[gallo]

Quote by: 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 don't see that I claimed that it was either. In fact, I don't even understand how you can come up with that question after reading what I wrote. How do you actually come up with your fantasy dichotomy from what I said?

Quote by: nose I argue this: the "scienitific method" is a silly name for something that doesn't necessarily make something scientific,

That was not a claim that anyone has made. As pointed out, even "creation scientists" can do real science by using the scientific method. The problem is that they will end up by falsifying "creation science" when they do.

Quote by: nose 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.

Yet once more, that's not a claim that anyone has made. However, if a scientist observes, hypothesizes, predicts, and tests, no matter how fancy those words seem to you, he is using the scientific method.

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

But you have unsuccessfully avoided it.

Quote by: nose 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.

But it doesn't fail. As I mentioned, I seem to have found someone who knows less about astronomy than I do.

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

Funny. It seemed as if you had done exactly that.

Quote by: nose However, I must argue further. I stated that "in general" astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments. Take note of those two words "in general".

In other words, you are now moving the goal posts. Astronomers can most certainly, and do most certainly, do repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose 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 are situations in all sciences where the scientists can't produce repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose There is absolutely no way you can refute this by listing every example you know of when an astronomer has produced a repeatable experiment.

You don't seem to have a grasp on how science works. Neither can you claim that astronomy is not science by listing cases where astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose Consider one of my favourite stories - from one of Laudan's papers [snip]irrelevant story[/snip]

I don't understand how you think that your quote was a discussion of the use of the scientific method.

Quote by: nose 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 guess you have a different definition for the word "same" than I do, since gravitational lensing has been observed rather frequently. Moreover, the effect has been tested by other astronomers observing the same lensing by the same gravity well of the same distant object.

Quote by: nose 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.

Science does not require that unique events are repeated. Please learn what science is and how it works.

Quote by: nose 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.

Science requires that observations are can be repeated, not events. When you make such claims, you reveal that you are not scientist.

Quote by: nose 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

Actually, it is a definition of science. It just happens to be the one that scientist generally agree on. From my Dictionary of Science: science The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.

I hadn't thought that the concept was all that complex.

Quote by: nose - even astrology and numerology are attempts (albeit poor ones) of understanding natural phenomenon [sic].

Actually, I never considered either as an attempt to explain or understand natural phenomena. Perhaps that's why I don't think of them as science.

Quote by: nose Please dont confuse science and its theories with explanation.

I have confused nothing. Scientific theories are explanations.

Quote by: nose A theory is insufficient to provide an explanation - "Why do things falls?", "Gravity". It doesn't work, "Gravity" alone is not an explanation.

Nor is what you have stated a theory.

Quote by: nose A theory is always tentative, and leads us to further investigation.

Certainly. As I have stated on several occasions.

Quote by: nose An explanation, if sufficient, leaves us satisfied we have the answer.

At least, to the best of our ability in light of current knowledge. The concept that science it tentative seems to be one of the most difficult for non scientists to grasp. Nevertheless, science never gives us a final answer.

Quote by: nose 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.

Then, by your concept, science never gives good explanations, since that's how science works. No scientific theory is ever considered the final answer, since there is always the possibility that new data will be found.