
While I accept that the scientific method requires an atheistic approach, atheism is not an answer in itself.
( ,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:12,
archived)

It has no weight to it. I'd love someone to use that in court and for it to be taken seriously. Maybe we could lock up more innocent people that way.
( ,
Mon 24 May 2010, 13:19,
archived)

Thank goodness.
The commonest way I can think it comes up is, for example, "The fact that we didn't find semen on her pants doesn't mean the rape never happened, it just means there's no semen on her pants".
You would then discuss other possible/likely explanations based on your experience and expertise. And unless you're a numpty, you would include "the rape never happened" as one of the possible explanations.
( ,
Mon 24 May 2010, 16:41,
archived)
The commonest way I can think it comes up is, for example, "The fact that we didn't find semen on her pants doesn't mean the rape never happened, it just means there's no semen on her pants".
You would then discuss other possible/likely explanations based on your experience and expertise. And unless you're a numpty, you would include "the rape never happened" as one of the possible explanations.

It requires the ability to make an observation of a system -- of whatever form, be it mathematical or of nature around us or of an experiment -- formulate an explanation and then, and this is the most important part, make predictions for the behaviour in other situations.
That's it. That's the whole lot. You can do that while believing in lares and penates, you can do that while believing in Allah and you can do that while believing we all live in the belly of Gharak the Great White Wale if you like, just so long as that's what you do and you don't cloud it with your personal beliefs.
If you view that as an "atheistic approach" then fair enough -- but religion doesn't actually enter into it. It's in the *interpretation* that it comes in, but already the interpretation of some theory is veering into philosophy. At its heart, the "scientific method" and "science" are literally just ways of building algorithms. We make an observation, we make a model, then we put in different initial data and predict what will come out, then we compare that prediction with reality. That's science. Everything else is philosophy.
Edit: Of course, this is all just my belief.
( ,
Mon 24 May 2010, 14:03,
archived)
That's it. That's the whole lot. You can do that while believing in lares and penates, you can do that while believing in Allah and you can do that while believing we all live in the belly of Gharak the Great White Wale if you like, just so long as that's what you do and you don't cloud it with your personal beliefs.
If you view that as an "atheistic approach" then fair enough -- but religion doesn't actually enter into it. It's in the *interpretation* that it comes in, but already the interpretation of some theory is veering into philosophy. At its heart, the "scientific method" and "science" are literally just ways of building algorithms. We make an observation, we make a model, then we put in different initial data and predict what will come out, then we compare that prediction with reality. That's science. Everything else is philosophy.
Edit: Of course, this is all just my belief.