Why Do I Believe in the Scientfic Method?

a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's weird how they can't find the cause for things like Placebo/Nocebo effect, double split experiment or self fulfilling prophecy.... I know, they know, you know, but they can't measure consciousness, all science Imo is flawed because of this.
They keep things from us, knowledge truly is power, the right knowledge of course.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

When the same commonly-taught methodology is used to reproduce the same results and it fails, then the methodology is flawed. By not using all science (multi-disciplinary), again, another flaw. So how do we get the right answer if scientists will not step out of the other guy's methodology or the peer-reviewed accepted methodology due to politics or their reputation. It feels like a broken record to me.

a reply to: AstrapisekirtS

How is that weird? Perhaps each of those things are more complicated than we currently have the tools to measure and quantify them with. The human brain is something that we only recently started seriously studying, so it isn't surprising that our knowledge of these concepts is underdeveloped or inadequate.

What IS weird is assuming that just because we have question about the way things work then science should have an answer to it already.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

When the same commonly-taught methodology is used to reproduce the same results and it fails, then the methodology is flawed. By not using all science (multi-disciplinary), again, another flaw. So how do we get the right answer if scientists will not step out of the other guy's methodology or the peer-reviewed accepted methodology due to politics or their reputation. It feels like a broken record to me.

Well what would you propose we do? Do you have a better methodology?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

When the same commonly-taught methodology is used to reproduce the same results and it fails, then the methodology is flawed. By not using all science (multi-disciplinary), again, another flaw. So how do we get the right answer if scientists will not step out of the other guy's methodology or the peer-reviewed accepted methodology due to politics or their reputation. It feels like a broken record to me.

Well what would you propose we do? Do you have a better methodology?

Just that we should keep pointing out the flaws and hope scientists do the same.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

When the same commonly-taught methodology is used to reproduce the same results and it fails, then the methodology is flawed. By not using all science (multi-disciplinary), again, another flaw. So how do we get the right answer if scientists will not step out of the other guy's methodology or the peer-reviewed accepted methodology due to politics or their reputation. It feels like a broken record to me.

Well what would you propose we do? Do you have a better methodology?

Just that we should keep pointing out the flaws and hope scientists do the same.

Well that's called Peer Review and is a critical step in the Scientific Method.

Keep in mind that just because a flawed idea may not be challenged in our day and age doesn't mean it won't be challenged by a later generation. The good thing about scientific ideas is they outlast the people who created them and therefore their egos preventing people from challenging them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

No. Those are flaws. Broken implies that there is no way to get the correct answer using that methodology, but if the scientific method is applied correctly then you should have the correct answer. Even Statistics is a science and is accurate if done correctly.

When the same commonly-taught methodology is used to reproduce the same results and it fails, then the methodology is flawed. By not using all science (multi-disciplinary), again, another flaw. So how do we get the right answer if scientists will not step out of the other guy's methodology or the peer-reviewed accepted methodology due to politics or their reputation. It feels like a broken record to me.

Well what would you propose we do? Do you have a better methodology?

Just that we should keep pointing out the flaws and hope scientists do the same.

Well that's called Peer Review.

Keep in mind that just because a flawed idea may not be challenged in our day and age doesn't mean it won't be challenged by a later generation. The good thing about scientific ideas is they outlast the people who created them and therefore their egos preventing people from challenging them.

It's not just their egos, keeping their research grant/job, and perhaps even truly believing their theory so much that they can manipulate the peer-reviewed/accepted methodology via personal bias; a don't rock the boat mentality, perhaps?

a reply to: Astrocyte

Quote by Astrocyte:

When you dedicate yourself to becoming a "polymath", its perhaps inevitable that you come to appreciate the spiritual basis of the world we experience. For me, while I'm not sure I yet the deserve the title 'polymath', I have grown more and more aware of the complex emotional processes that operate in human beings, and it has simply floored me to realize how remarkably complex - yet coherent, i.e. ordered - the whole of reality is.

Shouldn't a scientist be a polymath so as to perhaps see a broader plane of reality on a scientific level?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not looking for validity through science on the things i know.
My beliefs change like the wind, at my will.
I consider this a blessing by conditioning through circumstances.
I visit different perspectives regularly and know yours.

a reply to: InTheLight

I'd chalk all that up to ego, but yes all that and more. Time transcends human ego. Every time.

originally posted by: AstrapisekirtS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not looking for validity through science on the things i know.
My beliefs change like the wind, at my will.
I consider this a blessing by conditioning through circumstances.
I visit different perspectives regularly and know yours.

Science doesn't exist to provide validity on things you know. That's called confirmation bias and is a logical fallacy. Science is meant to provide answers to things it studies regardless of your preconceived biases or what "you know".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I'd chalk all that up to ego, but yes all that and more. Time transcends human ego. Every time.

Time may fix the flaws of misinformation or the accepted theory of knowledge of the day, but the human ego looks the same as always, from where I am sitting.

a reply to: InTheLight

True, so in the next day and age they'll be struggling with whatever theories are being blocked by those scientists' egos. Plus there ARE scientists that can set aside their egos in pursuit of science. They do exist too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know what confirmation bias is, i am a scientist
I am also a skilled butcher, ace marksman and brilliant driver does this make me a polymath?
I am.
Because i believe!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

True, so in the next day and age they'll be struggling with whatever theories are being blocked by those scientists' egos. Plus there ARE scientists that can set aside their egos in pursuit of science. They do exist too.

True, but where will they get their research grants?

a reply to: InTheLight

Research grants don't imply bias. Ever see those threads on ATS pointing out frivolous wastes of tax payer money and one of the examples is some weird science study where you look at it and wonder what the point was? Well clearly that research got funded regardless of its potential need. Someone had a test they wanted to carry out and was approved to do it and given money. It's easy to say that research grants come with a caveat that they have to produce science along a certain order, but that is more an assumption than a given.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

Research grants don't imply bias. Ever see those threads on ATS pointing out frivolous wastes of tax payer money and one of the examples is some weird science study where you look at it and wonder what the point was? Well clearly that research got funded regardless of its potential need. Someone had a test they wanted to carry out and was approved to do it and given money. It's easy to say that research grants come with a caveat that they have to produce science along a certain order, but that is more an assumption than a given.

I didn't mean it that way, I meant how can a forward independent thinker raise enough money to do his/her research his/her way?

a reply to: InTheLight

Ask Elon Musk.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

Ask Elon Musk.

Rephrase question: How can forward independent thinkers (plural) coming up to make a name for themselves get grant money if they don't follow the set-in-stone rules/methodology?

As for Elon Musk, he got in at the right time and got lucky.

When Elon Musk started to struggle with adolescent depression, he began actively absorb philosophical and religious literature. Yet the most valuable lessons, he eventually learned from Douglas Adams’ book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

astrumpeople.com...