisiz
You're aware that the actual members whom are involved in discussion deviate from the op as the thread matures correct? Remaining on the op would solve absolutely nothing...ride the train, or jump off.

I don't expect others to remain strictly on topic, but some of the responses indicate that certain members have misunderstood and misconstrued the message in the opening post to such a degree that debating them is not worth the effort.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:02 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; 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?


Well, I will directly address your OP. I'm not quite sure exactly what you're arguing. First, what is a "hard-line pro-science person"? In other words, you're suggesting that some people are anti-science. What set of beliefs would somebody have if they are anti-science? Is it the validity of the scientific method you oppose? In terms of studying natural phenomena of the world, what exactly about the scientific method do you think is flawed? I think you have a misinterpretation of what science really is. No scientist would agree with the statement "that which cannot be observed or replicated through the use of the scientific method is not real." What do you mean by "real?" Additionally, no scientist would argue that your dream didn't happen. We don't currently have the tools to gain visualization of others' dreams, thus it is NOT a matter of science. You're essentially adding to the current definition and capabilities of science, and using that as a basis to argue against it. Therein, I think your statement is invalid.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
the scientific method is a static operation, which therefore has flaws..

It is our best guess in understanding the structure of our reality I suppose.

Academia, focuses more on it then it should thou when it comes to principalities...

In the ancient times academics was something derived just for the rich and powerful, literacy was a privilege..

We cannot take this understanding for granted and we also have to see and understand it limitation...

the scientific method will no longer teach us or describe to us our origin,
but it can and will help us discover ways to heal us..

The scientific method helps us utilize a technology we do not understand,
it helps us understand parts of it to our benefit,
the scientific method does not help us understand it,
it helps us use it....



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


I don't have the energy needed to debate those disagreeing with the opening post.

How about answering my question, then?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost




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 right, there is noo way to test subjective personal experiences at all. In your dream example, scientific method could determine that you did infact dream, but not of what. Your personal report of the dream is neither observed or testable. It's always proof or it never happened with science. Noone can prove many phenomenal experiences many of us experience through out a lifetime so it is always a depiction or story of what happened and how it made them feel. Science can easily say that none of it ever happened, even if the person is adimant that it did.

Without an impartial observer, all experience is subjected to each persons understanding of what they experienced, and their predisposistion of what caused that experience (e.g. felt cold, hair stood up, saw apparition in window) even if a million people experienced this at the same time, it's not replicateable, not testable in a controlled lab, not measurable (besides witnesses), etc. This is how science is flawed in a way. Personal experience and our inner thoughts can't be scientifically studied without many confounds. Even an impartial observer of any scientific experiment could shange the results, as our conscious has been shown to make reality malleable. Plus, science has been wrong more than right throughout history, but that is the method to finding out "why?"

If 10 people say something is green and you say it is blue, who is right? Everyone I believe. It may be green to 99% of people but its blue to 1%, so each persons perception is different in regards to that color. It may be labeled as green as the majority see it that way, but the minority would say the majority is wrong until science belittles the minority since 99% disagree with the minority, and now the minority is deemed as uncredible.

What could we expect in future technology to measure, record, test, and study non-physical phenomenas?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

We are all Scientist's in a way simply because we are all part of the same experiment.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Naw. We are all mystics in a way simply because we are all part of the same Mind.



👣



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
We never directly experience anything outside of awareness.

Science cannot account for awareness.

No one knows what even a single thing actually IS in reality.

What a mystery we participate in!


edit on 4/1/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
An interesting experiment posted in another thread that directly correlates to this thread and worth reading.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Mystics or Scientists, end of the day we are all Human-beings attempting to ascertain not just what makes us tick but what this reality is all about.

I love the mystics analogy, says it all really.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Agreed, brother.

👣



new topics




 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join