Separation of Science and State

[The Stranger]

I don't need to give proof. It is pretty easy just to type in Wikipedia "Scientific Method". It's not like referencing some obscure questionable information.

Here, I did it for you:



It's not dogmatic in the slightest.

For definition of dogmatic:
- Stubbornly adhering to insufficiently proven beliefs; inflexible, rigid
- a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

nothing that you find there provides evidence that this method is more valid then any other.

one thing i would like to point out though, is that this definition of dogmatic is a scientific definition since the proof that is being referred to is scientific proof. if you would bother to read thomas of aquino (which i wouldnt recommend because it bloody hard to read XD) or read about his work (which i think is more preferable) you would see that religion does offer proof to back their position. only the proof is not scientific and therefor no longer regarded as proof in this era.

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

[Beskar]

i say dogmatic because you offer me nothing but your word that it is valid and that of wikipedia, and i have to believe you because it speaks for itself. for me that is insufficient.

It comes across as being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

The way it works with constant and careful scrutiny which can be independently replicated reliably and the host of internal measures makes it the ultimate tool so far created in handling these matters. Compared, lets say, what some one randomly wrote down in a book 2 thousand years ago, with nothing attributing to it.

wikipedia does a good job explaining me what the method is, and i will not dispute that, yet it does not offer any proof or argument of why this method is the most valid one or maybe even the only valid one. i dont think it intends to, but that doesnt make a difference in this case.

Because of the nature of the method itself is the best one. If you know of one which is better, post it right here so we can all see, then we can put both under careful scrutiny. So far we have a 2 thousand year old book being used as the source of all knowledge and being touted as the alternative, which is absurd itself.

[The Stranger]

Actually, it is because you are being angsty because some where in your past Science has some how "wronged" you, thus you go all rage about it, when the reality of Science it is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread as in examining and explaining this world with credible and independently viable ways. This has been repeatedly demonstrated time upon time that is it in the common sphere of knowledge, and it doesn't take much effort to find out for yourself.

actually you are wrong, i have never been wronged by science and i am not raging about it, even then, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion. all you offer me is it has been done in the past, it speaks for itself, science rules, it is true because wikipedia says so.

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.

ps kinda low to try and get personal. dont fill in the blanks without having gathered any empirical data ;) your method doesnt allow it.

[Beskar]

while all i ask of you is this, prove to me that the foundation of the scientific method is true and that the method itself is more valid than any other.

Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

[The Stranger]

Waste of my time and effort, if you really cared, you wouldn't be asking as you would already be looking it up yourself and seeing I am correct, and if not, you would actually say why not.

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

[Beskar]

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

Nope, I answered it and you won't accept the answer, instead giving an unfair request to easily do a dissertation worth of work just to come to same exact conclusion.

[The Stranger]

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.