Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

SCIENCE..... what is it??


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11 replies to this topic

#1
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is: “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

http://www.britannic.../528756/science

 

What System?.....

 

The Scientific Method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypothesis.

http://www.oxforddic...ientific-method

 

"The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation."

http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

The Scientific Method:

Step 1:  OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon

Step 2:  Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3:  Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4:  TEST/Experiment

Step 5:  Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

Can you please show me how a Past Event can fit into the Scientific Method?

 

Observations are not TESTS.  Observations are Observations.

 

Ad Hoc "After the Fact" observations are not falsifiable evidence for the hypothesis because you do not know what the cause of the observation was.  You need experiments, since the observation can be caused by some other event which is not currently known.

 

However, an experiment is a PHYSICAL TEST one carries out. An experiment is not created from "data", an experiment is done to provide "data".

 

The TESTING of a hypothesis is done via Experiment. That is what an experiment is, it is a Test.
Observations are not a Test!!

 

Your "experiment" rests on the assumption that your hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE... How can you test what is the CAUSE of similarities when all you do is Observe Similarities??

 

Predictions:

 

Hypothesis: The Earth is the center of the universe
Prediction: The sun and stars will rotate around the universe

 

IF we base the validity of this hypothesis on this prediction then it would seem to be factual. However we know that this hypothesis is incorrect. What this underlines is that a prediction from a hypothesis may fit the ideas you think are logical yet may be induced by some other cause, one which is unknown at the time. This means you can't rely on predictions to support a hypothesis since to do so is to assume that YOUR hypothesis is THE ONLY CAUSE POSSIBLE, and to claim such a thing when one is not omniscient is absurd.....and, it's not SCIENCE!

 

So.....

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

is differentiated from.......

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

By what??   A. Opinion   B. How I Feel   C. The Scientific Method   D. Consensus

 

{Emphasis in above Citations Mine}



#2
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

http://www.indiana.e...s/unt.s.is.html

 

So, what IS science? It has been defined many ways, and its meaning has changed with time. Like many words, "science" has more than one proper use, and the word can also be misused. In its most fundamental sense, modern science is a process by which we try to understand how the natural world works and how it came to be that way. It is NOT a process for merely collecting "facts" about, or just describing, the natural world, although such observations do provide the raw material for scientific understanding. Scientific knowledge is the inferences that scientists draw from the data - the models for how things work.

 

As a process, certain rules must be followed, but there is NO one "scientific method", contrary to its popular treatment in textbooks. The rules of science are intended to make the process as objective as is humanly possible, and thereby produce a degree of understanding that is as close to reality as possible. One constant theme is that there is no certainty in science, only degrees of probability (likelihood), and potential for change. Scientific understanding can always be challenged, and even changed, with new ways of observing, and with different interpretations. The same is true of scientific facts. New tools and techniques have resulted in new observations, someti mes forcing revision of what had been taken as fact in the past. Therefore, unlike mathematics, and contrary to popular perception, in science nothing is ever proven (in the sense of finality or certainty that the word suggests).

 

Modern science is based upon several underlying assumptions:
1. The world is real. The physical universe exists, whether we can sense it or not. In other words, it is not just our imagination.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe. In other words, such understanding is possible.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain the natural world; non-natural processes are unnecessary.

4. Nature operates the same way everywhere in the universe, and at all times, except where we have contrary evidence.

 

Modern science has its limitations:
1. Observations are confined to the biological limits of our senses, even with technological enhancement.

2. The mental processing of our sensory information is unconsciously influenced by previous experiences, which may result in inaccurate or biased perceptions of the world.

3. It is impossible to know if we have observed every possible aspect of a phenomenon, have thought of every possible alternative explanation, or controlled for every possible variable.

4. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute knowledge:
--a. Scientific knowledge is based only on the available evidence which must be assessed and (and is
therefore subject to more than one possible interpretation), not on indisputable "proof".
--b. The history of science is filled with numerous examples of scientific knowledge changing over time.

5. Science must follow certain rules, such as:
--a. Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses.
--b. It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.(with discriminating evidence)
--c. Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, popular vote, belief, or judgment.
--d. Scientific explanations cannot include supernatural forces (these can never be disproved).
--e. All hypotheses are not of equal value; some are better (work better) than others.
--f. The "best" hypothesis, out of the choices, must be one that best fits all the facts.
--g. Science is not democratic or fair. The empirical evidence and logical critical analysis rules



#3
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

I agree with what looking has posted here. No researcher sits down and says 'hmm, time to get out the ole scientific method chart and see what step to do today'. I think that is why I find this insistence on doing this sort of thing strange.

 

1. Observations can certainly be made into tests of hypotheses. If I think that we ought not find white dwarfs larger than 1.4 solar masses due to theoretical considerations, I can test that in part by doing a careful survey of all white dwarfs that have been observed. Ultimately all tests we can do involve observations at some level. It's merely that some are in an environment that we can alter as we please and some aren't so much.

 

2. Enoch, I am fine with taking whatever definition, and how you understand it, to be what you mean by science. So long as we understand one another, I don't think there ought to be a problem with definitions. I suppose the issue becomes a decision to call something 'not science' and therefore in some way automatically dismissible in your mind. That's not going to be a very useful way to proceed and talk about the content of reasoning, evidences, and so on.



#4
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

http://www.indiana.e...s/unt.s.is.html

 

So, what IS science? It has been defined many ways, and its meaning has changed with time. Like many words, "science" has more than one proper use, and the word can also be misused. In its most fundamental sense, modern science is a process by which we try to understand how the natural world works and how it came to be that way. It is NOT a process for merely collecting "facts" about, or just describing, the natural world, although such observations do provide the raw material for scientific understanding. Scientific knowledge is the inferences that scientists draw from the data - the models for how things work.

 

As a process, certain rules must be followed, but there is NO one "scientific method", contrary to its popular treatment in textbooks. The rules of science are intended to make the process as objective as is humanly possible, and thereby produce a degree of understanding that is as close to reality as possible. One constant theme is that there is no certainty in science, only degrees of probability (likelihood), and potential for change. Scientific understanding can always be challenged, and even changed, with new ways of observing, and with different interpretations. The same is true of scientific facts. New tools and techniques have resulted in new observations, someti mes forcing revision of what had been taken as fact in the past. Therefore, unlike mathematics, and contrary to popular perception, in science nothing is ever proven (in the sense of finality or certainty that the word suggests).

 

Modern science is based upon several underlying assumptions:
1. The world is real. The physical universe exists, whether we can sense it or not. In other words, it is not just our imagination.

2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe. In other words, such understanding is possible.

3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain the natural world; non-natural processes are unnecessary.

4. Nature operates the same way everywhere in the universe, and at all times, except where we have contrary evidence.

 

Modern science has its limitations:
1. Observations are confined to the biological limits of our senses, even with technological enhancement.

2. The mental processing of our sensory information is unconsciously influenced by previous experiences, which may result in inaccurate or biased perceptions of the world.

3. It is impossible to know if we have observed every possible aspect of a phenomenon, have thought of every possible alternative explanation, or controlled for every possible variable.

4. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute knowledge:
--a. Scientific knowledge is based only on the available evidence which must be assessed and (and is
therefore subject to more than one possible interpretation), not on indisputable "proof".
--b. The history of science is filled with numerous examples of scientific knowledge changing over time.

5. Science must follow certain rules, such as:
--a. Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses.
--b. It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.(with discriminating evidence)
--c. Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, popular vote, belief, or judgment.
--d. Scientific explanations cannot include supernatural forces (these can never be disproved).
--e. All hypotheses are not of equal value; some are better (work better) than others.
--f. The "best" hypothesis, out of the choices, must be one that best fits all the facts.
--g. Science is not democratic or fair. The empirical evidence and logical critical analysis rules

 

Nice pink background, when I pulled up the link...nearly had a TIA.  Overall too general with some glaring issues.  Also...who wrote this?  Some of it looks like an Op-Ed Piece to be quite frank.

 

"Scientific knowledge is the inferences that scientists draw from the data - the models for how things work."

 

Look up synonyms for "inference".... the first word you come to is "ASSUMPTIONS".  So....

 

"Scientific knowledge is the "assumptions" that scientists draw from the data - the models for how things work."

 

LOL, I don't think so.  Also....WHAT DATA?  An experiment is a PHYSICAL TEST one carries out.  An experiment is not created from "data", an experiment is done to provide "data".  Way too general and Erroneous for "Science" literature. 

 

 

"but there is NO one "scientific method", contrary to its popular treatment in textbooks."

 

Yes well, ALL (VALID Ones) revolve around the standard I posted...they don't stray far.  And, for example......?

 

 

"is no certainty in science, only degrees of probability (likelihood), and potential for change."

 

Certainty, eh?  I guess he would have to define it first.  The Gold Standard is right here....

 

Observation

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

Right @ The TOP of the List!  With 2nd 3rd and 4th place in Assumption/Conjecture Fairytale Land.

 

Note... that the necessity of Experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

 

 

"Scientific understanding can always be challenged, and even changed, with new ways of observing, and with different interpretations. The same is true of scientific facts."

 

Yes it can....right through Experimentation to Validate/Invalidate the Hypothesis. Observations are not TESTS!!!!  This doesn't lack for attention to detail, eh?

 

So Scientific FACTS can be changed through new ways of Observing and Different Interpretations?  Guess they weren't facts then :huh:

 

And Define "Scientific" Understanding?

 

"New tools and techniques have resulted in new observations, someti mes forcing revision of what had been taken as fact in the past."

 

Examples?  It wouldn't have anything to do with those "FACTS" not being arrived @ through the Scientific Method in the first place, would it?

 

"in science nothing is ever proven (in the sense of finality or certainty that the word suggests)."

 

Uhhh, can I prove it's raining with absolute certitude? Is there Absolute Truth?  Is there a way we can PROVE things?

 

"Natural processes are sufficient to explain the natural world; non-natural processes are unnecessary."

 

"Science" does have it's Limitations.

 

"Scientific knowledge is based only on the available evidence which must be assessed and (and is therefore subject to more than one possible interpretation), not on indisputable "proof"."

 

This is way to vague....can you speak to this?  This "INTERPRETATION" thing is grinding on my last nerve; it probably has to do with this.....

Scientific knowledge is the inferences(ASSUMPTIONS) that scientists draw from the data.  And Experiments either Validate/Invalidate Hypothesis, there is no grey area.

 

 

"The history of science is filled with numerous examples of scientific knowledge changing over time."

 

Yes, because they didn't follow the Scientific Method and did more of this....Scientific knowledge is the inferences(ASSUMPTIONS) that scientists draw from the data.

 

Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses. :thumbsup:

It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.(with discriminating evidence) :thumbsup:

Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, popular vote, belief, or judgment. :thumbsup:

Science is not democratic or fair. The empirical evidence and logical critical analysis rules :thumbsup:

 

 

You forgot to answer this....Can you please show me how a Past Event can fit into the Scientific Method?  In other words, can you falsify, via empirical measures, something from the past?

 

It had some good points right there @ the end.  Overall a little vague and in some places flat out wrong.



#5
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree. You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have.  Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic .  In reality things are not that black and white.  What is the expression, a mile wide and an inch deep.



#6
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

I agree with what looking has posted here. No researcher sits down and says 'hmm, time to get out the ole scientific method chart and see what step to do today'. I think that is why I find this insistence on doing this sort of thing strange.

 

1. Observations can certainly be made into tests of hypotheses. If I think that we ought not find white dwarfs larger than 1.4 solar masses due to theoretical considerations, I can test that in part by doing a careful survey of all white dwarfs that have been observed. Ultimately all tests we can do involve observations at some level. It's merely that some are in an environment that we can alter as we please and some aren't so much.

 

2. Enoch, I am fine with taking whatever definition, and how you understand it, to be what you mean by science. So long as we understand one another, I don't think there ought to be a problem with definitions. I suppose the issue becomes a decision to call something 'not science' and therefore in some way automatically dismissible in your mind. That's not going to be a very useful way to proceed and talk about the content of reasoning, evidences, and so on.

 

"I agree with what looking has posted here."

 

Of course you would....  I made my comments.  I thought you would've liked mine since (the majority) came from a Physics Department

 

"No researcher sits down and says 'hmm, time to get out the ole scientific method chart and see what step to do today'."

 

Well the professionals don't have too since they learned it 7th Grade...it's like making a sandwich.

 

"I think that is why I find this insistence on doing this sort of thing strange."

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

"Observations can certainly be made into tests of hypotheses."

 

Uhh, no they can't.  Look up Observations then Tests, that should do it.

 

"If I think that we ought not find white dwarfs larger than 1.4 solar masses due to theoretical considerations, I can test that in part by doing a careful survey of all white dwarfs that have been observed."

 

You can't Observe all of them everywhere (obviously) and what about the ones that weren't Observed historically.... if there were or weren't (you wouldn't know).... way way too vague and generalized.  You've got nothing with that example.

 

"Ultimately all tests we can do involve observations"

 

Of course you LOOK @ the Tests.  Are you attempting to somehow equivocate Observations?  To start or to ask the question (hypothesis) you need to OBSERVE a Phenomenon.  You can't ask a (Rationale and Reasonable) question without Identifying something that you didn't Observe.

 

"I suppose the issue becomes a decision to call something 'not science'"

 

I call it like I see it then support it. And, as I said it's inherent and it must satisfy these 4 Tenets:

 

Observation

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree. You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have.  Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic .  In reality things are not that black and white.  What is the expression, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

"Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree."

 

It's not up for a vote.

 

"You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have."

 

You just can't help yourself with the insults can you?  I noticed with most, it usually happens when they're Deuce Seven Off Suit gets called.  Instead of just heading to the rail they have to make a scene.

 

Also, You have never met me and have not the faintest clue of my background!  But off you go.  If you insult me one more time, I will not respond to you ever again.  I think that's fair

 

 

"Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic"

 

How so?

 

 

"What is the expression"

 

Or we can discuss some cliche's and anecdotes.



#8
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts

 


 

"Ultimately all tests we can do involve observations"

 

Of course you LOOK @ the Tests.  Are you attempting to somehow equivocate Observations?  To start or to ask the question (hypothesis) you need to OBSERVE a Phenomenon.  You can't ask a (Rationale and Reasonable) question without Identifying something that you didn't Observe.

No I don't mean this in a trivial or silly sense.

 

Here's an example. Take the Large Hadron Collider, a massive experiment. Certainly, this is a very controlled environment and I am guessing you would agree that, for instance, the discovery of the Higgs boson was a genuine scientific discovery? But I am wondering what is, conceptually, different between that and say, looking at the product of reactions that happen between nuclei in the atmosphere and incoming cosmic rays. From what you seem to be saying, if we don't set the experiment up, it cannot, in principle, produce scientific evidence, but what is the qualitative difference between a collision happening in the LHC and one that occurs between a cosmic ray proton and the upper atmosphere?

 

Ultimately we can only probe nature in a more careful way. The LHC is the world's largest microscope. It is helpful that we can produce an enormous amount of data with it, have tight controls over the environment and so on. However, for each individual interaction there's a lot that cannot be controlled. Such things are accounted for in the statistics. But I cannot see what the *conceptual* difference is between what happens there and what happens in the upper atmosphere, if people are looking very closely. There's more controlled observation. There's less controlled observation.All of it though is to observe what happens in such and such conditions, with greater precision and accuracy.

 

The most successful theory yet is quantum mechanics. Quantum electrodynamics is wildly successful, predicting the value to 12 decimal places. Theorists calculate what the theory says it should be, then experiments are set up to see if that is indeed the case. If it isn't, then it's known where the theory breaks, where additional factors matter, which tells us a lot about nature. But there again is something we set out to observe about nature. It's true, we can make the query repeatedly at our leisure if we have an experimental set up in a lab. That's the benefit to doing it that way, and it's not a small benefit.-But, it's not conceptually different from observing things in conditions 'as they are', anymore than an individual hadron collision in the LHC is somehow different from one in the atmosphere, if both are being observed by careful human researchers.



#9
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree. You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have.  Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic .  In reality things are not that black and white.  What is the expression, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

"Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree."

 

It's not up for a vote.

 

"You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have."

 

You just can't help yourself with the insults can you?  I noticed with most, it usually happens when they're Deuce Seven Off Suit gets called.  Instead of just heading to the rail they have to make a scene.

 

Also, You have never met me and have not the faintest clue of my background!  But off you go.  If you insult me one more time, I will not respond to you ever again.  I think that's fair

 

 

"Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic"

 

How so?

 

 

"What is the expression"

 

Or we can discuss some cliche's and anecdotes.

 

 

It was not an insult, it was an observation based off your own words.  Odd that 20 minutes that before you accuse me of insults you use your 7th grader example again.  Perhaps your confusion about science is based upon the fact you view it through what a 7th grader is taught, has that ever occurred to you?  Perhaps instead of basing everything on the words of a 7th grade text book you would be better served to listen to what those who do science every day have to say.   Just a thought



#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

 

 

Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree. You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have.  Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic .  In reality things are not that black and white.  What is the expression, a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

"Thank you for your opinion, we will just have to disagree."

 

It's not up for a vote.

 

"You have spoken of a 7th graders view of science, and that is what you seem to have."

 

You just can't help yourself with the insults can you?  I noticed with most, it usually happens when they're Deuce Seven Off Suit gets called.  Instead of just heading to the rail they have to make a scene.

 

Also, You have never met me and have not the faintest clue of my background!  But off you go.  If you insult me one more time, I will not respond to you ever again.  I think that's fair

 

 

"Your view of what is and what is not science is overly simplistic"

 

How so?

 

 

"What is the expression"

 

Or we can discuss some cliche's and anecdotes.

 

 

It was not an insult, it was an observation based off your own words.  Odd that 20 minutes that before you accuse me of insults you use your 7th grader example again.  Perhaps your confusion about science is based upon the fact you view it through what a 7th grader is taught, has that ever occurred to you?  Perhaps instead of basing everything on the words of a 7th grade text book you would be better served to listen to what those who do science every day have to say.   Just a thought

 

 

"It was not an insult."

 

Yes it was. 

 

"Odd that 20 minutes that before you accuse me of insults you use your 7th grader example again."

 

Ever hear of context?  I learned the Scientific Method in 7th Grade.  In fact, I can see my teacher writing it on the ChalkBoard; and remember saying to myself....this is Kool,  30 some years ago.

 

"Well the professionals don't have too since they learned it 7th Grade...it's like making a sandwich."  (My statement)

 

This was in response to a statement....you go read it.  This is not an Insult, Implied or Overt....It's a fact!!!!

 

And you did it again.....

 

Perhaps your confusion about science is based upon the fact you view it through what a 7th grader is taught

 

GOODBYE

 

Unbelievable



#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

 

 


 

"Ultimately all tests we can do involve observations"

 

Of course you LOOK @ the Tests.  Are you attempting to somehow equivocate Observations?  To start or to ask the question (hypothesis) you need to OBSERVE a Phenomenon.  You can't ask a (Rationale and Reasonable) question without Identifying something that you didn't Observe.

No I don't mean this in a trivial or silly sense.

 

Here's an example. Take the Large Hadron Collider, a massive experiment. Certainly, this is a very controlled environment and I am guessing you would agree that, for instance, the discovery of the Higgs boson was a genuine scientific discovery? But I am wondering what is, conceptually, different between that and say, looking at the product of reactions that happen between nuclei in the atmosphere and incoming cosmic rays. From what you seem to be saying, if we don't set the experiment up, it cannot, in principle, produce scientific evidence, but what is the qualitative difference between a collision happening in the LHC and one that occurs between a cosmic ray proton and the upper atmosphere?

 

Ultimately we can only probe nature in a more careful way. The LHC is the world's largest microscope. It is helpful that we can produce an enormous amount of data with it, have tight controls over the environment and so on. However, for each individual interaction there's a lot that cannot be controlled. Such things are accounted for in the statistics. But I cannot see what the *conceptual* difference is between what happens there and what happens in the upper atmosphere, if people are looking very closely. There's more controlled observation. There's less controlled observation.All of it though is to observe what happens in such and such conditions, with greater precision and accuracy.

 

The most successful theory yet is quantum mechanics. Quantum electrodynamics is wildly successful, predicting the value to 12 decimal places. Theorists calculate what the theory says it should be, then experiments are set up to see if that is indeed the case. If it isn't, then it's known where the theory breaks, where additional factors matter, which tells us a lot about nature. But there again is something we set out to observe about nature. It's true, we can make the query repeatedly at our leisure if we have an experimental set up in a lab. That's the benefit to doing it that way, and it's not a small benefit.-But, it's not conceptually different from observing things in conditions 'as they are', anymore than an individual hadron collision in the LHC is somehow different from one in the atmosphere, if both are being observed by careful human researchers.

 

 

Sorry busy morning,

 

You go through this and ask yourself these questions, is it:

 

Observable

Measurable/Testable

Repeatable

Falsifiable

 

If so, Good to Go!!  If Not, then it's not SCIENCE!



#12
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
I understand that the truth can be painful, but it really is for the best. What a 7th grader leaned about the scientific method is a simplified view made for a 7th grader to grasp, not for adults to use for their basis of defining science. A 7th grader is taught certain things in math class yet when they get to calculus they discover things are not that simple. Do yourself a favor and move past middle school definitions




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network