0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Interesting and amusing, perhaps. Important? No. Dangerous? Very possibly.I don't think we can dismiss all ancient Greek learning in the same breath as Aristotle's stupefying impact on physics: Pythagoras and Eratosthenes (?spelling) are still regarded as significant contributors to applied mathematics and cosmology. Why dangerous? The scientific method clearly has practical and humanitarian value. My concern is that if its obscure origins (and they are indeed obscure and very ancient: I have observed a gorilla conducting a controlled experiment in gravitation, but there is no evidence that Galileo actually carried out the "leaning tower" test!) become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.
My concern is that if its obscure origins........become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind.
I repeat:QuoteMy concern is that if its obscure origins........become associated with any particular philosophy or religion, that philosophy or religion can in some way appear to be validated, to the intellectual detriment of mankind. Origins are unimportant at best, dangerous at worst. We have gleaned some useful science from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, but I wouldn't want to dignify either regime by association with scientific knowledge and understanding. Do you judge a man by his parentage or his actions? Does the good deed of a son excuse the evil of the father? History may help us unravel some mistakes but for the most part, it is of interest only to historians. Science is about what works.And I did indeed say that Aristotle was rubbish. Little point in replying if you don't read the replies.
I suspect it is more likely to be historians (history of science) that are interested in the origins of the scientific method, and scientists are more likely to be interested in refining and implementing it than pondering its origins in any great detail. I drive a car to get from A to B. The history and origins of the automobile are of passing interest, but of little importance to my journey.Perhaps DonQuichotte can explain why the history and origins of the scientific method should be considered a 'highly important issue' as suggested?
You are wrong on one fundamental issue. Religion is the antithesis of science and has never taught anyone anything. For that reason, I cannot allow you to dignify any faith by association witrh the scientific method.Science: acceptance of those disprovable, explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been disprovedBelief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of factsFaith: acceptance of a hypothesis in the face of factsIslam is no more intellectually respectable than any other faith. All religions are ethically suspect: good deeds do not require supernatural justification, but such evils as crusades, fatwahs, inquisitions and pogroms can only be justified by reference to the ludicrous notion of divine authority. According to the scientific method, there is no authority in science, only observation.
in the sense the more knowledge a believer can get , the closer he /she gets to God ...