In Post #180 of this Thread, a very helpful Poster, saw fit to Post, what appeared to be the contents of : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
I had referenced that Link in my Post #96 of this Thread :
For the simple reason that I do not Post anything that I have not read : nor do I soon forget what I read - it seemed to me that apparently some content was missing in the Post #180.
For that reason, I believe that the missing content should me Posted in context.
I am going to to Post the first part of the content of the Page - which contains content, that for whatever reason, got omitted in Post #180.
***NOTE*** being new to this stuff - I am unable to Post the .gif or diagram ***NOTE***
I will now Post the the beginning of the content and will Bold what seems, to me at least, was somehow omitted.
-the following is from (Bold by me) : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
It would seem, to me at least, that the simple omission of this small phrase, from (again, Bold by me) : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
Well, it somehow just seems, to me at least, to , shall I say...affect the gist of the content.
This is especially true concerning the overall gist of Post #180 - to me at least.
I had referenced that Link in my Post #96 of this Thread :
Or, the scientific methods are "for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion." - from : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
For the simple reason that I do not Post anything that I have not read : nor do I soon forget what I read - it seemed to me that apparently some content was missing in the Post #180.
For that reason, I believe that the missing content should me Posted in context.
I am going to to Post the first part of the content of the Page - which contains content, that for whatever reason, got omitted in Post #180.
***NOTE*** being new to this stuff - I am unable to Post the .gif or diagram ***NOTE***
I will now Post the the beginning of the content and will Bold what seems, to me at least, was somehow omitted.
-the following is from (Bold by me) : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
physics.ucr.edu/ said:What is the ``scientific method''?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Figure 1.1: Flow diagram describing the scientific method.
The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
It would seem, to me at least, that the simple omission of this small phrase, from (again, Bold by me) : http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
physics.ucr.edu/ said:The simple version looks something like this:
Well, it somehow just seems, to me at least, to , shall I say...affect the gist of the content.
This is especially true concerning the overall gist of Post #180 - to me at least.