Is there a method?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Juanchogespacho, Jan 11, 2014.

  1. Juanchogespacho Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Hypotheses ,Theories And Laws: There Is NO Hierarchy

    Hypotheses are NOT guesses- educated or otherwise. Nor are they ideas or proposals. Hypotheses have MULTIPLE LINES of evidence behind them and can be SO complex they are best described in the form of a long mathematical equation or a computer program.

    Laws could be changed or modified with new evidence, realization of past mistakes or newly gained perspectives. They CAN be wrong. They are NOT "immutable." That is NOT even a characteristic of a law. Laws are NOT ""above" , "more true" or "better than" theories.

    Hypotheses, theories and laws are ALL different things that serve different roles. And one does NOT grow into another!!!! Hypotheses do NOT become theories and theories do NOT become laws.


    They are ALL DIFFERENT and there is NO hierarchy whatsoever!


    Hypotheses, theories and laws DIFFER IN BREADTH, NOT in level of support!

    There is also NO such thing as "The Scientific Method." NO such singular method ever existed. There is NO rigid step by step singular "method" that all scientists must follow or have to follow. It is a total myth. It is an insult to researchers past and present and a travesty. It is only an idiomatic expression- NEVER meant to be taken literally. Science circles back on itself.

    Scientists use literally THOUSANDS of METHODS- all very different- in the various fields. The 6th grade poster version is NONSENSE. Little, if any, science is actually conducted that way by scientists.

    Science is more creative than it is procedural.

    "The MANY processeS of science " is a much more accurate phrase.

    ALL of this comes DIRECTLY from REAL l science educators ( NOT misinformed and uninformed Internet weirdos) at the University of California at Berkley's "Misconceptions About Science" page.

    I am so tired of the uninformed Internet weirdos. They need to EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND LEARN THIS RIGHT!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,637
    OK, OK, peace, Man. Who rattled your cage?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    To say there is no such thing as the scientific method, along with the other aspects of that method you raise, is to defy what is staring you in the face......The scientific method is the foundation, the basis upon which the whole discipline of science is built.

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
    The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
    Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]

    WIKI:


    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. -

    When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

    Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

    - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/21491-wh...efinition-of-theory.html#sthash.DovVW7NJ.dpuf


    Now no matter how much you want to jump up and down with your hypothetical philosophy, that is the way it is.


    The following two quotes sum up the science method:

    Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
    Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.

    Science is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.
    Pierre Emile Duclaux (1840-1904) French biochemist, bacteriologist.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    This is like saying stars, Brown Dwarfs, planets, Moons, Asteroids are all one and the same, Just because they all arose from the same accretion disk.
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Yet another crank raises his (ugly) head. (heavy sigh)
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Other than the bizarre "there is no scientific method" and the ranting verbiage, this isn't that far off from true.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    On face value, I agree.....Remembering of course that the scientific methodology is the foundation upon which science is built. Without that, you can bring in all the pseudo ratbaggery, witchcraft and magic one would ever wish to see.
     
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Got to agree with you, the delivery is somewhat "excited", but the OP is basically true and factual as far as the content is concerned.

    Juanchogespacho has evidently read quite a number of Threads on this Forum, and has pretty well summed up the actions of some of the Members.

    I have no doubt that only a few Posters will actually thoroughly ponder and understand what he Posted(in the OP) - and will instead just give a cursory scan, followed by a "knee jerk" response.

    Take for instance :
    I find that to be entirely true - there is no such thing as ONE SINGLE "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD" - there are indeed many methods used by scientists within each discipline as well as the various scientific disciplines.

    I will be attacked for stating my opinion (this is SciForums!), but that is "par for the course" for some Members!

    How many Members actually visited this link : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php (since Juanchogespacho did not include it) - and actually read any of it?

    The information contained in it is what I was taught in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and from what I followed of my son's coursework while earning his Chemical Engineering degrees at Ohio University, during the 00's.

    I believe Grumpy was a Science Teacher for quite a few years, and would be interested in his opinion of the OP, as well as the Berkeley Link. - : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

    I guess we will all see, as this Thread progresses, whether or not Juanchogespacho was accurate or correct in his OP.

    Personally, I found it "Spot On"!
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    Of course you did! And guess what?, You are wrong. And Russ Walters also sees the stupidity in the claims, as well as some truths...that stupidity of course being...
    "Other than the bizarre "there is no scientific method" and the ranting verbiage, this isn't that far off from true."[Russ Walters]

    The prime stupidity content of the OP was of course....
    "There is also NO such thing as "The Scientific Method."[Juanchogespacho ]

    Remembering of course that the scientific methodology is the foundation upon which science is built. Without that, you can bring in all the pseudo ratbaggery, witchcraft and magic one would ever wish to see.
     
  13. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Why does it seem that you constantly refuse to actually completely read and fully comprehend what is actually Posted?

    Are you so intelligent that no one else's Posts are even worth more than a "cursory effort" at reading or understanding?

    paddoboy, your Posts in this Thread are your own self-evident proof that Juanchogespacho and I are NOT WRONG!

    I FORMALLY ask you to PROVIDE PROOF that there is a SINGULAR "Scientific Method"!

    You cannot do that - and you will not do that!

    I will make this statement right now :

    IF YOU, paddoboy, can SUPPLY COMPLETE AND UNIMPEACHABLE PROOF that there is ONLY ONE SINGULAR "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" that is USED EXCLUSIVELY BY ALL OF THE VARIOUS SCIENCES, I WILL NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER, POST ON SCIFORUMS after you DO EXACTLY THAT, SUPPLY COMPLETE AND UNIMPEACHABLE PROOF!!!

    I am a MAN and will STAND BY and FULLY ADHERE TO MY ^^ABOVE^^ STATEMENT!!!

    SO...paddoboy, EITHER SUPPLY THE PROOF OR QUIT STALKING AND TROLLING ME!!!


    As I stated previously, you CANNOT and WILL NOT SUPPLY THAT PROOF!!!

    So...paddoboy...JUMP!

    P.S. - I am not in a "frenzy" nor do I need to "take any medication" I, like many others, am just tired of your "Billshut Posts".
    I typed in UPPER CASE so that just maybe you would be able to fully read and fully comprehend what I actually was stating.

    As always, you seem to be so conceited and so convinced that :

    You are right, of course.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You certainly have missed your medication...that is 100% fact.
    I'm not answering your fanatical obsessive rubbish, suffice to say I did not say there is a singular scientific method.
    I said there is a scientific method that forms the foundation of science.
    If you do not like me [as a layman] refuting rubbish claims, then put me on ignore, because that will continue...and you and I will stand by the judgement of our peers and the moderators..

    The incorrect rubbish claim was as follows....
    ""There is also NO such thing as "The Scientific Method."[Juanchogespacho ]
    That is wrong.

    I refuted it twice thus.....
    "To say there is no such thing as the scientific method, along with the other aspects of that method you raise, is to defy what is staring you in the face......The scientific method is the foundation, the basis upon which the whole discipline of science is built."

    and....

    ".Remembering of course that the scientific methodology is the foundation upon which science is built. Without that, you can bring in all the pseudo ratbaggery, witchcraft and magic one would ever wish to see."



    Again, the scientific method exists, and serves as the foundation of science...
    You don't like that? Put me on ignore, and stop the sanctimonious, bleeding heart crap!



    Your attention to detail is askew again...but anyway......
    My posts are science related and refute pseudoscience quackpottery and conspiracy nonsense
    The only ones that may agree with you, are the trolls that post such nonsense.

    Now go rest, take it easy and think of what you have posted.
    Remember, I'll stand by the judgement of my peers on this forum and the moderators, and guess what? So will you.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    What's the scientific method?
    The scientific method is one way that people can try to find the answer to problems that are bothering them. It's called "scientific", because people like to think of themselves as being very clever, or "scientific" for solving problems. In reality, there's not really anything special about this method, except that it happens to be pretty handy for solving any problem, not just scientific ones.

    How do I use the scientific method?
    The scientific method is just a list of steps that you need to follow when you're solving a problem. Depending on who you talk to, there are anywhere from five to eight steps in the scientific method. However, all versions of the scientific method involve the person trying to solve the problem experimenting to find an answer.

    The version of the scientific method that I use in my class has six steps, as follows:


    Purpose: You've got a problem that you want to have solved. The purpose step in the scientific method is just a restatement of what you want accomplished. What do you want to find out? What is your goal? You should write just one sentence for your purpose. You'll see what I mean in the upcoming example.
    Hypothesis: How do you think you can solve the problem? The hypothesis step is always written in the form "If ___________, then ___________. The blank after the "if" is called the independent variable. The independent variable is just whatever you are going to do to solve the problem. The blank after "then" is the dependent variable. The dependent variable is what you think will happen when you do whatever the independent variable is. For example, if your hypothesis is that "If I take an aspirin, my headache will go away," your independent variable is "taking an aspirin" (this is what you do) and your dependent variable is "the headache will go away" (what happens as a result of your having done something).
    Materials: What do you need to have in order to see if your hypothesis is true? This part of the scientific method is a list of everything you need to do the experiment. Leave nothing out!
    Procedure: What are you going to do during this experiment. You should list everything that you are going to do in this section. Even if it seems obvious, write it down. A good rule of thumb: If a six-year-old child can understand what you've written, then you've written it well. If they can't, then you need to go into more detail!
    Results: When you did the experiment, what happened? What did you see, hear, smell, etc? You should give a complete accounting of all data that you take (sometimes this is referred to as the "Data" section). There's an old saying among chemists: "If you didn't write it down, then it didn't happen." Make sure you write everything down!
    Conclusion: What do the results mean? Was your hypothesis correct? This section should be only one sentence long. For example, if you proved the hypothesis that "If I take an aspirin, my headache will go away," then the conclusion should be "I took an aspirin, and my headache went away." Don't make this any longer than it has to be!
    An example of the scientific method:
    Let's say I have a problem: My car won't start. How would I use the scientific method to solve this problem?


    Purpose: I want my car to start
    Hypothesis: If I put gas in my car, it will start.
    Materials: 5 gallon gas can, 5 gallons gasoline, money to buy gasoline, a ride to the gas station
    Procedure: First, I will call my friend Bill and ask for a ride to the gas station. I will take the five gallon gas can and fill it with five gallons of gasoline at the pump. After paying the gas station owner for the gasoline, I will get a ride back to my car and put the gasoline in the tank. Once the gasoline is in the tank, I will attempt to restart the car.
    Results: The car started on the first try.
    Conclusion: When I put gas in my car, it started.

    It's as simple as that!

    http://misterguch.brinkster.net/scientificmethod.html
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Introduction to the Scientific Method


    The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
    Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
    I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

    If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

    II. Testing hypotheses

    As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

    If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

    We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

    Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

    III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

    As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

    Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

    Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

    In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

    IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

    In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

    An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

    The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

    A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

    Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

    V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

    While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

    Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

    There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

    VI. Conclusion

    The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.


    http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Now dmoe, there is a scientific method. I don't need to impress by capitalising that...It's a fact.
    Variations of it, maybe, additions to it, maybe, subtractions to it, maybe, minor corrections, depends.
    But there is most certainly a scientific method. Nothing about "Singular" that's the word you Plagiarized‎ from the link...not my word.

    So in fact what you again have done, is purposely mis-state what I have said in another dishonest attempt by you to gain some sort of pleasure.
    Other reputable posters here have picked you for what you are....
    I agree...It's obvious as I have already stated, you are a passive supporter of trolls, cranks, conspiracy nutters, and pseudoscience pushers.
    And I seem to bring that obsessive side of you to the fore, when I refute the rubbish they see the need to post.

    You don't like that? Put me on ignore.
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The scientific method is very useful for helping us differentiate external reality. But it was not designed to differentiate the interior aspects of the human mind associated with consciousness, since this is what is being factored out (in bold above). The main tool of science is human consciousness. This is has not been defined. This allows us to see, analyze, hypothesize and form laws, yet there is no way to know if this consciousness tool is in calibration since the method does not go there but tries to factor out the data that would tell us more about it.

    Manmade global warming is a huge gravy train. This allows science to ignore poor predictions due to poor theory and even ignore the impact of fudged data. The consciousness tool has a sack of cash weighing it too much to the left. In the current guise, it gets hot or cold this is global warming due to the need to keep the gravity train going.

    The layman audience, who is used to the celebrity weather man getting it wrong, has the similar calibration problem, thereby making the mutual lean appear straight. Once science enters politics, you know there is manipulation of the calibration set point, with the liberalism lean, not self reliant like one should be expect of science. Rather this science becomes dependent on others for direction and money. This was a dead giveaway. Would the science of global warming be willing to renounce all political influences from the left including the money train in the search for truth? One can put out a press release that says science is above politics or else it becomes corrupt therefore we don't want any help from the political laymen. This way we are no obliged to fudge. Also we will now become accountable for what we preach and spend and if we are wrong we will be liable for all we wasted.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Meh! Just another Personal Attack, and another inane "Billshut" imagined "fact". Please provide proof to the ^^above quoted^^.

    You are right, of course. You seem to be just "ranting and trolling".

    You stated I was wrong when Juanchogespacho stated, and I agreed that :
    By stating the ^^above quoted^^ to be "wrong", would seem to indicate that you are arguing that there is a "singular method".

    Ah...more repeating! Why do you not follow your own advice and put Posters that you believe Post "rubbish" on ignore?

    A seeming failure to fully read and and to fully comprehend Posts is not an ability that most would care to brag about.

    You "refuted" nothing. You merely proposed a feckless "argument", and failed to successfully "refute" anything.

    You only seemed to Prove the OP.

    There is nothing "askew" in my statement, that you ^^quoted above^^. I simply switched the vowels in the one word around because cussing is not my preferred method of communicating.

    Ah...more inane advice!

    paddoboy, I prefer to think about what I am going to Post PRIOR TO POSTING!

    Do you?

    Ah...more repeating!

    It would seem that the only thing you can indeed "stand by", is a delusional conceited belief that : You are always right, of course.

    paddoboy, I do not "guess" at anything.
     
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Copying and pasting content from "suspect" and "fringe" websites does not establish any "fact" whatsoever.

    paddoboy, your ^^above quoted^^ seems to be nonsense.

    "Singular" was in no way "Plagiarized(sic)" by me, from any "Link". I merely referenced it from the OP :
    ???

    paddoboy, again you seem to be only making personal attacks and repeatedly Posting evidence of your own seemingly childish "obsessions".

    To myself, and others, your seeming conceit is just...sad.

    Again, paddoboy, why do you not follow your own advice?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    I don't need to put anyone on ignore.
    I'll continue to refute the ratbaggery, and their bleeding heart supporters.
    Your the one with the obvious "problem"Deal with it.

    The scientific method exists as the foundation of science...Again, It's obvious you are a passive supporter of trolls, cranks, conspiracy nutters, and pseudoscience pushers.
    And I seem to bring that obsessive side of you to the fore, when I refute the rubbish they see the need to post.
    That will continue, despite your heart wrenching appeals and posting of lies to the contrary.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The fundamental principles of the scientific method are essential for enhancing perspective, increasing productivity, and stimulating innovation. These principles include deductive and inductive logic, probability, parsimony and hypothesis testing, as well as science's presuppositions, limitations, ethics and bold claims of rationality and truth. The examples and case studies drawn upon in this book span the physical, biological and social sciences; include applications in agriculture, engineering and medicine; and also explore science's interrelationships with disciplines in the humanities such as philosophy and law. Informed by position papers on science from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation, this book aligns with a distinctively mainstream vision of science. It is an ideal resource for anyone undertaking a systematic study of scientific method for the first time, from undergraduates to professionals in both the sciences and the humanities.

    from.....

    http://www.cambridge.org/ve/academi...fessional-development/scientific-method-brief




    Now dmoe, no matter how much you want to jump up and down with your hypothetical philosophical take on the scientific method , that is the way it is.

    I hope I have been of assistance.
    Again, take it easy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    The following is from : Is there a method? ( goals & non-goals for my models of design and science ) by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

    link : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/goals.htm (Bold by me, dmoe)

    the ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/goals.htm - and should be fully read before jumping to any conclusions about the nature or intent of this Thread.


    The following is from : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php (Bold by me, dmoe)
    again, the ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php] - and should be fully read before jumping to any conclusions about the nature or intent of this Thread.


    My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".

    There are, indeed, many different "methods" utilized by scientists, and they all demand rigorous testing and validation to be given any credence within the greater scientific community.

    It is my firm belief that the plural form of the word "method" should be used when speaking of or referring to "The Scientific Methods"

    I only ask that the linked pages be read and considered fully.
     

Share This Page