Using the Scientific Method on Evolution

[Jd34]

You can claim to be whatever you want. You're still wrong.

If you took a poll of scientist around here and asked if i was wrong or if i was correct. You would find that most would agree with me. If I may ask, what is your science background?

 

[sfs]

Let me explain something to you in simple terms:

Scientists begin with a hypothesis, which is sort of a guess of what might happen. When the sci- entists investigate the hypothesis, they follow a line of reasoning and eventually formulate a theory. Once a theory has been tested thoroughly and is accepted, it becomes a scien- tific law.

My life's career has been devoted to science. I am we'll rooted in the sciences.

I have always held to Divine Creation but to science, sorry to say it but it is only a theory.

What have you been doing in your career in science? I've been a scientist for 30 years in two different fields, and I've never heard anyone treat "theory" and "law" that way. Scientists pretty much never apply "law" to any ideas from the last century, in fact. (For that matter, scientists also don't use "theory" the way books often claim, on the infrequent occasions that they use the word. How this stuff gets into textbooks I don't know.)

 

[lasthero]

If you took a poll of scientist around here and asked if i was wrong or if i was correct. You would find that most would agree with me. If I may ask, what is your science background?

My background is irrelevant to whether or not I'm right, as is popular opinion.

Did you read the link I provided?

 

[Jd34]

What have you been doing in your career in science? I've been a scientist for 30 years in two different fields, and I've never heard anyone treat "theory" and "law" that way. Scientists pretty much never apply "law" to any ideas from the last century, in fact. (For that matter, scientists also don't use "theory" the way books often claim, on the infrequent occasions that they use the word. How this stuff gets into textbooks I don't know.)

We are talking about the scientific method. It is only a process. Wow! I learned all this 30 years ago in a high school sophomore biology class and is what turned me on to science. My background is in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics prior to health care. But I enjoyed doing PCR for a research firm the best.

 

[whois]

How this stuff gets into textbooks I don't know.)

this right here is the crux of the problem.
it's also probably the number one reason people mistrust science so much.
people read the textbooks.
then they read something in science journals that say something else.

i have no solutions because school texts must have a certain amount of lag time.

 

[Jd34]

My background is irrelevant to whether or not I'm right, as is popular opinion.

Did you read the link I provided?

Yes I did. I am not comparing theories to laws. I am explaining to you the process of reasoning on how we accept something as a law.


And that is the scientific method.

 

[lasthero]

Yes I did. I am not comparing theories to laws.

You are saying that laws come from theories. This is incorrect.

 

[whois]

Medicine, . . . is science.

Vaccines, . . . is religion.

/scratches head.
aren't vaccines medicine?
i got an armful of religion?
don't cloud polio vaccinations with aids vaccinations.
we have practically eliminated polio in the united states through vaccinations.

i think you need to reevaluate what you said.

 

[sfs]

We are talking about the scientific method. It is only a process. Wow! I learned all this 30 years ago in a high school sophomore biology class and is what turned me on to science. My background is in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics prior to health care. But I enjoyed doing PCR for a research firm the best.

Yes, what you're describing sounds like a high school textbook description of the scientific method. There simply is no concept of theories turning into laws in the actual practice of science, at least not that I've seen, and I've seen lots of science and scientists. "Hypothesis" is a well-understood part of science, as is the broad idea that explanations have more or less evidence to support them, but the theory/law hierarchy isn't used. Have you ever seen a scientific publication proposing that an idea be promoted to "law" status?

 

[SteveB28]

If you took a poll of scientist around here and asked if i was wrong or if i was correct. You would find that most would agree with me. If I may ask, what is your science background?

Sir, whomever was the charlatan that provided you with your training in science has done you a mighty disservice.

Scientific theories are explanatory in nature. Scientific laws are descriptive in nature. Each performs a different function. They do not occupy positions on an hierarchical scale, as you seem to think.

 

[Jd34]

You are saying that laws come from theories. This is incorrect.

No not exactly that. What I am saying is that every law was derived first from a hypothesis, then to a theory and then to a law when the observable outcome is always the same.

Just a thought for you- Newtonian laws fall apart at the quantum level.

 

[lasthero]

/scratches head.
aren't vaccines medicine?
i got an armful of religion?
don't cloud polio vaccinations with aids vaccinations.
we have practically eliminated polio in the united states through vaccinations.

i think you need to reevaluate what you said.

Morse is flat earther, among other things. Self-evaluation is not one of his strong suits.

 

[lasthero]

No not exactly that. What I am saying is that every law was derived first from a hypothesis, then to a theory and then to a law when the observable outcome is always the same.

Wrong.

Just a thought for you- Newtonian laws fall apart at the quantum level.

That's nice. Wholly irrelevant to this conversation, but nice.

 

[Jd34]

Wrong.



That's nice. Wholly irrelevant to this conversation, but nice.

Not wrong. I will give you an example:

Newton had to put forth first a hypothesis that gravity is what makes objects fall to the earth and the force that keeps planets in their orbit the same.

Laws are our best truths of reasoning but in order for us to arrive at a physical law, we first must have a concept of it. We test our concept through the scientific method. By the scientific method all laws started with an hypothesis, then theory and then a law.

 

[lasthero]

Not wrong. I will give you an example:

Newton had to put forth first a hypothesis that gravity is what makes objects fall to the earth and the force that keeps planets in their orbit the same.

Laws are our best truths of reasoning but in order for us to arrive at a physical law, we first must have a concept of it. We test our concept through the scientific method. By the scientific method all laws started with an hypothesis, then theory and then a law.

Still wrong. Gravity is STILL a theory.

Text : Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

 

[MerlinJ]

• MISCONCEPTION: If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law.
  CORRECTION: This misconception may be reinforced by introductory science courses that treat hypotheses as "things we're not sure about yet" and that only explore established and accepted theories. In fact, hypotheses, theories, and laws are rather like apples, oranges, and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all scientific explanations that differ in breadth — not in level of support. Hypotheses are explanations that are limited in scope, applying to fairly narrow range of phenomena. The term law is sometimes used to refer to an idea about how observable phenomena are related — but the term is also used in other ways within science. Theories are deep explanations that apply to a broad range of phenomena and that may integrate many hypotheses and laws. To learn more about this, visit our page on the different levels of explanation in science.

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

 

[And-U-Say]

The scientific method has four parts:
1) Observation
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
3) Testing
4) Conclusion

Observation:
We find a bone in the dirt.

Please use the scientific method USING the observation above to prove that birds come from dinosaurs or everything in the universe came from nothing.

Observation: a piece of uranium ore is placed on a sealed piece of unexposed film. The film becomes oddly exposed.

Please use the Scientific method using only the observation above to show how to design an efficient nuclear reactor OR how to design a working thermonuclear weapon in the megaton range.

But you can't... can you! Take that Scientists! Take that Nuclear Chemists! CHECKMATE! i win!

 

[SteveB28]

Not wrong. I will give you an example:

Newton had to put forth first a hypothesis that gravity is what makes objects fall to the earth and the force that keeps planets in their orbit the same.

Laws are our best truths of reasoning but in order for us to arrive at a physical law, we first must have a concept of it. We test our concept through the scientific method. By the scientific method all laws started with an hypothesis, then theory and then a law.

Yours is a consensus of one. No person, versed in the concepts of the scientific process, would accept your interpretation. As someone else has bluntly indicated, you are simply wrong.

 

[Jd34]

Yours is a consensus of one. No person, versed in the concepts of the scientific process, would accept your interpretation. As someone else has bluntly indicated, you are simply wrong.

Unbelievable! I make my living in the field of science and I stand by my original statement as it pertains to this thread. Evolution is a theory. A theory that will always be a theory. The same as special creation theory.

And any good scientist understands how he arrives at conclusions based on our observations.

And I will say again.

Laws just don't become laws. There is a method at arriving at a law. And that method is scientific. It is in steps. Step A to step B to step C.. But it's clear to me that many are not understand that method.

 

[And-U-Say]

If you took a poll of scientist around here and asked if i was wrong or if i was correct. You would find that most would agree with me. If I may ask, what is your science background?

I have been a Scientist for 30 years working in the research area of a Fortune 50 company.

You are wrong.