Scientific method versus belief systems

In summary, the question was posed in a way that did not conform to the rules. As a result, Dumbfish was not able to get any help from the moderators.
  • #1
harrylin
3,875
93
This is a retake of a recent question that was perhaps misunderstood by the moderators.
As a reminder:
"As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems."

Consequently, I'll leave out parts of Dumbfish and Alan that may have incited the "lock":

"According to someone, belief in the existence of a universe is just as unfounded as belief in a god, both are equally valid theories. We can't know anything absolutely for certain other than that thoughts exist.

I'm a mere Mathematics student, so I'm not that well versed in philosophical arguments and I was unable to counter him, but something about his point dosn't sit right with me. I was wondering if any of you had counter arguments, or wether his point was valid."


I interpret the above question as a request for references (see the new rules) on the validity of the scientific method as a foundation for our thinking, compared to that of belief systems. Could the scientific method be claimed to be "better founded" in some way? In view of recent issues such as the teaching of Creationism at schools, I suppose that there should be ample sources in philosophy of science literature.

However, it's not a simple matter as many belief systems relate to similar, evidence based judgments as the scientific method and scientific theories include (often unwittingly) concepts of things that cannot be measured.

A partial reply can be found in the thread that I started on the scientific method (which got little response, likely because it was moved to a social forum at which almost nobody looks):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=598724

This is also a partial follow-up of the thread on the scientific method:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=604109
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
DaveC426913 said:
Please read the Philosophy rules before posting.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350
I did read and based my post on them and and referred to them, in particular these (I think that we should help Dumbfish to find resource material for his question, and I made a start by pointing in the right direction):

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"
- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=459350

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. It is also permissible to discuss concepts of God or gods, so long as these discussions proceed in a rigorous philosophical fashion and do not draw from or apply to any given religious belief system in particular.
- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93343

Did I miss something essential? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #4
1) When starting a new topic, you must reference a published philosopher or researcher who has worked on the topic. The idea is to focus the topic along the lines of a specific area of research or school of thought.
10 chars
 
  • #5
I certainly read points 1 and 2. Obviously point 2 is an exception to point 1, else it would not make any sense. Do you mean that point 2 is untrue, so that people may not make requests for resources on this forum?! :confused:

2) If you do not have a reference, you may state your question in the form of "This is the topic I am investigating. Can you recommend resources?"

PS I now brought this up in the thread about those rules.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Dave is correct, this does not meet the guidelines.
 

Related to Scientific method versus belief systems

What is the difference between the scientific method and belief systems?

The scientific method is a systematic approach to acquiring knowledge and understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It relies on evidence and logical reasoning to make conclusions. Belief systems, on the other hand, are sets of beliefs and values that are not based on evidence or logical reasoning, but rather on faith, tradition, or personal experiences.

Why is the scientific method considered to be more reliable than belief systems?

The scientific method involves rigorous testing and repetition of experiments to ensure reliability and accuracy of results. It also allows for peer review and scrutiny of findings by the scientific community. Belief systems, on the other hand, rely on personal opinions and perspectives, which may not be supported by evidence or subjected to critical evaluation.

Can the scientific method and belief systems coexist?

Yes, the scientific method and belief systems can coexist, as long as belief systems do not interfere with the scientific process and are not presented as scientific facts. For example, a person can have religious beliefs while also accepting scientific evidence and principles.

How do belief systems influence the interpretation of scientific findings?

Belief systems can influence the interpretation of scientific findings by causing bias towards or against certain ideas or theories. This can lead to the rejection of scientific evidence that is not aligned with one's beliefs or the acceptance of pseudoscience that supports one's beliefs. It is important for scientists to remain objective and impartial when interpreting data and drawing conclusions.

Are there any limitations or weaknesses to the scientific method?

While the scientific method is a reliable and effective approach to understanding the natural world, it is not without limitations. For example, it relies on human perception and may be subject to bias or error. Additionally, some phenomena may be difficult to study using the scientific method, such as historical events or supernatural occurrences. However, these limitations do not discredit the validity and importance of the scientific method in acquiring knowledge and understanding the world around us.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
123
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
25
Views
2K
Back
Top