What gets me is if you ask a hard core "evolutionist or big banger" for a definition 99% of the time the word experiment or observation won't even come up. So I guess to them everything it is open to interpretation except when it comes to interpreting the data that they use to support their theories.
@neoverse - for those who know how to look at scientific data and research and interpret it themselves, there are no "hard core" believers in either side. The data is so inconclusive that it is only a theory and those people who are hard core believers in either side of the argument tend to dismiss evidence against their theory because they are not scientific thinkers, they are just believers.
scientific method is a systematic way of aquiring knowledge. It involves making hypothesis about events which occur in nature and falsifying them through experimentation and observation
I really like your thought provocking topics. You're a great speaker too. My name arrived by lack of imagination. And I was too lazy to change it. Now I'm stuck with it. Dude-ev will have to suffice.
I think the evolutionary biologist & philosopher, Massimo Pigliucci, correctly described the scientific method as not really a method at all. There is no check list other than hypothesis-data-interpretation-conclusion. And S.J. Gould always talked about "provisional acceptance" of a theory. Nothing in science ever reaches 100% fact. 99% leaves the door open, so to speak.
@dudev - I am pscyhology major and I totally agree with you. In the case of most theories or hypothesis the research done is not 100% conclusive unless you consider some basic concepts of environmental science and biology. In psychology especially, nothing is proven. It only takes a 60% repeatability factor to call it a good theory and be used on an everday basis. The scientific method works to weed out theories that are obviously wrong, but not to prove a theory to 100% in most cases.
I think the problem with the scientific method is that new ideas have to be generated by people. It is not automatic. It also has to do with people not making valid arguements.
I agree with sleach060689's list
What gets me is if you ask a hard core "evolutionist or big banger" for a definition 99% of the time the word experiment or observation won't even come up. So I guess to them everything it is open to interpretation except when it comes to interpreting the data that they use to support their theories.
neoverse 1 year ago
@neoverse - for those who know how to look at scientific data and research and interpret it themselves, there are no "hard core" believers in either side. The data is so inconclusive that it is only a theory and those people who are hard core believers in either side of the argument tend to dismiss evidence against their theory because they are not scientific thinkers, they are just believers.
pinkzebrasrafterme 1 year ago
im looking for an explanation of what it is and you came with an essay. concence your video to what we want to know thanks.
tebislu 2 years ago
Step one: Make an observation.
Step two: Formulate a hypothesis based on your observation.
Step Three: Conduct an experiment based on your hypothesis.
Step four: draw a conclusion from your experiment.
Step five: test again and again to see if your hypothesis holds up.
Where you go from there is your business
sleach060689 2 years ago
scientific method is a systematic way of aquiring knowledge. It involves making hypothesis about events which occur in nature and falsifying them through experimentation and observation
bmed19 3 years ago
Darwin-shamster?:D Joe, your killing me!
freetaught 4 years ago
The perfect crime! No forensic evidence!
DarwinsHamster 4 years ago
I really like your thought provocking topics. You're a great speaker too. My name arrived by lack of imagination. And I was too lazy to change it. Now I'm stuck with it. Dude-ev will have to suffice.
dudev 4 years ago
Your name may lack imagination, but your videos do not! Thanks for your kind words.
DarwinsHamster 4 years ago
I think the evolutionary biologist & philosopher, Massimo Pigliucci, correctly described the scientific method as not really a method at all. There is no check list other than hypothesis-data-interpretation-conclusion. And S.J. Gould always talked about "provisional acceptance" of a theory. Nothing in science ever reaches 100% fact. 99% leaves the door open, so to speak.
dudev 4 years ago
@dudev - I am pscyhology major and I totally agree with you. In the case of most theories or hypothesis the research done is not 100% conclusive unless you consider some basic concepts of environmental science and biology. In psychology especially, nothing is proven. It only takes a 60% repeatability factor to call it a good theory and be used on an everday basis. The scientific method works to weed out theories that are obviously wrong, but not to prove a theory to 100% in most cases.
pinkzebrasrafterme 1 year ago
I think the problem with the scientific method is that new ideas have to be generated by people. It is not automatic. It also has to do with people not making valid arguements.
DayfallKat 4 years ago