[gallo]

Quote by: nose Firstly any such "tenets of science" are always inevitably insufficient for either describing what science is or what science is not.

But, on the other hand, we aren't addressing research scientists or philosophers of science. We are addressing those who seem to lack any understanding of what science is or how it works.

Quote by: nose In particular, the scientific method is a method that can be followed by anyone in any pursuit of knowledge, but it does not necessarily make that pursuit scientific.

But, of course, science is the investigation of natural phenomena. The correct application of the scientific method to natural phenomena is science.

Quote by: nose Furthermore, scientists have a hard time agreeing on a specific method which scientific enquiry should follow, meaning that choosing one particular method may rule out half the scientists.

Well, that's true. But we don't have the time or space to post volumes from philosophers of science in an effort to instruct the ignorant. We have to start from some basic points of understanding, and the scientific method is a pretty good summary of the basics. A scientist is well aware that, in practice, science need not follow the steps in order. While my son was a graduate research assistant, he worked on a project that began with the experiment (commissioned by the government) to answer a question. The result was an answer and the publication of several papers in which the hypotheses arose from observations of the experiment, from which the predictions were made that were supported by the already accumulated data. The scientific method isn't a rule but a concept of how scientific knowledge is gained. As one philosopher of science stated, "Science is what scientists do." It is the logical pursuit of knowledge of the natural world.

Quote by: nose Take for example creationism.

Must I?

Quote by: nose I'm not going to argue the point, but creationism isn't a science.

Whew! Scared me for a moment.

Quote by: nose But, by the methodologist demarcation criteria, if a creationist went and tested all their hyptheses, then they'd be a scientist.

OK. That seems correct. Of course, they wouldn't be creationists anymore.

Quote by: nose Whereas astronomers cannot, in general, formulate or construct repeatable experiments, due to the nature of their field of study, making it difficult for them to then be classified as scientists.

It seems that I have encountered someone who is even more ignorant of astronomy than I am. Are you claiming that astronomers do not investigate natural phenomena? Are you claiming that they do not make testable predictions based on hypotheses formed from observation? How interesting. Perhaps you are unaware that the supportive evidence for the big bang theory that convinced Einstein came from astronomy. Observation: distant objects are red shifted. Hypothesis: distant objects are red shifted because they are moving away from us at great speed. Prediction: the more distant an object, the more red shifted is the light. Experiment: Observe distant stellar objects for distance and red shift. Result: Most stellar objects are moving away from the earth, and the further they are from us, the faster they are moving away.

Nope! Certainly not science. How on earth could those astronomers ever claim to be doing science?

Quote by: nose So whereas there is a method some scientists use, and all scientists base their view on observation and experimentation as well as theory, this is not quiet what makes science "science".

But mythology, faith, and "blue" daydreaming are certainly not science. Science has been described as methodological naturalism. It is an effort to explain by investigation and logic our observations of nature.

Quote by: nose Also, an observation or experiment does not necessarily force a decision to be made between two theories, nor present a definite requirement that a modification or rejection of a theory be made.

That's a good point, but I don't see where anyone made such a claim. In fact, I have pointed out on several occasions that there are three theories of gravitation that apply to the situation under consideration; the very large, the very small, and our normal concept of reality. Each theory is correct in it's own special case, but to date, they have not been reconciled. Scientific theories are not truth. They are tested explanations of observations of nature.

Quote by: nose The famous experiment regarding the bending of a light ray around a massive object highlights a downfall of Newton's theory of gravity, but does not call for it to be rejected and replaced.

Nope. It became a special case of a larger theory of gravitation, even though it hasn't been reconciled into relativity or the more recent quantum theory of gravitation.

Quote by: nose Finally, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: Personally, I believe if an explanation leaves one asking further questions it is insufficient, so I quite disagree that an explanation should provide new sources for enquiry.

No, I don't agree. I don't think that science ever provides final answers. Science is predictive, and thus always offers opportunities for further learning. But I doubt that we will ever possess all knowledge in all cases through all time.

Quote by: nose Take for example, "Why did the glass break?" "It fell" This is insufficient as an explanation because it is not generally regarded that all glass breaks when it falls, we're left asking why does falling cause the glass to break. A better explanation would be: "It fell and landed on a sufficiently hard surface at a sufficiently swift pace"

Simplistic. I have seen someone drive a nail into a pine board with a glass flask without so much as a mark. They then dropped a pinch of sand into the flask and it shattered.

At least we agree that your example is insufficient.

Quote by: nose even better would be to make sure you state the "glass breaks on hard surfaces when hit hard enough" law - law in the sense that it is largely indisputable.

Great! You get to invent laws of science.

Quote by: nose Of course, you could ask "why did the glass fall" but this has very little to do with it breaking. To claim that this leads to further enquiry, thus making it a good explanation, fails to differntiate between bad and good explanations.

Well, that's true. You have given a really bad explanation that is represented as a good explanation. Of course, the question is largely irrelevant in the first place. We pretty much understand why glass breaks when it falls, but I'll bet that you don't know why a glass flask can drive nails like a hammer and break from minor impact the the inside. I do. I even know how such flaske are used.