All statements we can make about reality are based upon two assumptions:
1) that a reality external to the self exists, and
2) that the impressions we receive from our senses are related to this assumed external reality in some meaningful way.
Rational people make these assumptions as a matter of course -- but we should never forget that they are assumptions, or statements of belief. No way exists to objectively prove that they are true.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" (i.e. Baconian inductive reasoning) by itself cannot conclusively prove anything. The scientific method, in basic terms, is nothing more than the process of collecting data by observation, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses based upon this data in order to construct a working model of some aspect of reality. This would seem to be a completely objective means of determining truth. However, upon examination, it becomes obvious that the scientific method is at its root a subjective process. For example: what exactly is "data"? We have no objective means of discriminating meaningful sensory impressions from others. One man's data is another man's irrelevancy. The very definition of data is, therefore, subjective. And how can we know that our observations are meaningful? What guarantee have we that the phenomena we observe are intrinsic to the scientific question we are asking? For all we know, our observations of a given phenomenon are entirely unrelated to the question we seek to answer. We rank observations as being meaningful or irrelevant based upon subjective choices. Finally, a hypothesis is not a fact; it is a "best guess", accepted or rejected by te scientific community base upon subjective reasons. A widely-accepted hypothesis may in fact be partially or entirely wrong.
And of course the entire Baconian scientific method rests upon one fundamental and unproveable assumption: that matter, energy, space, and time are all that exist, have ever existed, or that ever can exist. In other words, "If I cain't poke it with a stick, it ain't real." This is a statement of faith, not of fact — yet it lies behind the entire Western scientific enterprise.
To sum up: the scientific method is based upon unprovable assumptions and sensory impressions that may be false. But this is all Philosophy 101. Descartes made the basic point years ago: that all we can truly know is that which we experience directly, without use of the senses, i.e. our own existence (and that of God). We do not "sense" ourselves; we are ourselves. We cannot observe or analyze God; we experience His presence numinously. (Any God that could be quantified as data would of course be unworthy of the name.)
A conscious but anesthetized person floating in a darkened, soundproof tank of blood-temperature saline receives no sensory data of any kind, and can therefore make no meaningful statements about the world external to his or her own self. What, then, can such a person know to be true? Only one thing: such a person can know for certain that they themselves exist (and, by extension, that they did not create themselves). Descartes was wrong about a lot of things, but on this point his logic remains unassailable.
The scientific method works great in practical situations. Without it, bridges don't get built, lasers don't shine, medicine doesn't fight disease. It can be a useful map for navigating reality. But let's not make the mistake of confusing the map with the territory.
Great points.
Thx.
But within our 4-dimensional universe, the scientific method and quantification of proof can and does work. Setting the metaphysics aside, of course.
If I go to my upper management and propose a project, I must supply objective proof that the project is not only feasible but cost effective and will provide a return and final condition that meets with corporate rules. I cannot simply say that this is the project however I cannot prove anything, so just gimme the authorization and the money.
At the same time, one must also look at this methodology as useful to everyday life. We have Kevin Trudeau renting half hour blocks of time hocking every kind of snake oil in every field from medical to financial and every six months comes up with a new kind of snake oil.
Finally, a hypothesis is not a fact; it is a "best guess", accepted or rejected by te scientific community base upon subjective reasons. A widely-accepted hypothesis may in fact be partially or entirely wrong.
Negative. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. It is a proposal. It should be framed in such a way so as to be falsifiable - in other words to be able to be proved wrong. The hypothesis that space aliens exist is framed oppositely to what it should be. This hypothesis is incapable of being proved wrong.
In other words, "If I cain't poke it with a stick, it ain't real." This is a statement of faith, not of fact — yet it lies behind the entire Western scientific enterprise.
If space aliens exist, can we not poke them with a stick? Can we not see, measure, and otherwise interact with them? The claim is that they exist in our current reality. Therefore they ought to be able to be dealt with in our current reality.
The scientific method works great in practical situations. Without it, bridges don't get built, lasers don't shine, medicine doesn't fight disease. It can be a useful map for navigating reality. But let's not make the mistake of confusing the map with the territory.
Of course not. Yet we are being asked to purchase a pig in a poke. I will not put myself in the position to say that there are no space aliens. I simply don't know. The ones who claim that they exist still have the burden of proof. Same as those who claim that chelation therapy for autistics or peach pits for cancer actually work. You claim it; you prove it.