Links to my opinions: The Concept of Infinity Matter and Energy, Darkly Heisenberg Certainty 7 New Earths--Not!
Photo: Entering Warp by KeLP
Expert: An ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
Just because someone is styled an "expert" in an area does not mean you should take your brain out, put it on the shelf, and let them stuff in your mind their positions. Science, in particular, is supposed to be based on rational and logical thought, not emotion. Think for yourself.
A QUICK AND INCOMPLETE LOOK AT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
After consulting various sources, it is obvious there is no consensus on what the Scientific Method is. But certain features are common, so let's enumerate them as I think best.
1. It starts with observations, leading to questions about what is observed.
2. A Theory is formulated.
There are ultimately two kinds of Theories, those that can be proven and become Facts, and those that are beyond proof and remain Theories.
For something to be a Fact in Science it must be replicable. If I break water into 2 gases, which I call Hydrogen and Oxygen, and you do the same experiment and get 2 gases with the same characteristics, regardless of their names, you have duplicated my experiment or I yours and it is established that water is formed from these 2 gases. Water is H2O, that is a Fact.
Evolution can never be replicated. It will forever remain a Theory. The fossil record is equally valid for Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism. This does not mean you should not choose which you find most believable, just that to claim Evolution is a Fact is baloney. It is, and always will be, a Theory.
3. Hypotheses are made as to the causes.
Legitimate Hypotheses are supposed to be falsifiable. That is, if the experiment fails to work as hypothesized, then the Theory is wrong, incomplete, or needs to be re-thought as to its effects.
4. Experiments are designed to test the Hypotheses.
5. Data from the experiments confirm or deny the Hypotheses.
At this point the data may prove the Theory, making a Scientific Fact when replicated. But more often, it just opens more questions, leading to modification of the Theory, or works as expected and bolsters the Theory's acceptance. In rare cases, Scientists might admit that a Theory was incorrect.
Today, some Scientists reject the Hypothesis falsifiability requirement, but doing so makes an Hypothesis useless, the equivalent of saying "something will occur", which essentially says nothing. It may add data, but that data is then spun to fit the Theory, which is followed in blind faith.
But then, much of Science today has, unfortunately, become Religion. Dogmatic acceptance is required of Evolution, Climate Change, Theoretical Physics, the Big Bang, Black Holes, even in Medicine. To question is to be scorned, mocked, and derided as Unscientific, a modern Luddite.
Worse, we are even told in Theoretical Physics (and those disciplines, such as Astronomy, that base Theories on it) to reject logic and rational thinking, for Modern Science has moved beyond it. You must learn to think "differently".
That is what I'll address in my opinions above.
After consulting various sources, it is obvious there is no consensus on what the Scientific Method is. But certain features are common, so let's enumerate them as I think best.
1. It starts with observations, leading to questions about what is observed.
2. A Theory is formulated.
There are ultimately two kinds of Theories, those that can be proven and become Facts, and those that are beyond proof and remain Theories.
For something to be a Fact in Science it must be replicable. If I break water into 2 gases, which I call Hydrogen and Oxygen, and you do the same experiment and get 2 gases with the same characteristics, regardless of their names, you have duplicated my experiment or I yours and it is established that water is formed from these 2 gases. Water is H2O, that is a Fact.
Evolution can never be replicated. It will forever remain a Theory. The fossil record is equally valid for Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism. This does not mean you should not choose which you find most believable, just that to claim Evolution is a Fact is baloney. It is, and always will be, a Theory.
3. Hypotheses are made as to the causes.
Legitimate Hypotheses are supposed to be falsifiable. That is, if the experiment fails to work as hypothesized, then the Theory is wrong, incomplete, or needs to be re-thought as to its effects.
4. Experiments are designed to test the Hypotheses.
5. Data from the experiments confirm or deny the Hypotheses.
At this point the data may prove the Theory, making a Scientific Fact when replicated. But more often, it just opens more questions, leading to modification of the Theory, or works as expected and bolsters the Theory's acceptance. In rare cases, Scientists might admit that a Theory was incorrect.
Today, some Scientists reject the Hypothesis falsifiability requirement, but doing so makes an Hypothesis useless, the equivalent of saying "something will occur", which essentially says nothing. It may add data, but that data is then spun to fit the Theory, which is followed in blind faith.
But then, much of Science today has, unfortunately, become Religion. Dogmatic acceptance is required of Evolution, Climate Change, Theoretical Physics, the Big Bang, Black Holes, even in Medicine. To question is to be scorned, mocked, and derided as Unscientific, a modern Luddite.
Worse, we are even told in Theoretical Physics (and those disciplines, such as Astronomy, that base Theories on it) to reject logic and rational thinking, for Modern Science has moved beyond it. You must learn to think "differently".
That is what I'll address in my opinions above.