UndercoverElephant wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:You think science is "a method", right?
Wrong, I know it is.
Well, then you'll be able to explain what that method is, won't you?
What? Like you've been unable to provide coherent definition of what scientific evidence is?
Like you've been unable to provide a coherent example of another form of evidence?
It was you that made the initial claim UE.
UndercoverElephant wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:So, then, what, exactly, is that method? Does it involve things like observations and theories? If so, which comes first, the observations, or the theories?I'll give you a clue. Think of two examples: Darwin's theory of evolution, and the attempt to observe and explain the motion of the planets before the Copernican revolution.
In Darwin's case, it looks like lots of observations took place, after which a theory was formulatd.
But now put yourself in the position of an astronomer observing the motion of Jupiter before Copernicus. What you observe is a planet moving in large arcs, with occasional loops. These are accurate observations - there's nothing wrong with the observations themselves. And you come up with a theory to explain how planets can move in arcs, with loops, occasionally stopping in the sky and going backwards for a while.
Looks like something has gone wrong, doesn't it?
Still think science is a method? If so, what is that method?
Is there are a point in your incoherent rambling and if so; care to phrase is it in a legible way, instead of beating around the bush?
Oh dear Thomas? Did you struggle to understand my very clear explanation of the reasons why science can't be defined as a method? Because what I posted was neither incoherent, nor was it rambling.
Once again with the blind countefactual assertions. Not to mention more personalised trolling.
UndercoverElephant wrote: It was in fact the precise reason why the philosophers of science (you know...those people who actually tried to defend the idea that science is method, rather than just declaring that they "know" it to be so, having done no research or work on that topic) ended up
rejecting the idea that science could be defined as a method.
And yet another blind assertion, this time presented as part of an appeal to authority fallacy.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Let me make it
even simpler for you (not that I hold out much hope that you'll be able to understand it).
You really need to stuff the condscending bullshit UE. Not only is entirely unwarranted, given your repeated failure to defend your own claims, it's inflammatory and contravenes the FUA.
UndercoverElephant wrote: Science can't be defined as a method because that theory of what science is suffers from "chicken and egg" problem involving theories and observations.
So you assert but fail to demonstrate it's a problem.
It's not a true dichotomy UE.
UndercoverElephant wrote: In short, you can't come up with a theory unless you've already made observations, but you can't make observations of a quality good enough for science unless they are made within the framework of existing theories.
So?
You can do both.
You can make observations and then hypothesize and you can hypothesize based on current knowledge and then make observation to see if your prediction come true.
UndercoverElephant wrote: In the language of philosophy of science, observations tend to be "theory-laden", and something the theories they are laden with turn out to be wrong (e.g. geocentrism). This is not some minor problem. It is a show-stopper for people who claim, like you do, that "science is a method."
That's a complete non-sequitur UE.
One of the priniciples of the scientific method, is falsification.
If your theoretic predictions or assumptions cannot be falsified, it does not a valid theory.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Science is not a method.
Still a counterfactual blind assertion, despite the additional nonsense and non-sequiturs offered in this post.
Tell me, where's your Nobel prize for proving that all scientists around the world are wrong and don't know what they're on about?
UndercoverElephant wrote: If you want to know why, then you need to think about how those theories of why Jupiter moved in complicated loops in the sky was replaced by Copernican theory. Let me give you a clue:
it is to do with the quality and simplicity of the theory with respect to natural laws... But do go ahead and have a try before I explain the answer. Prove to the board that you are no fool.
I've no interest in engaging you in your personalised bile spewing.
More-over you're still avoiding your own burden of proof UE.
UndercoverElephant wrote:Ah yes, argumentem via wikipedium. You can use Google. Have a peanut!
Failure to address the article has been noted.
Once again UE, you offer nothing but vacuous nonsense, whether it be blind assertions or blind dismissal, coupled with continued personalised invective.
Once again you fail to address the posts I linked to you, that actually address the OP which you kept asserting to be so concerned about.
Once again you completely fail to carry your own burden of proof.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."