Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 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
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 9 of 138 (514205)
07-04-2009 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
07-03-2009 10:43 PM


Hi Subbie,
The quibbles and subtle points you bring up I see very easily and clearly as being a part of the list of steps given at the start by Dr. Adequate. Specifically, you would want to include a modification of the hypothesis. This is clearly a part of the first step, "(1) Formulate a hypothesis." This your detail, is for me ridiculous. Keeping it simple (void of legalese) lends itself to wider application. The fine points are decided on an individual basis and any scientist will be able to correctly apply the scientific method for his specific situation or area of research. Peer review will show if the choices made, fit.
One common arrow in a cdesign proponentists's quiver is bringing forward some perceived flaw in the the ToE, or some perceived contradictory bit of evidence, as if it will bring the entire edifice tumbling to the ground. Almost invariably, the perceived problem is nonexistent, but I think it's very important to make clear that even if a genuine problem is discovered, no one single straw can break the back of the camel that is the ToE.
I could not disagree more with that final sentence. "Genuine problems" bring down hypotheses and theories. Assuming a hypothesis or theory generally fits, tiny incongruences are the meat of trying to find out where a hypothesis or theory is flawed. The first part of your quote I see as true but those points too fit squarely, for me, in the outline Dr. Adequate gave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 07-03-2009 10:43 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 07-13-2009 9:58 PM CosmicChimp has replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 11 of 138 (514209)
07-04-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3
07-04-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Peer Review
Hi AZPaul3,
The points you bring up as missing, I see as being present; clearly present. Wanting to include "peer review" and experimental "replication" is a part of:
quote:
(3) Compare the predictions against observation.
&
(4) If reality corresponds with the predictions of the hypothesis, ....
Specifically including your two items far overreaches any useful purpose. It is needless addition to already listed points. "Short and clear" this is a sought after goal to be maintained in the listing of the method. Needless complication is self defeating in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2009 3:50 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 26 of 138 (514894)
07-13-2009 7:44 PM


Hypothesis
To clarify about the meaning of hypothesis from another thread I would like to post here.
I am a chemist. I have a very good idea what a hypothesis is. Until proven, if possible, it can be stated "My hypothesis is that RNA self assembled around black smokers." This might or might not be faith. Many people might really be saying, "It could have happened here or at tide pools, but I don't know." Once you decide that it must be one way, you are saying, "I believe it happened this way." Saying, it could not have happened with God's guidance, is such a belief statement.
Although you may be a chemist (and never used the scientific method), and think you already know what a scientific hypothesis is, you should be aware that you have not demonstrated any sign of knowing what it is, except to the negative. At least review the material that you may have learned and merely forgotten. Wiki has a pretty good description of what it is. HYPOTHESIS
Take note of where it is stated that a hypothesis is never proven.
Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 28 of 138 (514914)
07-13-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by subbie
07-13-2009 9:58 PM


For whatever reason I did not realize that you meant a specific theory (ToE). I responded to the idea of theories in general. I agree that the ToE is not easily brought down by future incongruences. Especially since ToE is one of the best supported theories we have (if not outright the best).
Regarding the first point, is your request not superfluous and distracting considering the value attached to having clean and simple steps to the scientific method? I'm considering also the teaching value associated with keeping a strategy, method or procedure simple.
Take for example the English 26 letter alphabet. Is it not better to have each character limited to one symbol?
Edited by CosmicChimp, : Rhetorical questions need a question mark?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 07-13-2009 9:58 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 07-13-2009 11:35 PM CosmicChimp has replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 30 of 138 (514921)
07-14-2009 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
07-13-2009 11:35 PM


I really don't agree with what I see as your malleable version of theories. I take a more black and white approach to theories. I'll wait for other forum members to weigh in on your view of the issue as I have interpreted it.
Including or excluding your more detailed version of the method, revisions etc, is I think a matter of opinion, I can see your view.
What about the value of economy of verbiage?
Edited by CosmicChimp, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 07-13-2009 11:35 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 07-14-2009 1:25 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2009 1:35 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but 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