4 scientists are in a room observing gravity at work by dropping a paper clip. The paper clip falls to the ground. 2 of the scientists say they saw it fall while the other two say they didn't see it fall. regardless of the testimony, there is no means used in determining HOW gravity works, and the testimony remains nothing more than eyewitness hearsay regarding a more complex matter.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 17, 2024, 12:12 am
Thread Rating:
|
Christians. Could you be wrong?
|
I'll just point out at this juncture that observation, in a scientific sense, doesn't necessarily mean being an eyewitness. The observation is the phenomenon under investigation (objects with mass fall to the ground, the Universe is expanding, biological organisms reproduce imperfectly causing change over generations, etc). The observation in this case would be that people are claimed to have witnessed and recorded these events. Now we get to test that observation.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (August 13, 2014 at 3:18 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'll just point out at this juncture that observation, in a scientific sense, doesn't necessarily mean being an eyewitness. The observation is the phenomenon under investigation (objects with mass fall to the ground, the Universe is expanding, biological organisms reproduce imperfectly causing change over generations, etc). The observation in this case would be that people are claimed to have witnessed and recorded these events. Now we get to test that observation. Right. And people claiming they saw it happen is not the evidence, it's the claim.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson  (August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:The first step is observation.(August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould (August 13, 2014 at 3:24 pm)Tonus Wrote:(August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result.The first step is observation. I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson  (August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(August 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery? No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works. The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question. get it?
Did you not catch my post?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(August 13, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.(August 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What a strange question.. I would say the first step would be to verify the result. No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical. YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude. That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence. Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims. Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation. Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson  RE: Christians. Could you be wrong?
August 13, 2014 at 3:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2014 at 3:49 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
