rationalskepticism.org

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Observation comes first. Understanding cannot come first. Understanding comes as a result of meticulous, methodological observation.

Indeed. Where do you think this sentence places observation?

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

The thing is that it is rarely those who make hypotheses that have collected all that data; it's usually their PhD students!

How does that tie in with my assertion that "what makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations."?

It ties in with how this thread of conversation started:

Hermit wrote:

Ginckgo wrote:First I need to see some actual evidence in the rocks that shows expansion is even a remotely likely hypothesis that even needs a mechanism.

So, not particularly interested in the fundamentals of science.

Observation precedes hypothesis, and is therefore more fundamental to scientific method, meaning the original notion you put forth is in contradiction to your later point. Being interested in the data doesn't logically represent a disinterest in the fundamentals of science.