Prove that God exists

[zarx]

GameOver22 said:

zarx said:

GameOver22 said:

It seems like everybody ignored your post, but I think you raise a number of good points. The one thing I always found ironic about the scientific method is that it actually utilizes an invalid argument form (affirming the consequent). The way the scientific method is structured, it says,

1. If hypothesis A is true, B will be observed.

2. B is observed.

3. Therefore, hypothesis A is true. 

This is an invalid argument form. As a counterexample:

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

Obviously, this is false because the presence of oxygen does not mean there is fire. In the same way, the first argument is false because the presence of B does not mean hypothesis A is true. This is why there is such an emphasis on repeatability in science, and scientists are always quick to point out they don't prove theories. The best they can do is repeatably confirm them, and they argue that repeated confirmation allows theories to become knowledge.

Overall, I agree with you that the scientific method is the best system we have for gaining knowledge about the empirical world, but it is still a flawed system.

That is nothing like the scientific method, the scientific method requires testing all known controlable variables to insure a hypothisis is correct.

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

 

4. Test whether there is fire.

would be the scientific method which is at it's most basic:

 

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

What you proposed would have failed the 4th step let alone the more complete method:

 

 

1. Define a question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4. Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis

5. Analyze the data

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

 

 

I think you missed my point. I'm not maintaining that what I just stated is the scientific method. It is simply the hypothesis testing steps of the scientific method in any given experiment (steps 3 and 4 in your list). You form the hypothesis and then test it. Through the test, the hypothesis is then confirmed or falsified. If falsified, a new hypothesis is investigated. If confirmed, then scientists repeat the experiments to confirm the accuracy of the hypothesis.

Also, my fire and oxygen example was a counterexample to show why affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form  (not an example of the scientific method at work).

You clearly suggest you were using an example of the scientific method in your post. And then in your example you left off the most important step, actually verifying that your counclusions bassed on your hypothisis are correct. Without that step it's not sciance but philosophy. 

Which is why String Theory is considered by a large part of the scientific comunity to be bad science and closer to philosophy as there is no way of verifying any of the conclusions that people derive from the theory yet.