Original Research--join In

[Loudmouth]

The so-called "scientific method" does not exist.

Found it for you:

Steps of the Scientific Method

If it did, and if that were the test of science, then no astronomer could be considered a scientist because none of them perform experiments. They merely observe planets in motion.

The scientific method, as outlined in high school textbooks, clearly involves multiple logical fallacies. Acknowledging that doesn't make me a "science denier." I have never denied that science existed or occurred. The naive faith that you place is science is unfounded. A simple look at the Raven Paradox shows that.

It would be far more accurate to call you a logic denier.

And more science denial. Thanks for playing.

 

[Loudmouth]

HELIOCENTRISM IS FALSE. The Sun is not an immobile center of the universe. Sorry to break it to you.

That has nothing to do with why Heliocentrism was considered heretical.

"My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." "--Isaac Asmiov

 

[sfs]

By OED I can only assume that you are referring to the Oxford English Dictionary. This source is not authoritative.

The Chicago Manual of Style classifies data as a plural noun. CMS is the authoritative publication for the Americas just as Hart's Rules is authoritative for the UK. In no sense of the word could the OED be considered authoritative for anyone or anything.

Crikey -- you're really not very good at this. The OED, " the most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary in the world", "the most authoritative and comprehensive dictionary of English", "he most venerated and authoritative English-language reference ever compiled" isn't authoritative for anyone or anything. Uh huh.

The Chicago Manual of Style, on the other hand, is a manual of style (something they subtly hint at with their choice of title), which means it offers rules on all kinds of questions where usage is not settled. And what does it actually say about "data", after all? "Though originally this word was a plural of datum, it is now commonly treated as a mass noun and coupled with a singular verb. In formal writing (and always in the sciences), use data as a plural."

 

[bhsmte]

Found it for you:

Steps of the Scientific Method



And more science denial. Thanks for playing.

He is a player.

The rules of the game he plays seem to change on a whim though.

 

[bhsmte]

HELIOCENTRISM IS FALSE. The Sun is not an immobile center of the universe. Sorry to break it to you.

Coming from you, I am sure he is very upset?

 

[Zosimus]

That has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Galileo was accused of heresy because he treated Heliocentrism as a fact.

You are just trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the fact that the bible was translated as speaking of a Sun that moves about the Earth.

Heliocentrism is not fact now and was not fact then. Galileo was instructed not to hold, defend, or teach the system. Rather than do so, he published a book ridiculing the Pope. Bad mojo.

 

[Zosimus]

Found it for you:

Steps of the Scientific Method



And more science denial. Thanks for playing.

“The” Scientific Method versus Real Science

Let’s make a brief digression to talk about the terminology for a moment. By way of analogy: Voltaire famously remarked that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. The term «Holy Roman Empire» cannot be taken literally, yet we continue to use it. It is what we call an idiomatic expression. In English, there are hundreds of idiomatic expressions, as discussed in reference 2. When an idiomatic expression is taken literally, it crosses the boundary from idiomatic to idiotic.

It is important to realize that «the scientific method» is an idiomatic expression, and must never be taken literally. There is not any cut-and-dried method for doing science, just as there is not any cut-and-dried method for writing a novel. Scientists are quite aware of this. Peter Medawar, for example, has explained why there cannot be any such thing as «the» scientific method, if you take the term literally. Alas, misconceptions about this are appallingly common among non-scientists....

People who have not done any research, nor even seen it done, sometimes equate «the scientific method» with a step-by-step hypothesis-testing approach, perhaps along the lines spelled out on the poster discussed in section 4. This is a travesty. It makes research seem hundreds of times easier than it really is. It is an insult to every researcher – past, present, and future. Similarly, it is a disservice to students who may be thinking becoming scientists, since it gives them a false impression of what they are getting into. In addition, overemphasis on any particular method makes it impossible to understand the history of science.

 

[Zosimus]

Crikey -- you're really not very good at this. The OED, " the most authoritative and comprehensive English language dictionary in the world", "the most authoritative and comprehensive dictionary of English", "he most venerated and authoritative English-language reference ever compiled" isn't authoritative for anyone or anything. Uh huh.

The Chicago Manual of Style, on the other hand, is a manual of style (something they subtly hint at with their choice of title), which means it offers rules on all kinds of questions where usage is not settled. And what does it actually say about "data", after all? "Though originally this word was a plural of datum, it is now commonly treated as a mass noun and coupled with a singular verb. In formal writing (and always in the sciences), use data as a plural."

I'm sorry. I must have missed something. You seem to be arguing with me by agreeing with me?

"In formal writing (and always in the sciences), use data as a plural."

Are we discussing cheddar cheese?

Style Manuals

Several newsletter subscribers have written to ask us why we frequently refer to the Chicago Manual of Style rather than to other well-known style manuals. The answer is simply that Chicago is the most authoritative and the most widely used style manual in the American publishing industry.

Despite the fact that we here at Get It Write usually use The MLA Style Manual for our own academic publications, we suggest the use of Chicago, due to its established place in American publishing as a whole, for business and organizations that have adopted neither a customized nor a discipline-specific manual of style.

Barnes and Noble editors recognize Chicago as the "quintessential style book," speaking of it as "an invaluable guide that is considered a standard in the publishing world." Reader's Catalog calls it "the standard" and notes that "for over 80 years, this reference has been used by American authors, editors, and proofreaders for its chapters on preparing and editing copy for publication." Booklist acknowledges it as the "classic handbook for publishers." Other reviewers call it "the accurate, final authority," one noting that although "there are many guides to choose from . . . none is more respected than Chicago."

I can assure you that the GMAT follows all the rules of the Chicago Manual of Style. Of course one might try to argue that the UK doesn't accept the Chicago Manual as Oxford has its own. However, LBS requires the GMAT test for admission.

 

[sfs]

I'm sorry. I must have missed something. You seem to be arguing with me by agreeing with me?

Yup. You missed something: the distinction between a style manual and a reference work on English usage.

"In formal writing (and always in the sciences), use data as a plural."

Were you under the impression that posts on Christian Forums represent formal writing, or that CF has adopted the Chicago Manual of Style?

Are we discussing cheddar cheese?

Style Manuals

I'm discussing linguistics; it's not clear to me what you're discussing. I suggest you read the page you just linked to. It notes how often style manuals disagree with one another, and mentions the reason for choosing a particular style manual: for consistency within an organization. Style manuals do not merely dictate correct usage; they also dictate particular choices where usage varies.

I can assure you that the GMAT follows all the rules of the Chicago Manual of Style.

Of course you can assure me of that. What you can't do, it seems, is present any evidence that the GMAT enforces Chicago rules in judging correctness.

 

[SkyWriting]

Heliocentrism is not fact now and was not fact then.

It is true in a number of ways. Our knowledge base and view revolves
around our sun. Additionally the mass of our system does, actually
cause the rest of the cosmos to orbit around it, though other masses
do have a "Larger" impact. No impact is more important than us of course.

We are the sole system with life. Again, the center.

 

[lasthero]

We are the sole system with life.

How do you know that?

 

[SkyWriting]

How do you know that?

I'm depending on science for illumination on this point.

Our Mission | SETI Institute

 

[EternalDragon]

How do you know that?

Are you saying you believe in some invisible, unproven alien life?

 

[lasthero]

I'm depending on science for illumination on this point.

Our Mission | SETI Institute

How does that help your assertion?

 

[Zosimus]

Yup. You missed something: the distinction between a style manual and a reference work on English usage.


Were you under the impression that posts on Christian Forums represent formal writing, or that CF has adopted the Chicago Manual of Style?

No, I was under the impression that we were discussing science on this forum. In fact, I was under the impression that the person who I originally criticized was a science apologist.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No, I was under the impression that we were discussing science on this forum. In fact, I was under the impression that the person who I originally criticized was a science apologist.

Activity on this forum (Creation & Evolution) ranges from anti-Creation to anti-Evolution, and as your slogan reads : 'Non-Christian non-evolution believer' -- I don't think you're going to have much fun here.

What species of Non-Christian are you?

What is a 'non-evolution believer'? Seems like an oxymoron, of sorts, hmm?

 

[Zosimus]

Activity on this forum (Creation & Evolution) ranges from anti-Creation to anti-Evolution, and as your slogan reads : 'Non-Christian non-evolution believer' -- I don't think you're going to have much fun here.

What species of Non-Christian are you?

What is a 'non-evolution believer'? Seems like an oxymoron, of sorts, hmm?

Well, you see, if you hover your mouse over the symbols right next to my name, you'll see what my religious beliefs are. Really, I'm surprised that after two years on the forum you haven't figured that out.

In your case I see that you are a self-proclaimed Christian. Congratulations.

I, on the other hand, am agnostic. I believe that the ultimate truth is not knowable or, at least, that no foolproof procedure for arriving at the truth has yet been devised and presented to me.

Perhaps the information at Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com will be helpful to you:

Agnostic: noun

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

You see, I don't deny the possibility that all life is descended from one single-celled organism that arose purely by chance billions of years ago in some strange mix of nucleotides even though nucleotides are not known to occur in nature outside of living cells. It just strikes me as rather unlikely. When I come on a forum such as this one, most Darwinists take the attitude that anyone who doesn't think as they do is an idiot of some sort.

I'm sorry but when I hear the argument: "The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation therefore all life shares a common ancestor" I think that I must be missing something. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, you see. Furthermore, I can't even deduce the assumption that the argument is based on. Accordingly I consider the argument not compelling.

So far on this forum I have only heard lots of Darwinists defending the idea that a sufficient number of logical fallacies leads to knowledge of the truth. I, however, remain skeptical.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, you see, if you hover your mouse over the symbols right next to my name, you'll see what my religious beliefs are. Really, I'm surprised that after two years on the forum you haven't figured that out.

In your case I see that you are a self-proclaimed Christian. Congratulations.

I, on the other hand, am agnostic. I believe that the ultimate truth is not knowable or, at least, that no foolproof procedure for arriving at the truth has yet been devised and presented to me.

Perhaps the information at Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com will be helpful to you:

Agnostic: noun

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

You see, I don't deny the possibility that all life is descended from one single-celled organism that arose purely by chance billions of years ago in some strange mix of nucleotides even though nucleotides are not known to occur in nature outside of living cells. It just strikes me as rather unlikely. When I come on a forum such as this one, most Darwinists take the attitude that anyone who doesn't think as they do is an idiot of some sort.

I'm sorry but when I hear the argument: "The frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation therefore all life shares a common ancestor" I think that I must be missing something. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, you see. Furthermore, I can't even deduce the assumption that the argument is based on. Accordingly I consider the argument not compelling.

So far on this forum I have only heard lots of Darwinists defending the idea that a sufficient number of logical fallacies leads to knowledge of the truth. I, however, remain skeptical.

Well, this evolutionist is of the opinion that all DNA based life has a common ancestral single celled origin; and the ability to use DNA as the unit of heredity actually evolved in earlier, simpler cellular life. This does not rule out multiple starts for life of differing nature that just never caught on for the long haul.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, you see, if you hover your mouse over the symbols right next to my name, you'll see what my religious beliefs are. Really, I'm surprised that after two years on the forum you haven't figured that out.

Why be surprised, I'm not a regular here -- or didn't you notice that.

In your case I see that you are a self-proclaimed Christian. Congratulations.

I'm not a self-proclaimed anything, choosing a definition from a such list of options hardly explains what type of Christian I am. However, there are many different types of unbelievers -- and though you may think you know who you are -- the question remains: Who are you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you saying you believe in some invisible, unproven alien life?

Given how many planets exist and how much of the universe is unexplored, I think it is statistically more likely that there are planets with life on them other than our own than not. However, I seriously doubt we've had any alien visitors.