The Science of Unicorns

Sherlock Holmes used great skills of deductive reasoning to come to outlandish, but incredibly accurate conclusions starting with basic logical truths and building from that point to a conclusion.  This is called the Deductive Method and is used in all of those algebra equations we had to learn in school.  Remember? If x = a and a = b, then x = b?

Now the opposite of the Holmsian Method would be Inductive Reasoning which works very differently.  Inductive Reasoning relies upon observation. Anything you hear, taste, smell, see or touch is an observation(or empirical evidence) Inductive Reasoning is called the “Scientific Method” and as such, is the basis for drawing scientific conclusions. Just wanted to mention that science is good at drawing conclusions with things that can be measured and observed but is not great at explaining things we know exist but cannot perceive with the senses, such as emotions for example. Science can’t prove that they exist but more to the point, Science can’t prove they don’t exist. It’s also worth noting that our observations can be incorrect, but let’s assume for now that it’s not an issue. (but it is)

Science can’t prove unicorns don’t exist because of the way science works, it’s just not good at proving the absence of something. The Scientific Method is fairly reliable at proving things exist but is not particularly useful in disproving something exists just because of the way science works.  Often people will pit Science vs. Theology and make a statement that science has disproven the existence of God.  I think they should start with disproving the existence of unicorns to get warmed up, but don’t tell my youngest daughter, she loves unicorns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *