What is special in the scientific method?

Question

I believe in the value of logic, open mind, systematic experimentation and verification, etc. However, when I discuss with Christians and members of other belief systems. they also feel they use these principles. Many Christians will tell you that they question their beliefs, try to make sure it is true, use logic, consider their experiences, etc. The objective of all belief systems is the same: get closer to the laws, laws of God or laws of nature, etc. So, what is unique to the scientific method? Be careful in your answer. For example, I am sure many Christians feel that they have a systematic approach, and it may be true. What I am getting at is that History repeats itself. There has been different predominant belief systems, modern science being just the most recent one, but our approach to truth did not change so much. Is there something unique to the scientific method that everyone, even Christians, will naturally agree with?

Answer 1

Functional Materialism is the premise that makes the scientific method unique. Science is limited to the observation of the material world and explanations that resort to material causes.



The other qualifications given thus far are accurate, but have historically caused problems in practice. Falsifiability is always a bone of contention among scientists. Many of the most prevalent theories showed no signs of falsifiability at the time they were crafted; it was only when subsequent investigators looked to document all the phenomena that the theory sought to describe that problems arose. But even then, if the theory can be revised somehow to fit the new phenomena, then the theory (flawed from a future perspective) remains essentially unchanged. So what counts a falsifying data?



The "scientific method" is, as many things are, a human idea, with human institutions built around. It is therefore just as subject to human influence as others (ex. historical circumstances, individual egos, cultural mores or values). Its only difference from all other institutions are its foci: the material world, the communal practice of science (repeatability of experiments or intersubjective verification as others have called it), and the rigorous search to describe the material world.



Even some of these are not entirely unique. Astrology was a highly rational system, developed by a community, and concerned primarily with physical objects. People (often, unfortunately, scientists) try to draw a sharp distinction between examples like this and "real" science, but the differences are much more slight then they would like to admit. In the end, modern science actually flows out of institutions like this, adopting new and different principles as it goes along. Karl Popper, by way of a metaphor, said that science is not a group of men building a house upon the bedrock of truth, but rather a group sinking beams into a swamp to prop the house up.

Answer 2

There's nothing "special" about the scientific method It simply describes a model for the way the universe works. If you believe that model (which as a scientist I do, even though I recognize that there are a few 'philosophical' leaps required), it becomes a powerful way to understand how things work.



As a rationalist therefore, if I can adequately explain why a kettle of water will boil when I place it on my stove, then I should be able to use the same methods to understand evolution, the age of the earth, the formation of the universe etc etc.... I know many religious people agree, however, it still seems that at some point, they effectively say "well god did that" ...whether it be at the evolution stage (for creationists) or at the big bang stage (for more the more "enlightened"). That just seems inconsistent to me. Why would you use the evidential and deductive approach of the scientific method for almost everything but then stop using it at some arbitrary point because of your belief system.



The best answer I've heard (which I still think is rubbish!) is Steven jay Gould's non overlapping magisteria (NOMA) concept, that metaphysical ideas simply can't be addressed using scientific methods. It seems that the boundary between metaphysics and science can be arbitrarily drawn, depending on your initial beliefs...hence my skepticism, that this is a viable solution.



As to your comment about "history repeating itself", as I said at the start, there is certainly nothing special about scientific method, except that it answers questions in the logical and predictive way required for science. I'd argue that as older 'belief systems', religion and magic offer less in the way of

predictability. I can't see modern technology or pharmacology being arrived at through either of these systems. Of course, believers in these systems will argue that there are things that science cannot offer.... I guess that's ultimately about what you want from the world. I'm very happy using science as my framework for life... others seem to need to feel that the universe contains some intangible mystery.



great question though!

Answer 3

One answer here is clearly right: "scientific method relies upon intersubjective confirmation." In fact, it does not only rely upon it but, strictly speaking, it addresses ONLY those questions which can be answered using experiments that can be repeated by different people and get the same result. Scientific method does not, can not, and never will address all of the questions that religion purports to answer.



Maybe you're really asking what is the value of scientific skepticism when it comes to deciding what you believe is true about the world. Christians and other religious people do at some point take things on faith, and interpret their experiences as supporting the faith... *according to a scientific view.* They just aren't using language to describe this, in the same way as a scientist would use language.



Religious belief is a funny thing - if you are a skeptic, you would call a religious person's "truth" about the world a "true metaphor," or true only metaphorically. But given the lack of *scientific* knowledge we can have about such "truth," it's a metaphor that *might as well* be true -- might, within all experience, just as well be true as the truths of science are true *within science* and empirical confirmation. Science just doesn't address the question of their truth at all, and so a hardcore scientific skeptic doesn't accept them as truths.



So your answer would be, scientific skepticism requires that you have no beliefs that can not be proven to be true using the scientific method. You must accept ignorance. The advantage is that (for limited purposes) there are unique, definite, demonstrably true answers to each and every question you can ask. For religious questions, there's more than one possible true answer, whenever there's more than one person's experience used to find an answer.

Answer 4

Controverisal as it may be to set out a definition of science (the ocntroversy is evident in the historical spectrum of notions), let us set out that the modern notion has it that science is an explanatory, predictive, and controlling method in which the relations among physical structures (or, in which natural phenomena) are measured empirically.



Scientific objects of investigation are limited to PHYSICAL structures, or to the NATURAL world or phenomena. Not os with religion. Religion's chief scope is the supernatural world.



Empirical measurement is another halmark of scientific method. Empirical measurement is not a halmark of religious method.



Also, scientific method deals with proximite causes only; i.e., causes and effects within the given causal chain. Religion's chief concern is ultimate cause, not proximite.



Also, scientific method relies upon intersubjective confirmation (roughly put, multiple people observing the same thing); religion does not.



Scientific theories must be falsifiable. There is no such requirement for religious ones. Falsifiability means that we know what would prove a given theory false.



In favor of scientific method? Very good at what it does. It "sees" and analyzes very well. It's very defining, predictive and controlling. Con? Narrow scope of investigation.

Answer 5

I think it is odd that you are contrasting the scientific method with religion. I don't agree that science is a new belief system in the same way that religion or spirituality is a belief system. If you are going to contrast the two things, then technically you should define what you mean by the scientific method and then define what you mean by religion. In my mind science and religion are like oil and water. Religious belief systems have existed long before the study of science. The scientific method is based on facts - it is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Whereas religions are based on beliefs, many of which may seem like facts or are believed to be facts, but do not stand up to empirical scientific testing. For example, many religions believe in the concepts of heaven and hell - yet both of these constructs cannot be proven by the scientific method. That doesn't change the fact that believers will still continue to believe them even though there is no proof. I don't think that modern science is going to change anything when it comes to religion, because people who are religious or spiritual - no matter what their religion - don't need things to be proven by the scientific method for them to believe in them. So I don't not believe that the scientific method will result in some great truth that all religions will suddenly agree with.

Answer 6

Well I hope I understand your question. I think the main difference between the scientific method and other philosophy/religion is what most scientist actually do not adhere to. A true scientist should always try to disprove what he believes. For instance, if you believe in global warming you should constantly be looking for evidence against it. For science only disproves and can not prove. Only through disproving options does science start to narrow the possibilities of truth. It will never find truth and should not attempt to declare it has found truth. After Hawkins "proved" that the universe began with a bang and by extension gave proof in god, he immediately started trying to disprove his hypothesis. This is what makes it diffrent.



The strength is that science does not attempt to find the ultimate truth and never will. This limited scope makes it a bit more realistic but less useful. there are many questions science can't attempt to answer. And there are no questions science can answer definitively.