Posted: Oct 08, 2019 3:00 pm
by Spearthrower
Hermit wrote:
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.


It's the methodological acquisition of knowledge. They might not be involved in theory driven science, but the collection of observations are still fundamental components of science. They're not involved with testable explanations; they're involved with collecting and collating the data which makes hypothesis formation possible.


Hermit wrote: What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations.


No, that's one part of science. For me, it's the most fertile part of science, but you can't just dismiss the vital work of the majority of scientists. Most employed scientists are not involved in hypothesis formation in the slightest. Most scientists involved in the production and experimentation components of science wouldn't be able to do so without the measurements and observations made by other scientists.


Hermit wrote: 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.


Yes, I agree as I already pointed out.


Hermit wrote: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.


No, I cannot agree. While I may often have been charged with being disparaging about bean counters in science, I have never argued that their contributions aren't vital to the scientific endeavour.