That's exactly the point. Looking through a telescope and seeing a star would be synthetic a priori.
My point is that science falls outside of this scope. Looking through a telescope isn't the same as doing science, it's just making an observation. Just as how me looking at an apple and calling it red isn't science.
Maybe something like observing the light's wavelength and predicting the star's heat would be science. It is using that observation to formulate hypotheses, which are then tested through experiment. This is how the scientific method has always been.
And this is where induction comes into play. For example, from the data I gather from falling objects, I might theorise that objects accelerate the same under gravity regardless of weight. That method of conclusion forming is science. The act of observation is simply a facet of science.
I don't think I'm being nitpicky. Science does not tell us that black holes exist. The scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole.
Science does not let us know that at least one black hole exists. That is observation. Science is the systematic incorporation of observations to make models and predictions, as I outline in my case.
I'm not sure about a topic yet, do you have any suggestions?
Not Bones, but his friend. I copied his style because I normally debate verbally, not online. Rest assured I will be developing my own idiosyncratic style before I challenge Bones.
uhhhh
The necessity of cause and effect for experience sounds very much like Kantian categories of the mind
That's exactly the point. Looking through a telescope and seeing a star would be synthetic a priori.
My point is that science falls outside of this scope. Looking through a telescope isn't the same as doing science, it's just making an observation. Just as how me looking at an apple and calling it red isn't science.
Maybe something like observing the light's wavelength and predicting the star's heat would be science. It is using that observation to formulate hypotheses, which are then tested through experiment. This is how the scientific method has always been.
And this is where induction comes into play. For example, from the data I gather from falling objects, I might theorise that objects accelerate the same under gravity regardless of weight. That method of conclusion forming is science. The act of observation is simply a facet of science.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It was already similar to mine anways.
I don't think I'm being nitpicky. Science does not tell us that black holes exist. The scientific method rather allows us to hypothesise and make predictions. Such as what time would be like near a black hole.
Science does not let us know that at least one black hole exists. That is observation. Science is the systematic incorporation of observations to make models and predictions, as I outline in my case.
I'm not sure about a topic yet, do you have any suggestions?
Not Bones, but his friend. I copied his style because I normally debate verbally, not online. Rest assured I will be developing my own idiosyncratic style before I challenge Bones.
I’ll be happy to debate you on the same subject matter after this one