Comments on: The Scientific Method

By: The Perspicacious Loris

The Perspicacious Loris — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:52:30 +0000

You know who are the best people for testing scientist’s theories? Other scientists.

By: russdpipes

russdpipes — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:27:51 +0000

actually scientist do not go around toting things as scientific fact. you are right that science is ever changing. If you were to read the true definition of science, you would see that it says nothing of the sorts about facts.

Science (from Latin: scientia meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

It doesn’t state that something has to be provable to be science, only predictions.

By: dhew

dhew — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:25:28 +0000

Around minute 2 you stated a science hypothesis has to be “provable”. A better requirement (for emphasizing the idea that science is not necessarily fact) is for scientific statements to be “falsifiable”, as Karl Popper believed. Which is to simply echo the statement that just because the sun rose today, does not mean it will rise tomorrow. A simple, trivial sounding sentence that can confuse us all.

By: Snowmanincave

Snowmanincave — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:39:15 +0000

Commenting on an old video? What?

I swear, every time a religion vs science debate comes up at XGen, this video gets posted. So kudos once again, guys. It’s a classic.

By: ItzMeRon

ItzMeRon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:18:38 +0000

Posted:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=6&id=50685

By: DocSea

DocSea — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:07:07 +0000

I commend your call to the public to think critically about what they hear or are taught regarding science. As a scientist I always teach my students to question the media, especially when it comes to science. I even encourage them to question me! Scientists are generally well versed in the literature in their own field, but they are often expected to teach more general courses. Sometimes teachers make mistakes as they attempt to interpret science for non-scientists. That’s why scientists go the primary literature (peer reviewed journals) to better understand the science behind a news story. However, the representation that a hypothesis (supported by experimental evidence) is immediately elevated to the status of theory is misleading. I’ve observed that the general public and many journalists use the words theory and hypothesis interchangeably. This becomes quite confusing to the public. In fact, there are relatively few hypotheses that have been elevated to status of a Scientific Theory. In biology for example, the Germ Theory, the Cell Theory, the Theory of Angiogenesis, and the Theory of Evolution have been tested (and modified) by many scientists over many decades. In fact, scientists are trained to design experiments that attempt to falsify their hypotheses. It is a very competitive community. Scientists are actually quite critical of each other, which helps keep most of us honest. Of course, you can always find unscrupulous scientists. When a scientist cuts corners or falsifies data, he or she is generally exposed by his or her peers (through the scientific method) quickly and it becomes a big news story. However, by the time a Theory makes it into a textbook at the high school or undergraduate level, it has generally withstood the test of time… and many attempts to falsify it!

By: JustAmes

JustAmes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:42:04 +0000

Thank you, I was just talking about public schools teaching evolution/big bang theory in my government class. It’s amazing how people can take a theory, accept it as truth and refuse to see that science is turning into a belief system very similar to religion.

By: Allan

Allan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:52:07 +0000

It’s so true. The motivator is the same as the use of “war” for psychological motivation: power and/or money. But today, $1 = 1 unit of power. So it’s really redundant.

By: Meandering

Meandering — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:02:04 +0000

Nice!

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:11:42 +0000

I think both of you are right on each of your points.

There are phenomenon in the natural realm that are not directly observed, and there are some who think they can define science to include or exclude such phenomena…albeit according to their own philosophical worldview.

The danger of the latter, is that it may define “science” with such narrow parameters, that future research with better technology may reveal certain questionable phenomena today to be quite a real part universe and reality….but it won’t be considered legitimate or credible because it “isn’t science”.

I think it doesn’t matter what it is called (religious, philosophical, scientific). What matters is that it is at least the most plausible, and an accurate and truthful explanation.

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 05 May 2008 15:17:24 +0000

The most important thing to remember is that the answer to the question “What is Science?” isn’t science, but philosophy. Words matter because meaning matters.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:53:44 +0000

The problem with saying that theoretical physics is not science is that there are lots of unobservable phenomena in science. What does mass look like? Have you ever seen an electromagnetic field? Or for that matter, photons or space-time?

All of these phenomena has observable side-effects however, and the theories that describe these phenomena do a stellar job of explaining these observable phenomena is a repeatable, consistent and measurable way.

Sure, the more theoretical you get, like massless 11-dimension vibrating vectors, the harder it is to find observable phenomena, but that’s why it’s not well accepted science. That’s different from not at all science.