[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul I proposed a couple of ideas in the science section and rather then someone disproving the potential "fact" that the idea created they debated other aspects of the post.

Let's use your thread "Proof for Creationists" as an example. Is it not applicable?

One guy debated it was not a theory because science has a "special meaning" in their dictionary that is different then the layman dictionary (which stated that a theory is a "speculation"".

A theory is a broad hypothesis that has been extensively tested and supported over time and that explains a broad range of scientific facts with a high degree of reliability.

And then they demand... "your idea is no good because you presented no physics to support it". Why is that a requriement? Why not other forms of evidence?

Step 3: Make a testable prediction
Step 4: Experiment or observe
Step 5: Modify the hypothesis as necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4.

And then they make some comment like "you need more education to talk about such a scientific matter". When our personal background in education is not the topic of debate.

It does not matter. The natural world is complex, and many times people who discredit scientific claims can not even recall the steps within the scientific method. They fail the very first chapter of science!

Most of the time they counter one idea with another "theory" that they like better and because they like a past idea better then they feel the new idea is unfounded because it is not supportive of the old idea they favor.

I thought thats how the scientific method works? Scientists used Darwin's Theory, to develop the Theory of Evolution.

Now I have a very odd system for my scientific discoveries about the natural world. Which I discovered somewhat by random accident. First I use the natural world as the first laborary. I go into the woods and then I find a comfortable place to sit down and I become very still. In short order my lack of motion allows the creatures and events in nature to carry on as if I am not present. And I observe. This is on you list. (or is the "labortary"... anyway "the Lab". ) 1. Observe. Then I allow the brain to be my labortary because a brain can operate like a computer to generate ideas relative to the in-put provided by the observations made. Then the memory might bring up past ideas that "match" or support the new idea and that combination can produce a "concept". This is an automatic type of process and not one directed by the motive to prove a particular idea. But now comes the testing of the new idea with it's supportive data from the memory. First I use my own logic to think of why the new idea might not be correct, or what doubts might need clearing up before it can be presented for debate. This is not like "talking to my self" but more like trying to look at it from all angles. Then I might test run it by mentioning it to someone who I think could present a good case why the idea is no good. I take his/her remarks and then I find some reasonable explanation to couter-act those comments so that in the final presentation I got "all bases covered". Or I might have to drop the idea because the 3rd party in-put made more sense. That is if I go the whole 9 yards and do not short cut that method with an impulsive posting. Then I post the idea but of course I have no physics or experiments that were conducted in a laborary environment to offer to the volcano fires of debate. Is such a method too far outside of the pale?

You obviously know the answer to this. The difference between common experience and science is that science uses generalization to make a prediction that can be tested.