Is there a method?

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

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

    Aqueous Id, in question # 6.) of my Post #218, I asked you, directly :
    In your Post #226, your apparent response to that question was :
    I see nothing Posted there about :

    Is having "read psychology at university" any different from having "read" the same books or information at "home"? How may I ask would that be appreciably different from "home schooling"?

    So...can you "tell when speaking to" to me, dmoe, if I am "credentialed in math or science simply by the way" I "express" myself?

    I am not sure what, or even if I in fact, that I "laid" any, "factual predicate", in my OP.

    I do know, for a fact, that I have never stated, claimed, intimated or believed that "scientists are rigid and dogmatic".

    I suffer no "religious" beliefs, ties or obligations. Again, you seem to be engaging in some form of "amateur, non-professional psychoanalysis" which to be completely honest, also seems influenced more by your own beliefs and experiences, than by any formal application of established professional behavioral analysis procedure.

    I did "substantiate" all that I, as you choose to put it, "claimed ", in the OP - have you not read and fully considered the Links that I Posted in my OP, prior to responding, or Posting in this Thread?

    Though you may think or feel that it is appropriate to bring a rodents rear-end into this "conversation" - however, I do not.

    I have answered more of your questions than I was in any way obligated to - but I am still awaiting direct answers to some of the questions that I asked of you.

    I am not sure who or whom, this "we've" you refer to are, but I am fairly confident that I, dmoe, have not "scared off" any "of the really great scholars that were regulars here".

    Aqueous Id, have any of the "dozen or so people" that you "can think of who have hung on, who are super qualified to chat with" anyone "over this very interesting subject", yet Posted in this Thread?

    I must wholeheartedly opine that Yazata has brought some much needed intelligence, consideration and insight to this Thread, as well as some of the other Posters.

    I must humbly opine, however, that up until this point in this Thread, I cannot, in all honesty, make that same declaration in regards to the discourse that I have experienced with you.

    Aqueous Id, as a man, I have no qualms about saying anything that I "want to say", regardless of whether or not I have been given any permission to do so - I firmly believe that to be an inalienable right, procured at birth, by every Human Being.

    Again, Aqueous Id, I have repeatedly stated, and defended, both my reasons and intent for Posting the OP, in these, now more than a dozen Pages, of this Thread.

    Whether or not you have any "clue", is only known, conclusively, by you. I can, in all honesty and openness, state that to me, at least, it seems that :

    1.) - You may have not read and fully understood, both my OP and the Links included therein, or ;

    2.) - Your "perception" of both the nature of, and my intent for Posting, the OP, may have been influenced by the nature of and intent of a few of the other Posters who have chosen to, what I will refer to as, express themselves through their seeming mis-perceptions of both my self, my Posts, and the content at the Links that I Posted in the OP.

    Aqueous Id, contrary to what some seem to believe, I am very Pro-Real Science and the real processes of the sciences.
    It does however seem to me that in the last few decades, the Mainstream Media or whatever one chooses to call whatever is the impetus driving "The Popular Cultural Zeitgeist", is or has been abusing or bastardizing the True Real Sciences and the Scientific Processes for the sake of whatever is the, so called "Issue of the Day, week, month...whatever..."!

    Hopefully, Real Sciences and Real Scientists will always be able to be "heard above the din" of whatever is going on, that I attempted to describe ^^immediately above^^!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    This, apparently is the answer I have been trying to eke out of you.

    The mainstream media has been abusing or bastardizing the True Real Sciences and the Scientific Processes

    What in the world are you referring to?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to cut them some slack here. They are explicitly talking about misconceptions that a schoolchild might have due to not having learned The Scientific Method or not having learned it properly. These misconceptions would not apply to anyone who paid attention in school and are being improperly presented here as being real issues.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    @ - Yazata

    In reference to your Post #244 (I saw no need to quote it!), I can do nothing other than concur with 99.99% of it.

    The OP of the Thread that you referenced : , was, it seemed to me, as much, or even more, about the last four sentences in the OP than the various processes of science.

    It seemed to be closed when I was "banned" for defending myself of another Posters accusations and assertions by demanding (via any scientific method) proof of that Posters Statements and assertions.

    Bang, no warning, the "Ban Hammer" struck the Gavel, and the Thread was closed.

    I felt that the content referenced in the OP of that Thread was very relevant to the nature of quite a few of the Threads/Posts on SciForums and even consulted with the Moderator who had "banned" me (and evidently closed the Thread ?!) , prior to Posting my OP. The Moderator, more or less agreed, that it could, should or would produce a "robust debate".

    Meh...what has passed, is in the past...

    Back to the now!

    Regardless of the FACT that I am not all that good of a writer - this is my first foray into this arena - you seem to have "picked up on" my stated position and intent quite well. So maybe there is hope for my writing ability to possibly improve - maybe old dogs just take a little longer to learn any new tricks.

    I must take the time to compliment you on your writing/compositional skills. My perception is that you are much more adept at it than I can ever hope to be.

    That being said, I must also thank you for taking my proffered "raw" product, and "processing" it into a more "palatable" product.

    So...once again I thank you. I also hope that you continue to reside "where" you are currently "coming from"!
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Then it seems to me you are essentially agreeing with the OP that there is NOT one scientific method but many different ones. Here's what the OP said. I honestly can't see what all this bickering is about.

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

    Aqueous Id, since you seem to still not be actively trying to have a real "conversation" - you do know of course that answering questions directed at you, is as much if not more important in any real "conversation", than simply ignoring any or all questions, and repeatedly demanding answers for your own questions?

    You do know that, do you not?

    That being said, I will respond to your question :
    Though I do not claim to know exactly what, or even why it is, you, yourself, seemed to touch upon the exact same "phenomena" when you stated:
    Like I said, "whatever" it is, and for "whatever" reason, it seems that less than real science and the real scientific processes, have been used to "sell" the "Flavor of the Week" in the recent past.

    Maybe you can understand that?

    At any rate - you still do not seem to understand the basic rules of real conversation - and until you get around to actually answering quite a few of my questions that you have still left unanswered or have simply chosen to ignore, I feel compelled to, once again, politely and humbly, ask that you "play your game" with someone else.

    You seem to have found a "kindred soul" in another Poster in this Thread, who coincidently seems to know all of my reasons and intents better than I even do myself. Maybe you can find the answers, that you may or may not be honestly seeking, by applying your own apparent "rules of conversation" with that Poster.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Is there anyone here, that doesn't really believe that there is a basic foundation for science upon which we build, and which we call the scientific method?
    If there truly is, then I would see it as similar in every way, to the average layman, informing another, "well it's only a theory you know" and being ignorant of what a scientific theory is and what it entails.
    In this case we have, shall we say overly cynical individuals that seem to be claiming there is no scientific method as a foundation upon which science is built....if we have anyone that is so naive as to think that.

    Vinaka vakalevu.....Not sure of setting a good example or not, but I just don't like being a fence sitter, unless it's absolutely necessary

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We appear to be facing that situation in Australia now. I just hope that it can be short circuited in 3 years time at the next elections.

    My main experience in that regard was with a poster claiming with 100% certainty that time dilation and SR/GR were a load of codswallop...then along comes this bleeding heart quasi supporter claiming I and others were not giving him a fair go.
    He [the anti SR/GR person was banned for a month]
    You probably remember him, so I won't disclose his name, other than to say he hasn't been around since his enforced holiday, but he also has been known to haunt other science forums, with the same Idiotic claims.

    yep, that's one amongst a few games I have seen perpetrated here by a few.

    And that is exactly what is happening here.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    The plural of the word is unnecessary.....
    A building/sky scraper, has one basic foundation upon which many different levels are constructed. The foundation though is essential to all.
    And yes, it is a storm in a tea cup as I stated way back up there somewhere.......
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I will add though, that I'm not very happy with what I did say and which you referenced.
    I should have said, "Variations, UPON which the basic scientific method is built, is always on the cards.....
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Seriously? That's what all this comes down to. The semantical gripe of whether different versions of the scientific method are the same scientific method or are other methods? I'm outta here..
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    The fear seems to be that if we agree that there are scientific methods (plural), then creationists or whoever would insist that they possess a 'creation science method' that's just as authoritative as conventional science, only different. So the belief seems to be that there has to be some single over-arching methodological foundation to science that distinguishes it from pseudo-science and other bullshit, or else everything will dissolve into rot.

    I have a great deal of sympathy with that worry myself. It's both justified and important.

    My thinking about this stuff is still a work-in-progress, but I guess that I'm inclined towards thinking that the overarching principles that help us distinguish plausible and credible ideas from rank bullshit are most likely found in the basic philosophical principles of logic and epistemology.

    An advantage in approaching things that way is that it might help us resolve the seeming consistency difficulty that was apparent in earlier posts, in which people wanted to say that scientists indeed use many different methods, while continuing to insist that they are still all just illustrations of one single Method. Instead, we need only say that scientists may indeed use many different methods, provided that those methods are all logically and epistemologically justifiable.
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Logic and epistemology are of prime importance to all of the Sciences and true knowledge or intelligence in any realm.

    However, there will always be those who, for whatever reason, will find it extremely difficult to allow their knowledge or intelligence to be in any way questioned, put in jeopardy, in need of adjustment, or changed at all.

    Personally, the more I learn, the more I realize how so very much more there is to learn, and that my thirst for knowledge will never be sated.

    Some people seem to think of knowledge as something to be either : accepted or denied : applied or ignored : or even used and then discarded.

    Some even seem to believe that it is only important to know where to find knowledge, if and when they need it.

    Myself, when presented with an idea, theory, musing or anything, even if it seems outlandish, weird or wrong at first - I have to research and fully understand and consider it before I make any conscious decision as to its validity or worth.

    To accept or dismiss anything without fully understanding and considering it is, in my belief, the epitome of ignorance.

    But hey, if nothing else, SciForums is proof that anything at all can be "discussed" by some people without the slightest bit of any knowledge, intelligence or true application of any scientific methods or processes ever being utilized!

    Heck there even seems to be a very knowledgeable and supremely intelligent entity that has to follow me around to different Threads just to tell other Members and to remind me that, in his eyes, I am one of those people!
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    What's this scientific method I and others are on about?
    It's just a logically common sense approach for anyone [not only scientists] to try to find the answer to problems that are bothering them. It's probably called "scientific", because science being the highest discipline, naturally prides itself on the logic common sense approach that it entails.
    In reality, it's not that special, just the application of the two qualities of logic and common sense.
    No highlighting needed, no fanatical efforts to drum up support, no hidden agenda that strays from that method, no bias, hate, no nuttin!!
    Except logic and common sense.
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    isn't that what the method is all about?
    this is essentially what all of science is about.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Generally speaking, of course.
    But essentially science forums such as this are a magnet for would be's if they could be's and other self gratutitious ratbags.

    I'm sure you are not saying that anyone that comes here with a proclamation that SR/GR is rubbish and time dilation is an illusion, should be considered at all.
    It's OK to take the moral high ground and grab the scientific method as it exists, to say these people should be given time to express their ideas.
    I would call that Ironic and the height of opportunitism by the bleeding heart instigators.
    The reality of course is if someone did have, let's say an observable QGT [I won't use SR/GR, or the BB, since any future theory, will in all likelyhood encompass them, as the support is overwhelming] he would not be presenting it on a forum such as this...He would write it up in concise manner and get it peer reviewed.
    And naturally none of us would give anyone the time of day, that said he had evidence of fairies, gnomes, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny.
    Again, those two qualities of logic and common sense will rear their attractive heads!
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    It is ironic that you chose a post where you ignored my point(which you do a lot anyway) to complain about me ignoring your points. It doesn't matter if you call it a "flaw" or a "feature", or "bug" or "limitation" or "Dave". Whatever you call it, the thing that you think you see in The Scientific Method that causes you to think it needs an "s" at the end is not our misconception it is yours and it does not exist. Again (what you ignored before):

    1. The sources you cite do not agree with you. None of them say that there should be an "s" at the end of The Scientific Method. You claim others (presumably here) have misconceptions about it, yet you are the one using the term differently from what is standard.

    2. You utilized The Scientific Method in your example, thus proving yourself wrong.

    3. The thing that you are missing (only sorta, based on #2...) is that The Scientific Method is a flexible framework: it is adaptable. Again: The fact that it is adaptable doesn't make it require an "s", it just means that you misunderstand (have a misconception) about how it works.

    Now to your complaint:
    You do an awful lot of flooding and non sequitur (such as cited here), so one has to determine what is relevant to respond to and ignore the rest of the drivel. I'll provide a couple of examples and explain why I didn't give detailed responses:
    Everything/the only thing I've been discussing is the flaws in your thesis, so it is bizarre for you to ask this question. Perhaps you didn't ignore my points but just missed them. I invite you to read and respond to post #181.
    The desperation is evident in the weaseling (saying something and then changing the meaning later) and in the chocies of what you ignore. The basic problems that none of your sources agree with your "s" and none of them advocate teaching additional methods aren't trivial problems, and I think you know it, which is why you are ignoring them.
    Yes. Seems an irrelevant question though.
    That's very vague but if you mean using the scientific method to develop the science behind the technologies, certainly. Again, I see no relevance here.
    Everything is part of the natural world, but that question sounds like an attempt at pseudopsychological nonsense. And also irrelevant.

    So there that is - a bunch of meaningless, irrelevant nonsense that isn't worth digging into.

    Now: What's your excuse for not responding to my posts or the points in them? For example in post #183 you responded to only one sentence of my post #181.
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    It very well could be.

    Again, that makes sense to me.

    But then your words that made sense to me, also inspired the following :
    So...maybe I read your Post wrong.

    I would ask paddoboy what he meant in Posting that response to your Post - but he must have me on "ignore" because he does not answer questions that I ask of him.
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You are intimidating because you're always low key, like you've got a endless supply of hole cards. I lack the poker face so I get a few days reprieve before the "ignore" button goes down on me.

    As a side note, imagine if the site gurus could figure out a way to give us some representation of the mapping (who's ignoring who) -- perhaps with anonymous tags -- and then suppose we got together and devised a piece of code to do some pattern recognition on it. It would be interesting to see how things correlate. For all the folks I would like to get replies from, but who don't seem to answer (maybe just 1 person at the moment) I may not even be aware that they schiz'ed out on something I said and pushed the button on me. Some kind of meter on that would be interesting to have.
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    If you would stay on track you wouldn't be raising this. Since my entry into this we have been trying to discover who is being rigid and dogmatic. You've now said it's the mainstream media. Now you only need to clarify what you mean.

    No, that may mean something to you, but it's way are too obscure for me to decipher. Besides, the operative words you used were "mainstream media". I still have no clue what you are referring to. Nor do I understand your reluctance to disclose what you mean.

    The only questions you asked me were whether I was a psychologist and where was the evidence that you held a grudge against science. I answered you, giving you adequate information that there is something in my skill set to indicate to you that I would be evaluating your motives, as I've done. I also told you that the evidence for a grudge came from a plain reading of the words "rigid" "dogmatic" etc.

    I feel a kindred spirit with all of the good folks at Sci. The bad ones I put on ignore. But in most cases I first invest a lot of words, giving them a shot at showing their true colors, before being certain they're just trolls and cranks.
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Yes. I'm actually inclined to say go ahead and adopt the "one scientific method" approach if that enables you to more effectively debunk all the bullshit. I am so adamantly against the typical fundy attacks on science, enlisting seemingly legitimate points from philosophy and postmodernism in order to lend credibility to their anti-science agenda, that I'd say go ahead and become a little dogmatic about science, at least as long as your're fighting pseudoscience. I'd far rather see a bunch of skeptics holding up the scientific method as "the Way" than see the anti-sciencers gain one shred of credibility in our society.

Share This Page