What is the Scientific Method? Part 1

[stringtheory9991]

1. (240BCE {Hypothesis}) Eratosthenes sees objects traveling over horizon. Concludes round earth.2. (Collecting data) Eratosthenes sends partner south with a pole. Both of them measure the length of the shadow that the pole casts. If Earth is flat the pole's will cast the same length shadow. Earth is round shadow length will vary.3. {Confirming data}The two shadows are different lengths.The earth is round is NOW a THEORY. 4. (April 12, 1961) Man enters space and can see earth is round.CONFIRMED

[neoverse]

My comment stand, repeating opinions and theories doesn't equal fact. Viruses and bacteria adapt, this is their functioin in life. it has nothing to do with evolution.

How about showing some real evidence like a bacteria changing to a non bacterial life form. Anything short of that is irrelevant.

Bacteria will always be bacteria.

Humans will always and have always been humans as they are today.

[neoverse]

Well, I hope no one falls for this bacterial evolution BS. These kind of experiments are done under controlled conditions by intelligent beings. It only shows that you need intelligence to do it. Adapting to an environment does not equal evolution, don't be fooled by all the technical jargon and equations. You have already admitted that "evo" and "BB" are theories and they should be treated as such. Stop lying to yourself.

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

Adapting to changing environments IS evolution. As well, if the experiment was not under controlled conditions the results would be meaningless. As for intelligent beings, only the impetus is given; having the bacteria evolve to the stimuli is not controlled by the observers since their position is passive. Learning the technical jargon allows one to actually learn about the theory and what it means. As for the equations, what's wrong with math?

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

As to your "theories" comment, this point supremely saddens me because either you are being disingenuous or you are ignorant to what the meaning of theory is having only spoken it in the vernacular. But no worries, that is only part of the jargon that you say that no one should be fooled by. Do you not realise what the implication of a theory means in scientific jargon? If you did you would realise that your argument stands moot.

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

The bacterial evolution experiment does not demonstrate that intelligence is needed. The biologists are not physically changing the genome of the bacterium.

Rather, only the impetus for change is provided and the scientists passively observe what changes occur.

From your statements, I would assume that you have no formal introduction to experimental techniques and theory.

As for admitting that evolution and the big bang theories are theories: they are. Why would that be bad?

[neoverse]

@mastersausagemaker Assume what ever you like, this is the basis of "Evo" & "BB" anyway, I would expect nothing less from someone who believes those things.

[stringtheory9991]

@mastersausagemaker You can see evolution well in the domestication of fruits and animals. EX: Wolf to Dog

I'm assuming you agree a wolf is not a dog.

[mastersausagemaker]

I hope that anyone who reads this finds it helpful. If there is an actual biologist or undergraduate major in biology, please forgive any erroneous mistakes that I may have made.

[mastersausagemaker]

I think it is Michigan State University which is conducting a very large scale ongoing experiment into the evolution of E. Coli bacteria. They will be looking at the bacterium's genomic data to see what genetic changes are beneficial and whether or not that characteristic succeeds. Whatever their findings I do hope that it is interesting.

To see how evolutionary theory was applied to find biological results, research Morgan Hunt's experiments on the genus Drosophila.

[mastersausagemaker]

Modern experimentation would require that simple organisms with rapid reproduction be used in the laboratory because the changes of a few generations in a reasonable period of time are required for practical purposes. Something such as a bacteria culture can double its numbers in minutes and fruit flies can turn over several dozen generations in a week. Larger organisms would require a prohibitive amount of time and investment in non field experiments.

[mastersausagemaker]

Though I am a little out of my field here, the theory of evolution has indeed undergone much experimentation.

Humans have used artificial selection to breed animals which are very much different from their wild counter parts. The theory of evolution by natural selection states that the pressures of change is found by natural processes such as competition, reproduction pressures, and availability of food. Over time, this may lead to Speciation. This accounts for the biodiversity seen.

[mastersausagemaker]

A common undergraduate experiment to demonstrate the inverse square law of gravity is to take a ramp with perforated marks that allows for airflow to lift a glider which should then slide down with negligible frictional resistance.The glider is released and a laser designates the time it crosses through a known length until it comes across the second laser.

One can verify the acceleration due to gravity in this experiment to be approximately 9.8m/s^2 with experimental error of about 0.3m/s^2.

[mastersausagemaker]

The scientific method employs empirical skepticism using established mathematics and propositional logic. Ideally, this involves collecting data sets on an observed hypothesis and comparing the phenomena to the to postulated hypothesis.

A theory, particularly in my field of physics, describes basic postulates which should be found by experimentation and is predictive in scope. Within a theory there may be many different hypothesis and it is these hypothesis that are most subject to change.

[neoverse]

@mastersausagemaker that's the problem, the theories always have to change to conform to the new data. They never predict the data with enough accuracy for any of it to be fact. That's why evolution and "BB" theory fail when you apply the real scientific method instead of sitting in a lab crunching numbers.

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

What you have stated is fundamentally false. A theory does not change but the constituent hypothesis do change. A theory is not rejected until another better theory can replace it.

Why would this be a weakness in the credibility of the scientific method. It is the scientific method. As for theories not predicting phenomena with accuracy, I submit the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Michelson interferometre, Earth's blackbody radiation, Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect,...

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian dynamics, de Broglie's postulation on matter waves, Fresnel's proposition, Schroedinger's Equation, quantum entanglement, even the discovery of Uranus, all of which were developed by theory before being shown to be accurate empirically.

A hypothesis may not be proven, only disproven, and a collection of hypothesis requires either the complete refutation of all entries or a competing theory to disprove the set of all hypothesis proposed.

[mastersausagemaker]

@neoverse

Now, why would evolution not be considered part of the scientific method? I thought I explained it very well in my earlier comments.

Why would the Big Bang theory fail by the scientific method? Conversely, the Big Bang theory has succeeded over competing theories because of the scientific method. The theory is comprehensive and accounts for the physical phenomena observed with great accuracy. If you can propose a better model of initial conditions and cosmological evolution then do so

[bigboy45454545]

Most people don't have an understanding of science. They think science is a few nerds in lab coats, who go to buildings someplace. They think these people make things up, and write books about it. This is why people are mistrustful.

Science is a verb. It's a why of looking at things, and understanding whats really going on.

No examples here, but I think Edison was using trial and error with the elements for the light bulb. Producing a vacuum in the bulb was inductive reasoning.

[Duricas]

Yer boring. Nuff sed.

[longfootbuddy]

well, scientific method, in my view, is the method of observing and then testing things using reason and logic.. its applied to anything complicated or not if you want good results.. science is just using reason, say your a sculpter, you have sculpting down to a fine science because you have done experiments, you know what kind of material works best , you know what tools work best, you have gained a great understanding of the process due to your recorded experience and logical interpretation

[thallassocracy]

The acid test for the scientific method is that it produces results that work.

Since you are ill at ease with the scientific method, and particularly with its demonstration of evolution, I hope you will show the courage of your conviction and refuse any genetic profiling or genome based anti-cancer treatments.

Stupidity rarely benefits the individual, but it can be remarkably good for the genepool.

[MattSaucee24]

the scientific method is a basic discussion were a group of young bitches gather around and speak there minds spitting out questions

[zdx378]

Scientific method has changed two HUGE -- and basic - paradigms in the world of health. For years, it has been assumed that 1) stretching before exercise reduces the risk of injury, and 2) applying cold to injury reduces swelling. Scientific method has recently shown that 1) stretching before exercise does not reduce the risk of injury, & can actually cause injury at times, and 2) cold application does not reduce swelling, only slows the inflammation process, diminishing further swelling.

[ctbuff34]

I have watched your video and seen the responses and I am amazed that no one actually responds to what you clearly ask for in the video, (myself included for that matter!) you are absolutely right that people on you tube are more interested in what they think you are trying to say than what you actually do

[DarwinsHamster]

This has not only happened in the context of this discussion. When I made videos asking questions about Israel, for instance, I got mean responses from people, many of whom assumed the opposite conclusions!

[ctbuff34]

well, I have looked specifically at the scientific method from the point of view of someone who is not a scientist, however, it seems that for the purposes of evolution we have accepted that the replication and testing part of the scientific method has been replaced by observations becoming evidence that doesn't contradict the theory thereby making it fact. am I getting this correct?

[DarwinsHamster]

That's an interesting question, and if I think I can add something to that discussion, I will make a video about it, but I'm going to have to think about it for a bit. Thanks for commenting.

[ctbuff34]

thank you for considering my position( although in hindsight it was a bit hard to understand!) thanks DH!

[vanzant004]

How does Science the ablolute law and tool change. It doesn't.

Science is awsome.

So get it right!

Science is not quite what you said or even think but the thing you see in the old movies where the hero is busy working on a chalkboard and trying to finish his theory or tweak his weapon or solve the equation so he can tell the others what to do to save the world.

Sciencewas a tool that worked, AKA the egyptian square.

You ever do that thing, 'POST' {finish} and you too can do it.

Try it!

[DarwinsHamster]

"Science is not quite what you said or even think." I didn't say what I thought it was at all, I was merely asking what people thought. several more videos are in the series. You have jumped to conclusions merely from the asking of questions, which happens far too often in YouTube.

[vanzant004]

Like I totally appoligize!

I just want to remind you what in truth science was is and still can to be. The tool that is.

Before you have to contfront what it has become. It'll happen! The pain! The pain of 'seeing' the fact Science has already been replaced by technology. I want you to remember the tool from it's days of hieght and glory and know that it did become a tool and also did and does still work; as is. Consider it self improvement since it can to be. And keep your mouth shut.

[VampireSaviorX]

Rather than asking the general population of youtube, where you are bound to get some right and wrong answers, why aren't you just researching? Don't ask the generally anti-critical mass.

[DarwinsHamster]

Actually, I took a course in college on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (creator of the phrase "paradigm shift"). I have always intended to make a video following up on this with a better definition than most give. My point here was to show that those who worship the "scientific method" don't really have a good idea what it is, and that those who do, don't.

[xgunnBlaze]

Nobody "worships" The Scientific Method. Are you trying to signify that you think there are people who don't "worship" it (and that these scrubs know more than real scientists)? It is not a religion, it is just the way of getting knowledge and establishing cause and effect relationships with peer review. I really hope that you aren't trying to discredit it, as you are surrounded by, and depend on technology made from discovered knowledge via the scientific method every single day of your life.

[DarwinsHamster]

I used "worship" as hyperbole. My undergraduate degree is in physics. Are you trying to misunderstand and be disagreeable? You could hardly do better if you tried.

[DarwinsHamster]

Also, I am a lawyer and deal with technology beyond the grasp of most. You don't need lecture me.

[DarwinsHamster]

OK, now that I've thought about it, I was a bit harsh. You write well, and you made a comment that was thought out. I also thought you were the same as VampireSaviorX, and even if you are, you have good communications skills. You aren't one of the "haters" that video makes despise.

You're sharp enough that you could probably make some interesting videos yourself.

[VampireSaviorX]

I am xgunnblaze's brother. You can't simply "disagree" with the scientific method (unless you can come up with a better way than statistical methods of observing, testing, and concluding; in this case you deserve the next nobel prize).

[DarwinsHamster]

In this video, I don't disagree with the scientific method, I merely ask what people think it is. There are two more videos in this series. I have discovered that when you ask questions in videos, people jump to the conclusion about what you believe, very often different people jumping to opposite conclusions!

[oddballzshow]

Step 1: Observation - Darwin observed finch beaks that were different in different habitats.

Step 2: Hypothesis - Darwin's hypothesis was that each of these finches must of came from 1 commen ancestor and adapted to the habitat it lived in.

Step 3: Testing Hypothesis - Fossils! Need I say more.

Step 4: Draw A Conclusion - If fossils show us that animals have commen ancestors then Darwin must have been right.

[oddballzshow]

Scientific Method: a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

[ks016]

All you Americans who think Edison invented the lightbulb are idiots. The lightbulb was invented by two Canadians they just didn't have the funding to make it so they sold the patent to Edison and he took credit for it. Just so you all know.

[jimitl5]

"The lightbulb was invented by two Canadians they just didn't have the funding to make it so they sold the patent to Edison and he took credit for it. "

They then invented the hockey puck to make a living.

[511CHRIS]

wdf u fucking cracker lmao u fucking tard u no nothing u not even explaing wut sciectfic method is scientific is to take a guess and see if u were right on ir

1state promlem

2gather information

3state ur hypethises and educated guess

4desighn and organize experment

5make observation record date

6organize and anlize ur data

7 state conclustion wuts ur hypethises right?or wrong?

[RebdsRits]

So by the Scientific method, a great discovery was made that eventually changed the world (of course, copernicus came before galileo with his ideas).

[RebdsRits]

And, yes a large part of that was due to the interpretation of scripture at that time. So yes, the scientific method was in a way oppressed. But they made justifications based on observation for their beliefs. But when Galileo began to closely study the celestial bodies, he found their orbits to be inconsistent (i.e. going back and forth) and soon concluded that the earth was not the center of the solar system.

[RebdsRits]

But that was only because they looked closer at the sky. At first sight, it would seem that all things revolove around the earth. I mean, it seems to be a pretty important place, right? Looking at sky without knowledge of how big things actually are (they would have thought of the "heavenly bodies" as being much smaller than earth simply by observing them) they would have come to a sure conclusion that Earth was the center of all things.

[highlander7]

The scientific method involves observation of an event, then a prediction and then a conclusion (was the prediction right or wrong). First, earth was thought to be the center of the Universe. Or more simply that the moon and the Sun and the stars rotated around the earth. Then through observation and prediction it was found that the earth in fact rotates around the Sun. This is a simple example of the scientific method.

[RebdsRits]

By the "discovery of Evolution", I guess you mean the interpretation of the fossil record, correct? The "discovery of Evolution" seems to me a very general statement. Do you mean the forumlation of the theory, or the succeding "validation"? Evolution isn't just some observation, like gravity.

[DarwinsHamster]

"Discovery of evolution" to me means the proposal of a "paradigm shift" in the sense that Thomas Kuhn meant it (he coined the expression "paradign shift"). The succeeding validation would be "normal science" as Kuhn defined it. I need to make a video on this soon.

[highlander7]

Every video I see that is against evolution, involves someone refering to the bible. Evolution does not fit their paradigm of creation so it must be a lie. I guess they are using the biblical method. If it's not in the bible, it's wrong or it's a lie.

[RebdsRits]

...Then, he swabbed the inside of jacob's mouth when he was sleeping, and took it to the lab for testing. What he found was that trace saliva from jacob's mouth in fact contained the same DNA (or something like that) that the inside of Shanika's mouth, and vice versa. Thus, he concluded that she was cheating on him.

[RebdsRits]

Scientific Method at work: Billy saw a red-haired girl kissing Jacob Hanson, the most popular guy in school. his girlfriend has red hair, so naturally, he formed a theory that his girlfriend Shanika Johiva Bariva Marie Johnson was cheating on him. So he decided to test his theory. When Shanika was sleeping, he swabbed the inside of her mouth, and took that to his father's lab for anylization...

[RebdsRits]

The Scientific Method- The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

[marklethanarkle]

i have to say that i couldn't have said it better than "dudev"... except for the most basic of common sensical "truths", universally exceptable "truths" are ever evolving... this is a good thing, because so is our ability to assess the veracity of any one truth claim (due to technological advancement). our wit is sharpening as our tools are.

[misterbaghead]

(Part 2)

People treat science like a religion these days. My problem with this is that the discoveries that have been made have been largely driven and effected by the desired outcome of the scientists making them. Lives have been wasted and the metaphysical world has been forgotten in the mass acceptance of science as a replacement for mythology and genuine spirituality.

[misterbaghead]

The problem with the scientific method is that we're always involved in the experiment. Being an observer makes everything you ever see subjective. Objective perspective is an ideal, not a reality. That's why we'll never stop discovering new things using the scientific method. We'll never stop modifying what we've already established as fact.

Consider the issue of photons acting as both particles and waves.

[DayfallKat]

I'll have to give that one some thought.

[DayfallKat]

I forgot to answer your question about Edison and Darwin. I do think Darwin used the scientific method. Edison didn't know enough about the properties of the materials he was trying out to formulate a theory. His approach was more along the evolutionary process of "Does this work? How about this? No. What if we add this?"

[dudev]

Reduced to its most basic and beautiful form, the scientific method is the questioning of knowledge. Because we cannot uncover new "truth" unless we risk being wrong about our present hypothesis. So, no knowledge can ever be held up as sacred or off limits to scrutiny.

[freetaught]

Scientific method and evolution? I'm not going to fall for your trap,we all know that evilution comes from the devil! I look forward to see how this pans out though!

[fc007]

Stop preaching fairy-tales.