[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[Ron Kulp]

[Ham]
What I find absurd is his criticism of the scientist's "faith" in the
meaningfulness of a hypothesis (he later refers to it as "dogma") that
leads to a testable prediction.  If instead of the deprecatory term
"faith" we substitute "belief", then it becomes clear why they believe
what they do. 
Obviously only "testable" hypotheses are meaningful.  If you can't test
it, you can't verify it, hence can't rely on it to work in the "real
world". 
Isn't it simple common sense to believe that a proven theory will work?
If so, why attack it on the ground that it might work for some other
reason than the hypothesis tested?

The scientific method is not a dogma and does not rely on faith.  It is
in fact the most logical and effective approach to solving problems.
Questions as to WHY it works, and whether an alternate hypothesis would
also work, are theoretical issues not built into the methodology.  I
have no problem with this; Ian evidently does.


[Ron]
I think faith and belief are commonly held to mean roughly the same
thing.  I think what is trying
to be said is that science has faith in their method based on evidence
as proof of their beliefs.
much the same way a christian scientist would base evidence of miricles
on objective truths.
what is being called into question is the interpretation of the data.

What you have been saying has got me to thinking a lot about faith and
belief,
and the concept of Essence and it's relational value.

Thanks Ham


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/