paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
Thus, if I like using my cell phone, I must believe in tectonic plate subduction?Scientists do have values. Scientists value:
- logic and critical thinking
- evidence
- verifiability and repeatability
- discovering new things
If you don't value those things, you probably won't value science. BUT, you probably DO value those things, you just haven't thought about it.
If you use any technology from cars to computers, then you value the things that science values, because none of those things are possible without those values.
The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
Thus, if I like using my cell phone, I must believe in tectonic plate subduction?
Yes.Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
Depends upon if the method is scientific.Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
Without science we certainly don't have the anthropocene epoch!!! We won't have to travel to mars, science is in the process of terraforming earth into mars. So "logical" such ". critical thinking" except it never seems to ever ever be extremely critical of itself in aggregate. I am sorry you seem to "believe" the scientific narrative of itself like a southern Baptist believes only believers like them go to heaven!!! Seems sort of exclusive,not realistic, or inclusive.Scientists do have values. Scientists value:
- logic and critical thinking
- evidence
- verifiability and repeatability
- discovering new things
If you don't value those things, you probably won't value science. BUT, you probably DO value those things, you just haven't thought about it.
If you use any technology from cars to computers, then you value the things that science values, because none of those things are possible without those values.
Without science we certainly don't have the anthropocene epoch!!! We won't have to travel to mars, science is in the process of terraforming earth into mars. So "logical" such ". critical thinking" except it never seems to ever ever be extremely critical of itself in aggregate. I am sorry you seem to "believe" the scientific narrative of itself like a southern Baptist believes only believers like them go to heaven!!! Seems sort of exclusive,not realistic, or inclusive.
The earth's continental plates fits together perfectly if you could remove all of the oceans. But this only works on a much smaller planet. All of the oceanic plates are no older than 200 million years, according to our currently flawed dating methods. And all of the continental crusts are much older. This implies that the earth once existed without oceans, and was much smaller. The earth is expanding, just as the universe is expanding. We know that there is insufficient mass being added to the earth to cause this expansion of the size of the earth. It is not being caused by meteors. It is not the result of photons bombarding our planet being transformed to mass. It is not about mass. The earth is growing because there is a direct correlation to the density of the universe and everything in it. I have no proof, because this is my hypothesis. I have not tested it. I'm just trying to make sense of the obvious, and that requires setting aside the established theory of tectonic plate subduction, for which there is no evidence.If you're not hypocritical, you acknowledge what science has brought you. That doesn't mean that you have to accept every scientific theory. Scientists themselves are ALWAYS questioning each other's theories and trying to disprove them. But if you say you don't believe in tectonic plate subduction, you'll be ignored unless you have some logical reasons for such a claim.
The earth's continental plates fits together perfectly if you could remove all of the oceans. But this only works on a much smaller planet. All of the oceanic plates are no older than 200 million years, according to our currently flawed dating methods. And all of the continental crusts are much older. This implies that the earth once existed without oceans, and was much smaller. The earth is expanding, just as the universe is expanding. We know that there is insufficient mass being added to the earth to cause this expansion of the size of the earth. It is not being caused by meteors. It is not the result of photons bombarding our planet being transformed to mass. It is not about mass. The earth is growing because there is a direct correlation to the density of the universe and everything in it. I have no proof, because this is my hypothesis. I have not tested it. I'm just trying to make sense of the obvious, and that requires setting aside the established theory of tectonic plate subduction, for which there is no evidence.
Thanks...an unexpected yet appreciated response.sounds like a sound approach so far...
Thanks...an unexpected yet appreciated response.
The expanding earth theory has been around for quite some time. However, scientists who support the theory have not yet put forth any verifiable hypothesis to explain why the earth is expanding in size. I believe that if we were to consider the density of the universe in the equations we might reach an answer as to why the earth is expanding, and perhaps put to rest the debate that surrounds the flawed plate tectonics theory that is current accepted by most scientists.
First Take my jabs as me having a bit of fun especially in context to science. . No one is totally logical, reproduction would completely stop and we would become extinct in a single generation if that was the case!!! Magic. In regards to climate denial I have zero idea why some in religion would be deniers but economics may at a role don't you think? And if economics plays a role in denial, then we'll we have a very serious problem not easily fixed. And the reality of it all it probably makes no difference. A pack of rabbits let loose on an island with no natural predator will turn the island into a barren wasteland!!! Apparently science works at the rabbit level realistically! Science can have a lot of ideas about nature that isn't the same as understanding nature. Some very bright folks in the past in science got that, in a metaphysics sense, and some in religion have gotten that scientifically as well. not so much today. Thats a curious split into specializations at the university level dont you think?I think you're doing a bit of conflating here. By no means do I think science has all the answers - I don't. I'd ask you this though, in the U.S. who's more apt to be a climate change denier, a scientist or a Christian?
We know that answer but why exactly?
Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please
Regards
They believe ehats in theiiIt's almost as if the Christians who are climate change deniers believe some of what's in the Bible
They believe what's going on in their head determines the bible nature and everything around them. The bible is easy!! John 1:1,2 In the beginning was nature, nature was god nature is god, he was with nature in the beginng!!! SIMPLE a complete moron such as me can see that!! Another moron also saw that he wrote and we ended up with national parks. His name John Muir! Maybe religious people have outsmarted themselves? Sort of like that smart/stupid tribe in the mocking Jay series. They became so educated they become clueless. And the earlier verse, is nature understood, not fantasized about. Good science and good metapbysics in one bible verse how about that. Go figure.It's almost as if the Christians who are climate change deniers believe some of what's in the Bible
Well, it is claimed that the oceans are approximately 200 million years old. From what I am reading, it is estimated that if we were to remove all of the oceanic plates from the earth, the volume of the earth would be approximately 4 times smaller. Thus the earth has increased 400 percent over 200 million years, if of course that 200 million year figure is accurate then the earth is increasing in size by about .000002 percent per year.by how much do you think it's expanding? .00001%, .01%, 1%, 10% ??
In other words, is the method used by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge truly something that can be considered knowledge by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge?
Of course not.