I have been told today that there is no such thing as THE Scientific Method. "Scientists" are not even agreed on a common definition of this method! I am shocked!
I don't understand why we do "science" then? Maybe we should have different types of science, different words for it, just to make sure that people know what they are talking about when they exchange "scientific" studies.
I am not trolling here. I truly don't get it. How can we cite science as "Science" if those practicing it do not even have a common definition for their practice??
I was born (or made by my parents to become) a Christian too (Catholic), I don't practice it anymore though, in fact I don't practice any religion at this time. But I still think spirituality has it's part to play in the human psyche:)
That said, I would never use any of the teachings of my religion as a point of view to do science. I would keep these two as completely separate thought processes.
I did not know there were some observations that had been predicted by a religion. Even in this case, it would only take one prediction for which we have evidence that it did not happen in the way described, for us to disprove this "prophet". Would it not?
Please note that I am just a layman here, you probably knew that:) I am a programmer/analyst. I am not a scientist. I just love science.
Your post was most informational. In fact I am in shock, this throws a couple of my preconceptions of the world out of the window.
In the light of all this then, it seems to me that we should not try to squash the believers in creationism. They might have the right to exist after all.
I still don't believe in creationism of course and I don't think they could make me change my mind:)
So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I understand this wiki entry might not be completely accurate. But there must be a common definition of the scientific method available somewhere.
Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.
So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I see what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
So that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I understand what you are saying. That creationism is "Not even wrong". I don't know much about it and was just curious to know if we are sure that they are not predicting anything we could use to try and prove them wrong.
I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.
I think we too often use bad language when we talk about science in definite terms. I hear too often things like: "We proved that...".
We never prove anything in science, we just very very slowly disprove everything we can. And by doing so, we narrow ever so slowly the expanse of explanations to ever more useful ones.
So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?
I'm as far as it gets from an expert on creationism, but are we certain that it does not make any predictions that we could test to try and disprove it?
Out of curiosity, I would like to know why it is not valid? Are you saying that experiments were done and we were able to disprove it? That in my mind would settle the matter.
I always thought that at lot of what is proclaimed by religions can be proven wrong. But some core stuff would probably survive the scientific method. That would at least clean up religions, from a scientific point of view of course.
What I find interesting, is that the parts that could survive might actually be usable in science. At least for something like social science. And then as science advances, we might be able to disprove more of it, and maybe one day even disprove the existence of God!
We just don't know, but I find all this fascinating.
Disclaimer: I do not believe one bit in creationism.
I agree that the scientific method needs to be applied to creationism. But I would like to know if by following the scientific method we could disprove creationism?
Can we disprove creationism? Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis and then we work with the ones that we can't with all our might disprove. As long as an hypothesis has not been proven wrong, it stands!
So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove creationism?
I know it's a dupe, but I still love to see Gates say: "But that is just the start of the crap..."
It says it all right there. At least Microsoft knows about the problems with Windows. It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it:)
You are so right. I wish I had mod points. When I first read your parent post, I thought this will be modded up. But no, you were flagged "Flamebait". That is really wrong. Just so you know, I think a lot of people would think you are indeed right. Desktop Linux is not were it could be...
It's not even a question of cost. It's a question of performance, especially multi-tasking performance. As soon as the cost of SSD is 4 times that of HD or lower for the same space, it will take over for much of us.
You can still have a 1.5 TB HD for slow storage and an SSD for the OS and the soft.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been told today that there is no such thing as THE Scientific Method. "Scientists" are not even agreed on a common definition of this method! I am shocked!
I don't understand why we do "science" then? Maybe we should have different types of science, different words for it, just to make sure that people know what they are talking about when they exchange "scientific" studies.
I am not trolling here. I truly don't get it. How can we cite science as "Science" if those practicing it do not even have a common definition for their practice??
No, not at all (on both points). And I'm starting to get the impression that you are Trolling.
I am not trolling! I truly was not aware of this.
I am really shocked here. I am happy to have asked these questions today, because this changes things for me.
Thanks.
PS: Sorry, I first posted my reply at the wrong post.
Thank you very much for your insightful post.
I was born (or made by my parents to become) a Christian too (Catholic), I don't practice it anymore though, in fact I don't practice any religion at this time. But I still think spirituality has it's part to play in the human psyche :)
That said, I would never use any of the teachings of my religion as a point of view to do science. I would keep these two as completely separate thought processes.
I did not know there were some observations that had been predicted by a religion. Even in this case, it would only take one prediction for which we have evidence that it did not happen in the way described, for us to disprove this "prophet". Would it not?
Thank you so much for your post.
Please note that I am just a layman here, you probably knew that :) I am a programmer/analyst. I am not a scientist. I just love science.
Your post was most informational. In fact I am in shock, this throws a couple of my preconceptions of the world out of the window.
In the light of all this then, it seems to me that we should not try to squash the believers in creationism. They might have the right to exist after all.
I still don't believe in creationism of course and I don't think they could make me change my mind :)
Thank you again !
Please believe that I am not trolling!
I truly was not aware of this and I'm truly shocked!
Thank you for taking the time to explain all this.
One thing though is that, one day we might actually be able to prove that God does not exist.
We never know what sort of incredible insight future research might bring us.
I love science! :)
Agreed, this person would not be left with a lot of karma to burn ;-)
Oh I agree with you, what I know of their story seems completely wacko to me.
But a lot of the scientific hypothesis we use right now, like the earth is round, seemed completely wacko once too.
Ok ok... I know this example might be seen by most people as more then just an hypothesis ;-)
Fascinating! Some science is coming out of this whole thing :)
So creationism might not be a total waste of time after all.
Interesting ! Thank you for those links.
So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I agree with you :)
I understand this wiki entry might not be completely accurate. But there must be a common definition of the scientific method available somewhere.
Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.
Would you agree?
Thank you, I get it now.
So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I see what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
So that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.
I was defining the practice of science as following the scientific method.
I thought that the scientific method used the word "evidence" for these supposedly "facts".
I understand what you are saying. That creationism is "Not even wrong". I don't know much about it and was just curious to know if we are sure that they are not predicting anything we could use to try and prove them wrong.
I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.
I think we too often use bad language when we talk about science in definite terms. I hear too often things like: "We proved that...".
We never prove anything in science, we just very very slowly disprove everything we can. And by doing so, we narrow ever so slowly the expanse of explanations to ever more useful ones.
Valtor
I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.
Is there such a thing as "scientific fact"?
I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?
Valtor
So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?
I'm as far as it gets from an expert on creationism, but are we certain that it does not make any predictions that we could test to try and disprove it?
Valtor
Out of curiosity, I would like to know why it is not valid? Are you saying that experiments were done and we were able to disprove it? That in my mind would settle the matter.
I always thought that at lot of what is proclaimed by religions can be proven wrong. But some core stuff would probably survive the scientific method. That would at least clean up religions, from a scientific point of view of course.
What I find interesting, is that the parts that could survive might actually be usable in science. At least for something like social science. And then as science advances, we might be able to disprove more of it, and maybe one day even disprove the existence of God!
We just don't know, but I find all this fascinating.
Valtor
Disclaimer: I do not believe one bit in creationism.
I agree that the scientific method needs to be applied to creationism. But I would like to know if by following the scientific method we could disprove creationism?
Can we disprove creationism? Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis and then we work with the ones that we can't with all our might disprove. As long as an hypothesis has not been proven wrong, it stands!
So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove creationism?
Valtor
I know it's a dupe, but I still love to see Gates say: "But that is just the start of the crap..."
It says it all right there. At least Microsoft knows about the problems with Windows. It is said that realizing there is an issue is the first step to resolving it :)
You are so right. I wish I had mod points. When I first read your parent post, I thought this will be modded up. But no, you were flagged "Flamebait". That is really wrong. Just so you know, I think a lot of people would think you are indeed right. Desktop Linux is not were it could be...
The idea of a white Christmas may seem magical for many of us
Hi from Canada !
What's so special about a white Christmas ? ;-)
Joyeux Noel !!!
It's not even a question of cost. It's a question of performance, especially multi-tasking performance. As soon as the cost of SSD is 4 times that of HD or lower for the same space, it will take over for much of us.
You can still have a 1.5 TB HD for slow storage and an SSD for the OS and the soft.
When it is deleted it should return to the source! But sometimes the code chooses to remain...
Sorry, couldn't help the Matrix analogy ;-)