Journal Entry #615
November 16th, 2011
I have lately heard a rise in the excuse from the faithful and others that science just can’t explain everything, that there are some things science just can’t answer or that it is just one way of determining things as true. I call bullshit on this one and really am sick and tire of hearing this nonsense.
People seem to confuse the fact that just because we have not answered everything does not mean we do not have a means to do so and if we live long enough that we cannot answer the questions we ask. In order to do this though we need a method to ask the questions and determine if it is true and science gives us this method.
I have asked many who dispute this method to offer me another method that works on all things as science does and so far nothing in fact most answers fall right in line with the scientific method but they refuse to accept this. Why because it will then show them that what they believe is probably not true and we can’t have that now can we. I mean who really wants the truth.
The method may not be perfect but it is as close as we can get right now. It is self correcting and stands up to its own tests. Now I have been told that this is circular logic or self verifying but the difference is we can see it work on so many other things which just adds to the evidence that it works.
People use it every day in all aspects of their lives and yet refuse the validity of it at times. This makes no sense to me.
This is a direct quote from Christopher DiCarlo’s new book “How to be a really good pain in the Ass”
Here is the Scientific method so we are clear;
1. We often first make an observation of something that has happened.
2. We then consider what caused this thing to happen by posing an educated guess or hypothesis.
3. we can then make predictions about what we should expect to see if our hypothesis is correct.
4. If necessary, experimentation and data collection may be conducted.
5. Further observation is necessary, which will lead to 3 possible outcomes..
a )If we observe that our data positively supports our prediction, then we have hypothesis confirmation..(at least for now)
b) If we observe that our data do not support our prediction, then we have hypothesis falsification and we may be forced to either give up or modify our hypothesis.
c) If there are simply not enough data to decide either way, then we suspend judgement.
6. Finally we need to consider whether there are any other competing hypothesis that provide an equally plausible or likely explanation for our observation. If there are we need to ask ourselves which seems more reasonable. If there are no others, then we may decide to tentatively to accept the hypothesis based on the currently available information.
If we cannot agree on this then we truly are fucked….
I cannot make it any clearer. This is how we determine everything and if you deny this then well what can I say…
We all seem to like to add our little twist and opinion but this is well established and really just needs to be accepted for us to a have a realistic common ground to work from.
The excuses are running very thin folks, the time is nearing when believers will be in the minority as the internet opens up the world god will have no place to hide. Things believed that are unseen and without proof are in the realm of fantasy and secrets.
Science works as a method and has been working for a very long time so again I offer this challenge;
If anyone can show me and prove to me that they have a better method for determining truth on all things then please tell me about it and we will see if it works, if not just accept the scientific method as valid. There is plenty of room from this to argue and dispute many of the findings and plenty more things yet to discover.
Seek the truth always
Gary David Currie