The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible 65 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  tec

  So it doesn't really go about trying to disprove the existence of evil spirits per se---BUT it has falsified that evil spirits are responsible for occurances in the natural world. For instance, at one time they were blamed for illness, failed crops, still births, visions, mental

  illness etc. Science has disproven that evil spirits are behind this by actually finding the causes.

  Okay, not that I think evil spirits are floating around causing crops to fail and babies to be still-born... but for argument's sake... having another possibility, even having something else replicate the same results, does not actually falsify something, right? A crop could fail for multiple reasons... one reason does not falsify another. But if someone said that crops fail only because of drought... then that would be falsifiable because crops have been observed to fail because of pests, as well, and whatever else. And if someone said that crops fail because of evil spirits... well, that can't be falsified, so it can't even be a scientific hypothesis until such a time as it can be falsifiable.

  I do understand that science is in the business of reporting on what it physically observes... and spirits would not be among such things.

  tec, try thinking of it this way: the statement must be falsifi-ABLE. It must be -able- to be falsified.

  No, I hear you. Unless there is some way/test/situation that a statement could be proven/observed to be false, then it stays out of the realm of scientific hypothesis and theory.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  I didn't mean to chase you guys away. I only used the evil spirit analogy because that was the one presented. I would have preferred to use anything else, honest! I would be more than happy to drop it and find another analogy.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  InterestedOne

  tec: You didn't chase me away. I think your last post was great. I couldn't think of anything more to add.
• 

  tec
• 

  InterestedOne

  As you can see from that wiki article though, the concept of falsifiability as well as others in the philosophy of science can get pretty deep. The scientific method is something many great minds have been contributing to. I like how scientists speak of "rolling up their sleeves and getting to work." Still, there are plenty of introductory articles on the basics of the scientific method and how it applies to daily life.
• 

  tec

  I did see that, IO. Which is why I need to read through it more than once!

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  bigmouth

  I've enjoyed your comments guys. The dialogue actually helped me to get the sense of 'falsifiability' and the meaning of 'theory'.

  Sometimes just reading someone elses thinking can clarify your own thinking
• 

  NewChapter

  A crop could fail for multiple reasons... one reason does not falsify another. But if someone said that crops fail only because of drought... then that would be falsifiable because crops have been observed to fail because of pests, as well, and whatever else

  Tec, break it down even more than this.

  Hypothesis: If crops are deprive of water A will happen. Test it. If A happens you haven't falsifed it.

  Hypothesis: If THIS parasite attacks crops B will happen. Test it.

  Hypothesis: If I do this dance and chant this song rain will fall within the 3 days. Test it. RAIN FALLS! Ah but now you must repeat that over and over and if rain does not fall every single time, then it has been falsified. And for each test, the exact same steps must be performed in the dance with the exact same words in the song. This is why lab testing is so beneficial---you can control every aspect of the test. Because if you dance the dance and sing the song and crickets are chirping one day and not the next---then maybe it was the crickets and not the dance. But the point is that it is a very specific process that pays attention to all of the details and observes them.
• 

  tec

  Yes, thank you for that, NC.

  Sometimes just reading someone elses thinking can clarify your own thinking

  True. I find that sometimes too.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Awesome thread! Thanks for the contributions, everyone.

  And Tec, if spirits are visible, then they observable. If they are energy, they are measurable. That would fall in the realm of science. Amazingly, for something that so many people see and feel, they never seem to be either visible or measurable when recording or measuring equipment is around or when a lens flare isn't happening.