Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 16 of 138 (514244)
07-05-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
07-05-2009 8:27 AM


As I explained in the other thread, experimentation is a good way of generating observations.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 07-05-2009 8:27 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 07-08-2009 5:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 25 of 138 (514485)
07-08-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Peg
07-08-2009 5:03 AM


Let us be clear, experimentation is often part of the process - but it is not and never has been a necessary part of the process.
quote:
im not sure if it was you or another who said experimentation is not a part of the scientific method
Nobody has denied that science can and does use experiments. If you interpreted any of your opponents as disagreeing with my statement you were wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 07-08-2009 5:03 AM Peg has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 31 of 138 (514923)
07-14-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by CosmicChimp
07-14-2009 12:17 AM


A theory is a body of work, and to reach the status of being accepted as a theory it will have undergone considerable testing. It will not be junked just because of a small anomaly (and even then it would need to be shown that the anomaly was not just a freak event). Instead it will be adjusted to handle that anomaly if that is at all possible. In fact it won't be junked unless there is a clearly better alternative available.
Even then it may hang on if it is useful.
For instance we still teach Newtonian mechanics - and that theory is still widely used - even though it has been superseded by General Relativity. Being a good enough approximation for many situations - and easier to work with - has kept it alive.
General Relativity itself has a severe problem - it cannot be fully reconciled with Quantum Mechanics. Yet it is still used - partly because there are many cases where the problems don't matter, but also because there is no replacement available (although scientists do try to work with possible replacement theories this work is mainly in evaluating those theories, rather than simply using them).
An anomaly that has been solidly confirmed, and which cannot be accommodated by adjusting the theory will, at most, start scientists looking for a replacement for the theory. So long as the current theory is the best available it will continue to be used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-14-2009 12:17 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 48 of 138 (520959)
08-25-2009 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Arphy
08-25-2009 7:23 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
I think that Dr. Adequate was objecting to your "Evolutionists need to deny God" claim. Try telling that to Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins or Simon Conway Morris.
Anybody who actually follows the debate (instead of Creationist propaganda) knows that it isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 7:23 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM PaulK has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 60 of 138 (521114)
08-26-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:39 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
quote:
As I said before, it may not apply to all evolutionists, but to some, so no, it is not outright falsehood. Maybe I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." to have avoided the confusion. However, you can not honestly say that no evolutionist on this forum has ever said something that was a bit hyperbolic.
The problem is that it isn't even true of most evolutionists. So it is worse than hyperbole.
It's just one more piece of dishonest creationist propaganda.
Come to that, so is the "mutations don't create information" argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:39 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024