[My bold]

A useful explanation of the scientific method as rooted in empiricism, although somewhat simplistic, in the following link:

scientific-method

The part I bolded seems incongruous to me, at least initially, so how many other "Scientific Methods" are there?

I think maths is a tool used by science; it doesn't actually exist and reality is a mystery and the word theology is but a wondrous pondering look into the depths of 'heaven and hell' 'love' 'hate' the darkness and the abyss

scientific method is rigorous but has it's limits with things are yet to understand or even comprehend. Mind altering states of conciousness are a reality, in themselves.

You can't keep reducing ad hominem and back

Well, articles like that is what you get when the authors have so crushingly low knowledge about the subject they describe.

Things that couldn't qualify as science as per that article would be exploratory methods, computer simulations, any qualitative study (regardless of method), inferential statistics, observational studies, theoretical science.... to name a few.

I think the problem is (in part) that the phrase "the scientific method" is ingrained in pop culture as a reference to some of the most basic elements of epistemology in the philosophy of science (like falsification), but when actual scientists talk about methodology they are usually talking about some far more concrete approach in a specific field. In the second sense, there are a great many scientific methods (tame referenced a few), but it's a different discussion than the one about "the scientific method"

Incremental improvement:

research-methods-science

But I understand better now.

For an interesting aside science is also a business/proposal activity and the grasping for money; anyone that has to do the paperwork to the NSF to acquire money for research, as I painfully did in grad school, knows this aspect of the scientific method - which is not at all understood by the public at large.

Anyway, the responses were helpful and they cleared up a few things for me and stimulated other avenues of thought that I was lax in. Thanks.

Science and Theology both spun off of Philosophy.

Philosophy concerns itself with the pursuit of Truth (and the possibility thereof). It involves three sub-categories: ethics (what should be done), metaphysics (what things really are), and ontology (what it means to "be" to begin with).



Plato developed a Theory Of Forms, which described the real world (ontology) in terms of pure Ideas (metaphysics), with the physical world being a somehow flawed expression of these Ideas.

Ethics are supposedly deducible from this enlightened understanding of "reality".

This theory is eventually developed into Theology, the study of "God" as the ultimate, singular Idea.

When Politics gets involved with Theology, the output is Religion.




Science is predicated upon the abandonment of the notion that Plato's "Idea" was the true reality. Science is our attempt at measuring/describing (ontology) the physical world (metaphysics). "Ethics" are part of that world and are therefor identified through the measurement thereof ("social science").

If you read philosophers/theologians writing prior to, like, 1900, you will probably see a lot of use of the term "extension".

The notion is that the Idea of something is somehow "extended" into corporeality (read: bodily reality). It has been the constant consternation of philosophers to describe how the physical and ideal worlds interact.

The magic of "God" is a common, easy answer. Alternatively, thinkers resolve the dilemma via abandonment - one or the other "reality" is simply rejected as a feasible concept, and the notion of the concept that does not survive is described as "illusion".

Religion or "Religare" or "to reunite" with the spiritual world, or that to which Man has left is the ever going problem of Man.

Mankind ability to "think", although present prior to Grecian times, was really developed during the Grecian Epoch. This period of time lasted from about the time of Thales or the 6th century BC until the 15th century AD. this period of approximately 2100 years was preceded by what is known as the Egyptian/Chaldean/Hebrew epoch in which mankind's thinking ability was only in seed and therefore the idea of "Philosophy' which calls for "thinking and thoughts" is best known through the ancient Greek philosophers.

If there are written remnants of periods prior to the Egyptian epoch they were in some form passed on via speech and written at the Egyptian times or later in which we find the use of written language.

The epoch before the Egyptian is called the Persian cultural epoch and evident is the leader Zarathustra of the Persian peoples and in fact the Parsee Religion, present in India in our times (probably other places too) is directly descended form the teachings of Zarathustra (Zoroaster).

Prior to the Persian times the epoch of ancient India passed through but again the Vedas or Vedanta philosophy , as written today, are a marginal echo of the grandeur known to the ancient Indian.

In order
Ancient India
Persian
Egyptian/Chaldean/Hebrew
Greece/Rome
Present Era

Each of the eras lasted about 2100 years with "religion" not really evident until the Egyptian times as mankind was losing his "atavistic consciousness" to which he knew of and was ensconced within the spiritual world. there came a time in which this atavistic consciousness lacked clarity and one can say that "religion" began in which the religious attempted to "reunite" with the spiritual world, or that which was lost. this was accomplished through the "mystery centers" which were centers of religion, science and art.

Mankind precipitated further away from these spiritual realities and with the gaining of the intellect as evidenced within the Greco/Roman epoch we have Philosophy.

In our era the idea of a "spiritual reality" appears totally lost but whether one believe it or not, it is not forgotten. Our language is immersed within the earthly and science has taken the dogmatic approach thus stating that all knowledge comes through modern science . Modern science is a thought process brought forth by the Scholastics with the added impetus of an Islamic abstractionism , the root of present day science; the "dogma of experience".

Not to fret the future is the advent of "living thoughts" which "break out" of the abstracted shell and in essence this thinking which becomes alive is the reentry into the spiritual world; that to which the religions/mankind have sought and are seeking.

Its not a fight between religion, philosophy and science but more so an evolutionary progression within the evolutionary progression of Man in his soul qualities of thinking, felling and willing. Mankind precipitated to the earth during this progression but also gained an individuality or personality as in ancient times he was "within the spirit" sans individuality.

Because of this precipitation from his spiritual home he had reached the nadir of the earthly realm and the Christ Being came to the earth in order to lead mankind back to his spiritual home, just at the right time and place.

And almost forgot "Theology" is the intellectualized religion which quite often speaks to the dogmatic in religion. Religious "dogma" is the abstracted spiritual realities masked by the earthly or in other words "dead" with loss of creative life.

I'd go with ethics, epistemology and metaphysics with ontology belonging to metaphysics. Then a bunch of other philosophies of science language etc

I have epistemology as a subset of ontology. Not sure what I mean by "subset" though.

Actually, probably metaphysics too.

{Philosophy {Ethics} | {Ontology {Metaphysics|Epistemology} }

Garden of Eden, yo.

A convoluted tale about growing up and having consequential choices and useless authorities. The talking snake is cool, but is laying it on kind of thick.

That's just how to lesson is dressed so children will listen/remember it.


It's really about the tension between human freedom and spiritual harmony.

Religions purport to repair the bridge between the two.