2007-12-05 04:58:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For those arguing the distinction between 'science' and 'scientific method'....
does the scientific method rely on any unprovable axioms, and if so, what are they?
2007-12-05 05:05:22 · update #1
Just for the record -- I see three such axioms.
Also for the record -- I'm an atheist.
2007-12-05 05:11:45 · update #2
I see three unprovable axioms:
1.) Mathematics and logic are valid. As truth is intrinsically a logical value, if logic is invalid, knowledge is unattainable.
2.) Observation is valid, if mathematically supported. For example, a telescope is not valid until the mathematics describing optics are formulated. If observation is not valid, knowledge is unattainable.
3.) If there is a supernatural or hypernatural realm, it has no influence on the natural realm. Otherwise, a supernatural being could randomly elect to change universal parameters, and permanence would be lost, and knowledge would be unattainable.
It is neat to see that each of these was in some way addressed by the combined effort.
Even as an atheist, I figured many would miss these unprovable axioms at the heart of the scientific methodology.
2007-12-06 10:45:26 · update #3
Only one.
The practice of science requires that there are objective patterns of operation of the universe that can be objectively demonstrated and documented by anyone having the tools and the understanding to do so.
For instance, we must assume that if Rutherford's foil experiment worked for Rutherford and it worked for the contemporary and following scientists both in support and working to disprove Rutherford, then it will work if attempted by someone else, or if incorporated into predictions or technology. Science operates on the unprovable axiom that the universe applies the same laws to me as it does to you.
If the universe changes its laws depending on who you are, where you are, or when you are, then science can't be applied (or it must be applied with significant restrictions). But so far, that doesn't seem to be the case, and science works quite well.
2007-12-05 05:01:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i understand. there is even an Foxhole Atheist internet site, alongside with the dazzling militia association of Atheists and Freethinkers. My nephew replaced right into a 12 300 and sixty 5 days foxhole atheist interior the army. He did make jokes approximately leaving the secure components to combat mutually as others cried, prayed and referred to as for mom.
2016-12-17 08:06:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science is not a thing to be proved. Science is a set of tools to examine, demonstrate, and explain the Universe around us. The scientific method is always being refined.
2007-12-05 05:03:06 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
According to Descartes, it's possible to doubt just about anything except the doubt itself. But that doesn't mean that suddenly all beliefs are equivalent. Some are far more ridiculous than others, not to mention inconsistent and self-contradictory. For example, Christianity.
2007-12-05 05:03:41 · answer #4 · answered by Бэлзeбот 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
not a atheist, but the identity axiom is one.
there is no way to prove this symbol (7) equals seven
i suppose that may be more math-related, but you need math for science
lost.eu/21618
2007-12-05 09:37:50 · answer #5 · answered by Quailman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have to assume that human logic is, well logical. As long as we believe that we make sense and that conclusions from a human mind with human reasoning are sound we are ok.
2007-12-05 05:22:39 · answer #6 · answered by future dr.t (IM) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. There is a physical world
2. Physical laws are a universal constant.
Can't prove em. But on the other hand, nothing would really work without them.
2007-12-05 05:04:16 · answer #7 · answered by Rafael 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What exactly are you asking? And why atheists? Do you not realize that a huge number of scientists are Christian, Muslim and other religions?
Do you think god was too stupid to use evolution as his tool?
If god exists and he is supposed to have created everything surely that makes him responsible for science too!!!!!
2007-12-05 05:05:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
"If event A occurs anytime circumstances B are present in all observed instances, then we can expect that anytime circumstances B are present, event A will occur." (Essentially, it's a restatement of the inductive hypothesis).
"For all values of x, x=x" (The principle of self-identity)
2007-12-05 05:04:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're not even speaking English.
science relying on unproven...
Science + unproven....
What??
2015-10-20 17:19:09 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋