Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
I found that all so tiresome and patronising. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
But hey, using someone's blog as your "proof"? Inspired...
Edit: Found this in the comments section of that eight year old blog. Makes much more sense than the blog itself:
Quote:
Monkey Courage said...
A friend of mine pointed this out to me. Frankly I expect more from an Englishman.
You seem to work under the assumption that scientists don't already understand the principles behind the scientific method. You also miss a crucial step in the description of the method (though you allude to it). Observation is a step in the Method. Then an hypothesis is formed and tested. If, through repeated experiments, the hypothesis is confirmed it becomes a Theory. A Theory is provisional and can be overturned at a moments notice. However, for a theory to be overturned doesn't require a complete paradigm shift. Newtonian Physics is still valid at sublight speeds. Einsteinian Physics is still valid at macro scales. Those Theories were less overturned than they were refined. Newton was on to something. But his study required more delicate measurements to get the complete picture. The same goes for Evolution or Climate Change. Something is occurring. There are correlations. Those correlations must be isolated and tested for causation.
Of course there can be bias. That is why we have peer review. We hope it keeps the scientists honest. And it does.
What amazes me is that the term "fact" is used in response to charges that so called skeptics make against the term "theory." A theory is a provisional fact. But pundits have purposefully obfuscated the meaning of theory as to be practically useless against a credulous layperson. And now that "fact" is being used to solidify what knowledge science have painstakingly garnered along comes you armchair philosophers explaining to the credulous once again that there are no scientific facts and that all knowledge is provisional. And you've conveniently withheld an explanation of the term "theory."
Well done, sir. You've uncovered a non-mystery and further confused the debate.
Unquote.
|
You of all people found it patronizing!!
Try looking it up yourself, if of course you can be bothered which I doubt you can.