- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No. They don't. They have belief based explanations and stories.
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.
No. They don't. They have belief based explanations and stories.We all know? You don't know, and maybe the proprietors of whatever creationist ministry website you picked up that tidbit from don't know, but geologists have complete and well-evidenced explanations for those phenomena.
But what about all the charts and maps and graphs and pictures and drawings and other data they can produce?No. They don't. They have belief based explanations and stories.
Would you say there are over 50,000 different scientific methods out there? Do they all agree on the essentials?Do you?
There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.
The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)
Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.
"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar
There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?
Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."
Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.
Source: amasci.com
Doesn't matter what you think of the explanation. The claim was that science had no explanation. Even a faulty or inadequate explanation refutes that claim.But what about all the charts and maps and graphs and pictures and drawings and other data they can produce?
Show me the evidence of water flowing upward over a 7,400 mountain with enough force to carve it into a canyon. Ever been there? I have.We all know? You don't know, and maybe the proprietors of whatever creationist ministry website you picked up that tidbit from don't know, but geologists have complete and well-evidenced explanations for those phenomena.
I agree.Doesn't matter what you think of the explanation. The claim was that science had no explanation. Even a faulty or inadequate explanation refutes that claim.
The "wisdom" of scientistsI agree.
And I'm familiar with the explanatory power of science, and it's ability to convince.
For example, science can convince a mother that she is not carrying a child in her womb.
Science can be deceptive.
Yup.The "wisdom" of scientists
In the eyes of the world, the most "intelligent" of men
Huh?!Yup.
Remember though, according to them, they were born that way (Homo sapiens means "wise man.")
Thus they don't need God's wisdom ... they already have it by virtue of what species they are.
In fact, the word "educate" means "to bring out."
Locked inside our head, according to them, is all the knowledge in the universe; and it's the job of an educator to bring it out.
So for some reason you have not posted it is plain as day that we need to insert untold ages and strange battles and ruin and magic restoration into the first verses of the bible. OK. Good luck with that.
I disagree, the scientific method can only be used to investigate the natural world.
A scientific methodology can be used to investigate anything.
For the record, I agree that the bible clearly speaks about a global flood.
And all the evidence demonstrates that such a thing never happened.
We cannot investigate the supernatural, or more specifically supernatural causation. We can only investigate the effects and not the actual mechanism.
Do you have a method with which we can do that?
But what about all the charts and maps and graphs and pictures and drawings and other data they can produce?
See "Answered Prayer" below in my signature file.
We manage to learn about the Sun and stars and
"other similar planets" without being there. Or at
least we all imagine we are learning about such.
NVMThe 'untold ages' are revealed in the geologic/fossil record, and reinforced in Genesis 1:2.
The Hebrew is a monotone string of consonants that have been translated and interpreted in many areas according to long held traditional beliefs. Certain words were chosen that don't accurately reflect the whole narrative. Thankfully we can deconstruct the text to the original Hebrew and exchange some of these words.
Oh, and the whole thing is supernatural/magic. Everything.
It stops at ask a questionI'd love to know how you apply the scientific method to the supernatural:
And I do not consider prayer to be a reliable tool since there have been countless studies that confirmed that prayer works as well as chance and sometimes even worse.
I'd love to know how you apply the scientific method to the supernatural:
And I do not consider prayer to be a reliable tool since there have been countless studies that confirmed that prayer works as well as chance and sometimes even worse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?