Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 09 2012,20:36)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 09 2012,21:21)|
|I will go further than that by saying: Science does not care who has the best sounding “definition”, what most matters to science is which is the most useful theoretical “model” to use|
giggles, on what basis do scientists measure "most useful"?
is anyone using your model to explain anything?
if not, do you concede that it is not useful at all?
This theory by example explains what a theory is, how they work with hypothesis, and boil down to an all important model, by having a real life "theory" to develop that (where those are properly working) on its own goes all over science.
We left off at the last page with another way-original hypothesis that now has me thinking of ways to show a square (number of guess bits per cycle being constant would make it come out that way) with circle to show how many were in/out, while leading to one outcome or another that some will adopt and others will not.
Being able to so easily connect the model in such surprising ways is an indicator that the scientific method is here working 100% like it should. In the way living things work the model/theory is something already in science that's incredible valuable to explain the features of. Whenever you go off into an area where the theory exists in science, a hypothesis can can be said to go there too that helps make it show up real good. After compiling the data of an experiment its here proven one way or another, is not even expected to somehow graduate to theory. It's forever just another one of many hypotheses, tested along the way, as we go from one to the next depending on where you send discussion towards.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.