The Rintrah Perspective

The Scientific Method has severe flaws. If the Atheist is correct, then belief in God is a delusion. If the theist is deluded and perceives the world in a particular way (ie. makes an observation) and develops a hypothesis for that then the hypothesis is faulty. However, the hypothesis is then tested by the theist and is proven or disproved.

If the hypothesis is proven true then a deluded mind has conjured up some cloudy idea that has been substantiated.

If the hypothesis is proven false then the deluded mind will either question the hypothesis or question the test. Both of these are actually worthwhile. In fact, both must be done and should be done in a particular order. The test should be questioned first. How do we know that the test is accurate? If the test succeeded then we would not have questioned it but it may still have been faulty. Then the hypothesis should be tested.

When testing a hypothesis it is important to note that simply adding a “not” to the statement is not necessarily true. The observations may have been incomplete and needing to be modified slightly but not completely rejected.

This is where I have my largest problem with the scientific method. Science is about observation. A hypothesis is based on observation. As such a deluded mind cannot ascertain what is necessarily real and what is necessarily not-real. But a deluded mind does not know it is deluded. (Read Joseph Heller’s Catch 22.)

In the same vein, no person believes that their own beliefs are false. What I consider as truth cannot be, at the same time, considered by myself to be fiction. The same goes for Richard Dawkins and his missionaries. Dawkins has made some observations about life. He has a hypothesis (but he attacks the antithesis in his book). He provides several “tests” which he feels are sufficient to prove his thesis (by attacking the opposite of his thesis). When he gets the results he wants he moves on to the next test.

All of Dawkins’ tests are philosophical. By philosophical I mean they are not empirical and cannot be “proven” in the sense of an equation.

Because science is based on observations, the scientific method does not produce truth statements about reality but statements of substantiated observations and, more often than not, falsified observations. The next set of observations will be tested on the grounds of the previously substantiated observations. And then again and again these build the fortress of science. As such the only “truth” we have is that which is based on other “truth.”

And it is more often than not that the truth we actually are left with is not that which has been tested but the testing apparatus itself.

—

I believe in testube. I believe in Bunson Burner. I believe in thermometer.

Fume-hood be with you.