Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
Yes, if you take that sentence completely out of context from the rest of the sentences in that summary, you don’t need anything like testable hypotheses and falsifiable theories. But you do if you want to do science.
That is a strange response to finding out you’re not understanding the basic concept of the scientific method wherein a hypothesis has to be testable and a theory falsifiable is the cornerstone of modern science.
Literally no one is contesting any of this. At the very least i am not.
But at the same time it also ironically proofs my entire point.
This conversation wasn’t about the scientific method. It never was. I mentioned “scientific thought” which is a loan term i used specifically to set myself apart from established scientific curriculum.
Your quoting science with no relevance to what i am saying. Having to conclude you lack the rigor to work with such material. By focusing this narrow you have eliminated the entire value of philosophical tools to be used for creative scientific thought.
Nothing about sitting in a classroom or scrolling the web is a quantifiable testable an falsifiable theory. Your just relying on the information being true, which isn’t wrong, but doing so blindly isn’t right.
Go outside, touch grass. Do the science with your own brain and senses. I never told you what to believe only to open your mind a little.
Stop relying purely on other peoples conclusions yeses and nos and start giving your own conclusions and ideas especially to wilder scientific fiction and you will see talking about science actually becomes fun again.
Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you’re just wrong. That’s magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.
Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
Yes, if you take that sentence completely out of context from the rest of the sentences in that summary, you don’t need anything like testable hypotheses and falsifiable theories. But you do if you want to do science.
Buddy, are you ok?
That is a strange response to finding out you’re not understanding the basic concept of the scientific method wherein a hypothesis has to be testable and a theory falsifiable is the cornerstone of modern science.
Literally no one is contesting any of this. At the very least i am not.
But at the same time it also ironically proofs my entire point.
This conversation wasn’t about the scientific method. It never was. I mentioned “scientific thought” which is a loan term i used specifically to set myself apart from established scientific curriculum.
Your quoting science with no relevance to what i am saying. Having to conclude you lack the rigor to work with such material. By focusing this narrow you have eliminated the entire value of philosophical tools to be used for creative scientific thought.
Nothing about sitting in a classroom or scrolling the web is a quantifiable testable an falsifiable theory. Your just relying on the information being true, which isn’t wrong, but doing so blindly isn’t right.
Go outside, touch grass. Do the science with your own brain and senses. I never told you what to believe only to open your mind a little.
Stop relying purely on other peoples conclusions yeses and nos and start giving your own conclusions and ideas especially to wilder scientific fiction and you will see talking about science actually becomes fun again.
I see, you aren’t talking about science. Gotcha.
You’re getting upset every time I don’t rely purely on your conclusions.
I am in fact talking about science sorry if that went over your head.
I am genuinely curious to know what you have understood my conclusions to be.
I wont further distract you so go ahead, i really want to know because i dont feel like any of my points where received as they should have.
Well one of your conclusions seems to be that science can involve not using the scientific method. And you’re just wrong. That’s magic. Alchemy. Religion. But not science.
“One of”
Oh i provided multiple conclusions?? The plot thickens, how actually intriguing. I am really trying hard to be as obvious and literal as i can and yet people read stuff that not there.
But no i have not expressed such opinions on the scientific method which i do respect much more then your interpretation of it (nothing personal, I promise)
I believe every belief i have held has always remained true to its principles (as far as i can be aware) so no this was never a point to be changed.
It does shed some light on the crux of our debate which is apparently about what is defined as the foundation of science.
You see the scientific method was summarized in the 17th century. Science is recorded to be much older.
Personally i found that post education i relate much more to the ancient greek ideas of science. Particularly in using philosophy to expand once thinking but also seeing the mathematics in the world around me.