Re: To Believe or Not To Believe
One observation. Jus gone: a bright light coming up from the horizon on a predictable schedule.
This is yet another observation in addition to the ones I listed.
Nothing else you wrote was an observation.
Yes they are.
No. The observation would be that there is s dog and a description of its behavior. “Lost” is a conclusion, not an observation.
'lost' is a description of it's behavior. The dog is not necessarily lost.
“Science” is the study of the natural world.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Those theories are about the natural world.
I never claimed science was observation
Yes you have.
so I have no idea what your point there is
My point is that science is not based on observation, nor does any theory contain any observation. Observation is not a proof. It is evidence only.
But there is a generalized “scientific method” used in science:
None.
Start with a question about a phenomenon.
Nope. A theory is an explanatory argument. You start with that to explain how or why a phenomena happens (even if the phenomena itself it not observed!).
Form a hypothesis to answer the question.
A hypothesis does not explain anything. It stems from an existing theory, not the other way 'round.
Test the hypothesis by making predictions
Science is incapable of making predictions. It is an open functional system. A theory must be formalized into a closed functional system to gain that power.
(here’s where your falsifiability comes in)
No, it doesn't. Falsifiability means the null hypothesis of a theory is testable, using a specific test, that produces a specific result.
Form a generalized theory that has explanatory power.
A theory remains the same through it's life. It is an explanatory argument. Hypothesis stem from existing theories. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory. Hypothesis don't explain anything.
That is true for the life of a theory. Only tests against the null hypothesis of a theory are acceptable.
Your version of science doesn’t require any testing or evidence.
Yes it does. It specifies what kind of test a theory requires as well.
The concept that science is a 'method', using supporting evidence to create a theory, and then 'verifying' the theory to the point of it becoming a 'scientific' theory is actually how a religion works. Religions use supporting evidence, not science. Indeed, the philosopher that created this type of science was attempting to establish religion as part of science!
Supporting evidence is useless as a proof.
