Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00206)

Chuck writes>
>So, for the benefit of those who may have forgotten, the scientific method
is
>as follows:
>1.  Observe
>2.  Form an hypothesis based on the observation
>3.  TEST THE HYPOTHESIS (how one is to test visions of giant angels is
beyond
>me)
>4.  Formulate a theory based on the results of the test.

Richard Ihle writes>
I like the scientific method, also.  However, I am usually careful not to get
carried into the realm of science-worship by it.  Indeed, sometimes I find
myself wondering if the entirety of the scientific method is not really based
upon one of the classical "logical fallacies":

1.  If A is true, then B is true.
2.  B is true.
3.  Therefore A is true.

An example of this type of error:
1.  If Francis Bacon wrote HAMLET, then HAMLET is likely to be a great play.
2.  HAMLET is a great play.
3.  Therefore, Francis Bacon wrote HAMLET.

The scientific method:
1.  If my hypothesis is true, then a particular experiment will likely
produce certain predicted things.
2.  Certain predicted things are produced.
3.  Therefore, my hypothesis is true.

Nonetheless, you have written some interesting things lately, Chuck.

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle