Between the Creationists and the Evolutionist (I hate to use that particular word, but...), there is a clear difference between what they consider to be factual. One group believes that some sort of creationism is factual, and the other group accepts the scientific account of the formation of the earth and the development of life as factual.
In this thread, I'd like to discuss how we reach our conclusions as to what is factual or not. Not to debate on whether creationism or evolution is factual, but how we arrive at our conclusions as to what is factual.
My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.
How about you? How well have your methods worked in the past?
My own preference is to take a belief I have and put it to the test. If I keep testing an idea and trying to prove it wrong, but every attempt to prove it wrong fails, then I consider that idea to be more and more factual.
So start out with a belief you have. Then try and prove a negative and if you cannot prove a negative it is most likely true. Absurd! To begin with this admits that the belief did not arise FROM the data (and thus may bias the interpretation of the data).
Please provide an example of a belief you hold that you tried to prove wrong ober and over.
In my studies most scientists I have read either do tests to show their hypothesis was correct, or else to obtain data (which then may change or shape the hypothesis) or to determine a fact (like yes you have HIV or no you do not have HIV or yes Bacteria communicate biochemically and so on).
Upvote
0