V
voiceoftheshires
Guest
You have perhaps missed the point; I am arguing that the scientific method has been abaondoned
You have perhaps missed the point; I am arguing that the scientific method has been abaondoned
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
VoS, you haven't argued anything yet. That was your first post in this thread.
Now VoW, I would surmise from his posts that his opinion is that the scientific method has been abandoned. And if you meant you agree with him, then I understand where you are coming from.
I would not agree with that point of view. The theories may be more out there than I would prefer, but the process in attempting to prove or disprove those theories is using the scientific method.
As stated previously, scientists have only been studying the possibility of these unseen forces for a couple of years. That is far too short a time to make a decision for or against the theories.
Some of the greatest advances in science have been achieved only after hundreds or even thousands of tests.
There is nothing in the standard model that can explain why stars rotate around their galaxy at the same speed no matter how close or far they are from the center. There is no answer in the standard model as to why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed, when there is not enough observable matter and energy in the universe to cause this to happen.
To those of you who believe the SM has been abandoned I would ask a question. What is your solution? What would you hypothesize could be causing these anomalies when there is nothing in the standard model that can account for them?
Now VoW, I would surmise from his posts that his opinion is that the scientific method has been abandoned. And if you meant you agree with him, then I understand where you are coming from.
I would not agree with that point of view. The theories may be more out there than I would prefer, but the process in attempting to prove or disprove those theories is using the scientific method.
As stated previously, scientists have only been studying the possibility of these unseen forces for a couple of years. That is far too short a time to make a decision for or against the theories.
Some of the greatest advances in science have been achieved only after hundreds or even thousands of tests.
There is nothing in the standard model that can explain why stars rotate around their galaxy at the same speed no matter how close or far they are from the center. There is no answer in the standard model as to why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed, when there is not enough observable matter and energy in the universe to cause this to happen.
To those of you who believe the SM has been abandoned I would ask a question. What is your solution? What would you hypothesize could be causing these anomalies when there is nothing in the standard model that can account for them?
Aren't VOS and VOW one and the same?
Mayhaps we should know why the name change?
Mayhaps we should know why the name change?
V
voiceoftheshires
Guest
What you have written sounds quite convincing except, I do not think science proceeds quite as you have portrayed. The scientific method is not one of attempting to prove or disprove hypothesis as you suggest, but only one of attempting to disprove a hypothesis.
And the standard model suggests there should be a certain amount of matter in the universe. This is a hypothesis
When the amount of matter is measured it is found there is much less than the standard model predicts; the hypothesis is disproved
But then instead of it being abandoned this ad hoc modification is devised namely that some of the required matter is undetectable. How convenient, the test failed but we merely move the goal posts
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
V
voiceoftheshires
Guest
Sounds a little off topic to me
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Voices, I believe you have a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. So I did some quick research. Here is what I found. You will note that none of the definitions agree with your definition.
Scientific American:
Here’s my hypothesis.
Here’s what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is true. Here, on the other hand, is what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is false.
Here’s what we actually observed (and here are the steps we took to control the other variables).
Here’s what we can say (and with what degree of certainty) about the hypothesis in the light of these results.
Here’s the next study we’d like to do to be even more sure.
From Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry? .
by Matt Slick
What is the Scientific Method
The scientific method is used in science as a means of gaining understanding about the physical universe. There are differences of opinion on exactly what the scientific method is, but basically it consists of the following main parts.
Observation--a perception, viewing of a phenomena.
Hypothesis--a proposed explanation is developed to account what has been observed.
Experimentation--tests are developed to validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
Prediction--after tests and validation of the hypothesis, predictions are made based upon the evidence gathered in experimentation.
Theory--a theory is based upon a hypothesis, verified by testing, and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of phenomena.
So, with the scientific method, people attempt to understand something sufficiently to reproduce an event and/or accurately predict an event.
The exact order of the steps is fluid, but generally the scientific method is the process used to understand phenomena through developing a hypothesis, experimentation, and learning, so that we are able to predict the phenomena again. This means the phenomena is understood.
Merriam-Webster:
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Wikipedia:
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them.
Science Buddies:
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
Scientific American:
Here’s my hypothesis.
Here’s what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is true. Here, on the other hand, is what you’d expect to observe if the hypothesis is false.
Here’s what we actually observed (and here are the steps we took to control the other variables).
Here’s what we can say (and with what degree of certainty) about the hypothesis in the light of these results.
Here’s the next study we’d like to do to be even more sure.
From Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry? .
by Matt Slick
What is the Scientific Method
The scientific method is used in science as a means of gaining understanding about the physical universe. There are differences of opinion on exactly what the scientific method is, but basically it consists of the following main parts.
Observation--a perception, viewing of a phenomena.
Hypothesis--a proposed explanation is developed to account what has been observed.
Experimentation--tests are developed to validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
Prediction--after tests and validation of the hypothesis, predictions are made based upon the evidence gathered in experimentation.
Theory--a theory is based upon a hypothesis, verified by testing, and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of phenomena.
So, with the scientific method, people attempt to understand something sufficiently to reproduce an event and/or accurately predict an event.
The exact order of the steps is fluid, but generally the scientific method is the process used to understand phenomena through developing a hypothesis, experimentation, and learning, so that we are able to predict the phenomena again. This means the phenomena is understood.
Merriam-Webster:
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Wikipedia:
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them.
Science Buddies:
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Okay. Done. I see nothing 'deeper'. Plenty different. You prefer philosophers and scientists who have an alternate view of how the scientific method works. Or doesn't work, which I suppose is more to the point.
Nothing wrong with that. Indeed it is appropriate and necessary to have as many differing views as possible. It tends to keep science as honest as possible.
If you had said your pov was from this alternate camp in the first place we could have saved a lot of typing. Now that I do know what you are basing your conclusions on, I have no further argument. According to the definition you prefer to use, your comments are logical. It is not the definition I use, so it is inevitable we are always going to be on parallel paths.
And I have no interest in playing who has the more accurate definition. That is pushing a form of fundamentalism into science where it has no place.
Nothing wrong with that. Indeed it is appropriate and necessary to have as many differing views as possible. It tends to keep science as honest as possible.
If you had said your pov was from this alternate camp in the first place we could have saved a lot of typing. Now that I do know what you are basing your conclusions on, I have no further argument. According to the definition you prefer to use, your comments are logical. It is not the definition I use, so it is inevitable we are always going to be on parallel paths.
And I have no interest in playing who has the more accurate definition. That is pushing a form of fundamentalism into science where it has no place.
J
Joronsod
Guest
Thanks for sharing.