Posted: Oct 08, 2019 11:25 am
by Hermit
Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
So, not particularly interested in the fundamentals of science.
However, it is not contrary to the fundamentals of science to not produce explanatory theories. Measuring and describing are more fundamental, because they represent the methodological acquisition of data from which hypotheses and theories can be built.

Yes, measuring and describing is fundamental to science, but in the absence of testable explanations (i.e. theories) these activities fall short of being science. What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations. Those generalisations need to have an air of plausibility to say the least. Proposing an expanding earth without accounting where the mass for the earth's increased volume comes from makes the hypothesis profoundly implausible.

In the absence of showing any interest in explaining the mechanics of how such an event can come about - in fact seeing no need to come up with one - Gincko's support for the expanding earth proposal is fundamentally unscientific.