Can you show us how you employed the scientific method? What is your hypothesis and null hypothesis? What are the experiments you are doing? Do they properly test the null hypothesis with the correct controls?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Can you show us how you employed the scientific method? What is your hypothesis and null hypothesis? What are the experiments you are doing? Do they properly test the null hypothesis with the correct controls?
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
I think the degree that any conclusion can be called scientifically derived is related to the degree that the scientific method was used in its derivation.
That's why subjects that can be directly observed in the here and now, such as metallurgy, acoustics, electromagnetism and the such, aren't controversial, at least for long: the scientific method can be fully utilized.
It's also why some other subjects that deal in the unobserved past (ex. paleontology) or the unobserved future (ex. AGW) remain controversial and changeable: the scientific method cannot be utilized as fully.
The scientific method isn't reserved for scientists; we all use it daily, while going about our lives. We just don't think of it as such.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The life cycle of a star is the theory. You do not observe theories. What we have observed is a long list of characteristics in stars that we use to test our theories of how stars change over millions and billions of years. These observations include everything from the birth of stars to their explosive deaths. We use this data to test our explanations and refine them. That is how science is done.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,868
- 7,884
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Nope. That's what scientists do. That's what scientific funding agencies fund, and scientific journals report, and scientific societies and academies support. It's what the word "science" means in English. You have your own definition, but it's not the one used by people involved in science.
I know. What I'm telling you is that your understanding is wrong -- it does not correspond to what real scientists do. You may not be able to test millions of years ago, but scientists can test, quite easily sometimes, hypotheses about things that happened millions of years ago. As long as there is physical evidence, science can be done.
Here's a tip: if everyone else uses a word differently than you do, the problem isn't with the other people.
Try learning about real science -- there are tons of resources on the web for learning about all sorts of things, which will give you an idea of what kind of evidence scientists actually use and how they use it. But you'll never learn anything if you decide in advance that you're smarter than all the scientists and can ignore everything they do.
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,429
- 7,165
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Two other foundational axioms of science: 1) "Real" science is obligatorily naturalistic. Meaning it seeks explanations only in terms of matter/energy, and the fundamental forces of nature. It is not scientific if a supernatural force or entity is invoked. 2) Science is deterministic. This doesn't mean everything is pre-determined. It means that the exact same set of conditions (within the limits of quantum uncertainty) will always lead to exactly the same results. Or in other words, the rules are always followed. This allows predictions to be made. Determinism is a sort of a corrollary of naturalism. If you accept the existence of some supernatural agency, then you must accept the possibility that the rules of nature can be suspended at any time, for any reason. And thus, you can never really make confident predictions. Which is why supernaturalism is useless in the practical sense.
BTW: Neither of these axioms are provable with absolute metaphysical certainty. They do require an element of faith. But based on everything we've discovered about how the universe works, they've always held true in the past. So our faith ca be supported by inductive reasoning.
BTW: Neither of these axioms are provable with absolute metaphysical certainty. They do require an element of faith. But based on everything we've discovered about how the universe works, they've always held true in the past. So our faith ca be supported by inductive reasoning.
Upvote
0
I know this is a popular description of science, but it has never made sense to me. Science doesn't ask if something is natural or supernatural. That isn't a part of the scientific method. Rather, science says that you need empirical observations. That's it. Science doesn't claim that the supernatural is non-empirical or could not produce scientific observations.
It is theists who have invented the supernatural and the natural. They are the ones who have decided that science is not allowed to investigate what they define as the supernatural.
I would not say that science is obligatorialy naturalistic, but rather obligatorily empirical.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I agree and would add only that, it is extremely convenient that the "supernatural" never leaves any empirical evidence so that it can be examined. Some will say that that's just the nature of the supernatural, but I just feel it's a copout.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
It is unsurprising that "the supernatural" is indistinguishable from that which simply does not exist.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
In my experience, something is defined as supernatural if a person does not want it challenged or tested. The supernatural is a realm invented to protect beliefs from scientific investigation.
Upvote
0
S
SuperChristian25
Guest
So it's a separate issue I see. But there are proven theories as well. As an example.. the earth being flat..was a theory at one time. But now we know it is round because what we do is get the required testing equipment of NASA telescopes and see if that's actually true or not. What I'm saying is any proof is better than theories. I want to see it in front of my eyes!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nithavela
you're in charge you can do it just get louis
- Apr 14, 2007
- 32,225
- 23,890
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
We are not 100% certain that the earth is round (or an ellipsoid). There is a lot of evidence for it, but our view of space-time might be fundamentally flawed.
Upvote
0
Nithavela
you're in charge you can do it just get louis
- Apr 14, 2007
- 32,225
- 23,890
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
They do not test millions of years, they look at the evidence that we have today and analyse it.
I'm a chemistry student, and I have never in my life seen a molecule. Most likely I won't. But we have tools to make them visible and analyze them.
I'm a chemistry student, and I have never in my life seen a molecule. Most likely I won't. But we have tools to make them visible and analyze them.
Upvote
0
S
SuperChristian25
Guest
No, there is proof for it. The telescope of NASA tells a different story. You know what your problem is.. your problem is that nothing is certain. If you do this it will destroy science.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
