BlackBart wrote::eh: There's is a group of privileged regulars here?! No one told me! Awww! I wanna be in the privileged group!! C'mon Guys, let me in! I'll sit in the back and won't get in anyone's way.

hackenslash wrote:An admission if ever I saw one that that this user's intent is merely to troll.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Apologies again. I cannot attend to decisions made about my post.

Readers please be advised that I do not attend to arguments presented here (on this thread), so please do not spend time writing any up. I have not read what has been presented above. The decisions about my post have already been made, a long time ago, and arguments are no longer relevant.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:

BlackBart wrote::eh: There's is a group of privileged regulars here?! No one told me! Awww! I wanna be in the privileged group!! C'mon Guys, let me in! I'll sit in the back and won't get in anyone's way.

Yes. I'm like you. I would like to decide that posts were nonsense before arguing openly against them or even reading them.
Thanks for backing me up by the way. It''s always cool to get support. And don't be embarrassed. You aren't whining.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Please note: Arguments come first, conclusions follow.
But on this thread the conclusion came first

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Arthur Methoxy wrote:The steps of the Scientific Method are observation/research, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and conclusion.

There are a few niggles with this sequence and its implementation. For example, the implementation of the first step - "observation/research" is itself guided by the conclusions of another, completed, scientific method that is itself based on a currently popular paradigm of science.

Ehm, no it isn't. Observation is a passive thing, people, even babies do it.
It doesn't require any epimistic thought or previous scientitic method.
The acurate notation and interpetation, which is actually step 2, does to a certain degree.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Further, supposedly key terms like "objective", "logical" and "rigor" are more like rally-calls for the troops, too vague to be useful as determinants of experimental method with their moralistic overtones.

Have you called the universities around the world, as well as every single dictionary company to inform them of that?
Seriously, spouting garbage like this won't get you far on this site.
Those terms aren't 'rally call", nice poisoning of the well there, they're relevant and and clearly defined terms.

Arthur Methoxy wrote: And a strictly materialist definition of "objective" cannot investigate qualities like colour and sound for which there is no direct experimental evidence..

First get rid of the straw-man materialism.
Secondly even a materialist can investigate qualities like colour, sound et all, as long as there's an agreement as to what those terms mean. And guess what? There is.
There are scientific definitions of colour and soud.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:It's a flat Earth folks!..

Can't wait for you to present some evidence for that.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:But it is "Truth" that gets the biggest bashing in science.

Oh yippee, the Truth! You forgot to trademark it by the way, it's "The Truth™ ".

Arthur Methoxy wrote:There can be no advances in experimental science,

Of course not. That's why we still use candles, horse and wagon and herbal remedies to the exclusion of all other options.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:no "getting closer to the truth" for a pragmatic scientific method.

Thus it was asserted blindly and vapidly.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:If instruments show it, then the Earth is flat.

And they don't.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Thousands of years ago theories abounded whether the earth was flat or round. The truth was, is, and forever will be, the earth is flat if contemporary instruments show it.

And they still don't.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Today we think we are advancing closer to the truth of the shape of the Earth. But truth depends entirely on instrumentation and observation.

And unbiased interpetation and analysation.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Currently we have approximated the shape to an oblate spheroid, more round than the roundness of a billiard ball. A future science could show this to be entirely wrong and that instead the Earth is a multidimensional disc.

How do you know this?

Arthur Methoxy wrote:No-one could be right because we have no means of showing when we are right, and not because we are wrong.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Concluding..

A conclusion insinuates an ordered argument.
Your string of assertions, non-sequiturs and rectal matter consitutes no such thing.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:What then, is going wrong with the idea of advances of Truth in the scientific method?

You're still spelling it wrong, it's The Truth™.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Two key, related, assumption have been hidden away - the "universal instrument", and the "universal scientific paradigm". This universal instrument, like an instrumental Turing Machine can, hypothetically, take a bird's eye view or measurement of an Earth viewed from its absolute, ideal, scientific paradigm. These twin beliefs are not open to experimental method, yet they guide us in our judgements about the scientific method. We won't when we have reached the universal paradigm or got hold of our universal instrument. But we need the idea of them to claim an "advance" in science That's what's wrong, what's unscientific , with the scientific method.

Where did you got all these strange notions?

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Oh crikey. Called back again.

Right. Would the complainant who said he successfully argued against my post BEFORE it was decided as nonsense (was it you Thomas - et tu Thomaso?), please repeat those arguments here. And then say why I have to come back again and argue it all over again AFTER the decision was made to scrap it. But as its you Thomas, you old scallywag, I'll let you off. If you want. How's that. Can't say fairer than that.

As my father always used to say "Can't say fairer than that" before he went down the mines. And that's what I always said to my kids when I sent them down the mines after me, "there you kids. Can't say fairer than that". They were chuffed.

So all I'm saying Thomas, is, can't say fairer than that!

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Back again. So Thomas was right after all. His arguments were the best.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:
Right. Would the complainant who said he successfully argued against my post BEFORE it was decided as nonsense (was it you Thomas - et tu Thomaso?), please repeat those arguments here.

Arthur Methoxy wrote:Huffnslash - read the posts, before making things up.
So Thomas had a helper eh. There you are. Two expert arguers. Did gone and done me in. Not ding dong but dung and gone. That's what I always say. I always say not ding dong but dung and gone did gone and done me in. Hey ho. That's life.