14 Dec 09
Originally posted by PenguinWhy, Penguin, you ol' dog: you remembered!
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]
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.
26 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwThis contradicts what you have said here then:
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.
"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.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, 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):
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.
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.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaJust to expand a little ...
FAIL
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.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59However some of your beliefs (eg age of Universe) can be DISPROVED.
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.
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
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by PenguinPoint taken.
[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]
God is so devious!!!!!