[nose]

Gallo, you say this:

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

but then agree that the "scientific method" is a "concept" and not a "rule" to follow. which is it? a leatherbound series of law or a vague idea, a rough set of guidelines?
I argue this: the "scienitific method" is a silly name for something that doesn't necessarily make something scientific, scientists cannot agree on exactly what it is and it doesn't even need be applied to science.

I agree, for those of you he seemed to have missed it, that scientists do "hypothesize", "predict", "test", "observe" all those fancy science-defining words. Yes i'm quite aware they do those things. They don't, however, do them in any strict order, nor do those words define what science is.

"Science is what scientists do."

This I agree with whole-heartedly, though I still avoid being named a Social Constructivist.

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.

Forgive me, I thought most people would assume that as I had just mentioned an example of something that isn't regarded as science, and showed that under a methodological demarcation criterion it could be, that if i then said "astronomy however" would lead people to believe i was now talking about something that is regarded as science, but fails to be under the methodological criterion.

I'm not claiming that astronomy is not a science, astronomy is one of the greats.

However, I must argue further. I stated that "in general" astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments. Take note of those two words "in general". Now unless i'm speaking some strange form of jargon, that means "there are some, maybe few, but significant, situations where astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments". There is absolutely no way you can refute this by listing every example you know of when an astronomer has produced a repeatable experiment. Consider one of my favourite stories - from one of Laudan's papers

"Suppose that some city dweller said the the "essential conditions" for something to be a sheep were that it be a medium-sized mmmal and that it invariably butt into any human beings in its vicinity A country fellow might try to suggest that his city cousin evidently did not understand what a sheep was. He might show, for instance, that there are plenty of things we call sheep which never butt into anything, let alone human beings. He might go further to say that what the city fellow is calling a sheep is what all the rest of us agreed is a goat. Suppose, finally, that a second city fellow, no hearing his town friend abused by the bucolic bumpkin, entered the discussion saying "I once knew a sheep that butted into human beings without hesitation, and besides I once saw a goat which never bothered human beings. Accordingly, it is correct to say that the essential condition of being a seep are exactly what my friend said they were!""

Astronomers can do spectroscopy until their hearts are content, but I would be damned if an astronmer could show me the same gravitational lensing effect over and over again. I would be damned if they could repeat an observation of a supernova, and i would be further damned if they could make the planets line up for a repeatable experiment that proves the tidal forces from the alignment of the planets doesn't, in fact, tear the earth apart.

The point, i made in my original argument, is that astronomers, who ARE scientists, lots of the time cannot follow the most rudimentary of "scientific methods" such as repeatable experiments. If you are a methodologist, then you are saying astronomy is no 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.

No, mythology, faith and "blue" daydreaming are certainly not science, agreed. And science can be described as an effort to explain by investigation and logic our observations of nature. This is not a definition of science - even astrology and numerology are attempts (albeit poor ones) of understanding natural phenomenon.

Quote by: gallo Quote by: nose 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.

Please dont confuse science and its theories with explanation. A theory is insufficient to provide an explanation - "Why do things falls?", "Gravity". It doesn't work, "Gravity" alone is not an explanation. A theory is always tentative, and leads us to further investigation. An explanation, if sufficient, leaves us satisfied we have the answer. That is why a good explanation does not lead to new discoveries, new discoveries come about when someone believes an explanation insufficient, and attempts to provide a better one.