1. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    14 Dec '09 14:32
    Originally posted by Penguin
    Mikelom is essentially right (bar some mis-understandings, eg science is [b]not about proving anything, it is more about dis-proving things). josephw's "Introduction to the Scientific Method" post, above, is a reasonable description of it.

    Freaky, was it you that I had a long argument with in the Science Wars thread? If not I apologise but whoe ...[text shortened]... ne outlined in josephw's post obove.

    There is only one scientific method.

    --- Penguin.[/b]
    Why, Penguin, you ol' dog: you remembered!
    Yes, it was 'us two' who engaged in that epic battle. I know how sometimes time doesn't heal old wounds, so you are forgiven for forgetting how the conversation ended.

    The statement that there is no definite article possible to place before the term scientific method, remains even today, as one must decide upon which of the two tacks to take: inductive or deductive.
  2. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69643
    15 Dec '09 10:00
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    wiki, right?
    No, from here:

    http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    21 Dec '09 05:08
    A Fair assessment how some scientists reached and "intellectual breaking point" with Darwinism

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&hl=en#
  4. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    23 Dec '09 22:44
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    ...unless he sends telepathic messages to individual people somehow and we can't detect it
    Yep, I know some of those. Interesting people they are.
  5. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69643
    26 Dec '09 20:48
    Originally posted by josephw
    Introduction to the Scientific Method


    The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
    Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phen ...[text shortened]... he stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
    This contradicts what you have said here then:

    "The scientific method is to falsify a theory."

    You cannot falsify something that isn't even theory. Nevermind something that hasn't even become hypothesis.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    07 Jan '10 03:401 edit
    Creation Science - "A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation Evolution Wars."

    A lecture and book review by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross.

    YouTube
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    07 Jan '10 08:25
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Creation Science - "A [b]Testable Model Approach to End the Creation Evolution Wars."

    A lecture and book review by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuEYjYDrKH4[/b]
    The truth will prevail.

    Excellent resource jaywill. Thanks.
  8. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    07 Jan '10 11:31
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Why, Penguin, you ol' dog: you remembered!
    Yes, it was 'us two' who engaged in that epic battle. I know how sometimes time doesn't heal old wounds, so you are forgiven for forgetting how the conversation ended.

    The statement that there is no definite article possible to place before the term scientific method, remains even today, as one must decide upon which of the two tacks to take: inductive or deductive.
    Well, this was your last post and my reply in the Science Wars thread (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80423&page=4#post_1607058):


    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I stand by my original statement. The term is so loosely and generally applied that assuming a specific and defined consensus of meaning will only confuse in the long run.



    It may be generic and people may frequently fail to follow it but it is a method and there is a consensus on what it is and there is not any competing method. Google it or look in any science textbook that describes it and you will find the same method described.

    Show me another method that conflicts with the one I described way back and that has backing in the scientific community and I will concede the issue. Otherwise you have no basis on which to stand by your statement other than that you would like it to be so.

    --- Penguin.


    Deductive and Inductive are just two ways of getting the initial hypothesis. They are not two competing scientific methods, they are two ways of approaching an initial stage of the one scientific method.

    --- Penguin.
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Jan '10 11:45
    Originally posted by mikelom
    The scientific method, to get things back on track, is to exactly PROVE a tried and tested theory.
    FAIL
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Jan '10 12:01
    Originally posted by Palynka
    FAIL
    Just to expand a little ...

    We cannot prove ANYTHING in science.

    Experiments are performed to either corroberate or disprove a theory.

    For instance Newton believed F=ma but we now know he was "wrong" ... its just a damn good approximation. Until something better comes along we have Einstein but we cannot PROVE the General Theory of Relativity (but we can give it a stringent number of tests).

    Scientists accept this.

    The problem with religion is so many of you want to prove the existence of God - you cant! Believe it if you want but you cant prove it!

    However some of your beliefs (eg age of Universe) can be DISPROVED.
  11. Joined
    01 Jun '06
    Moves
    274
    07 Jan '10 14:56
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Just to expand a little ...

    We cannot prove ANYTHING in science.

    Experiments are performed to either corroberate or disprove a theory.

    For instance Newton believed F=ma but we now know he was "wrong" ... its just a damn good approximation. Until something better comes along we have Einstein but we cannot PROVE the General Theory of Relativity (bu ...[text shortened]... but you cant prove it!

    However some of your beliefs (eg age of Universe) can be DISPROVED.
    However some of your beliefs (eg age of Universe) can be DISPROVED.

    Sadly, they can't. This is the problem with 'supernatural' explanations. They can't even be dis-proved because "All-Powerful-Supernatural-diety made it look like X when in fact it was Y".

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

    --- Penguin
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    invigorated
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    07 Jan '10 15:15
    Originally posted by Penguin
    [b]However some of your beliefs (eg age of Universe) can be DISPROVED.

    Sadly, they can't. This is the problem with 'supernatural' explanations. They can't even be dis-proved because "All-Powerful-Supernatural-diety made it look like X when in fact it was Y".

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

    --- Penguin[/b]
    Point taken.

    God is so devious!!!!!
Back to Top