RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,19:09   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 22 2011,09:56)
Quick reminder for "science-guy" Kris:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[3]

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. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Scientific method

ID doesn't fit that description, ergo ID =/= science.

Funny that in the end it's always the same stupid arguments and whinning from ID supporters when the buck stops right there, with the very universaly accepted definition of what science and the scientific method are.

So, Kris, would you include astrology in science?

Your responses to me are a glaring example of poor reading skills. I didn't say that ID is science, or scientific.

I could simply say that the sky is blue and many of you would respond by saying, "No it's not and ID isn't science! It's religion, and there's no testable theory or hypothesis!" You guys are obsessed.

I'm curious about how you or anyone else here would answer this question: Is String Theory science?

The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]