Evaluating a Scientific Claim

[rez]

I have been a member of volconvo since the websites inception and have always marveled over different people's debate tactics. I tend not to be as educated as most of the adults on these forums, but I do make an attempt to formulate a well founded opinion based on logic. Most of my interests revolve around the subject of science because of my particular interest in the methods behind the subject itself. While debating on volconvo for several years I have observed that some people do not value science as much as others do, and in my opinion, causes confusion within the debate.

For this debate I want people to describe their method of investigation and show how their method accurately describes the natural world better then another person's method. Now I know we are not scientists given the luxury to have a laboratory to test our claims, but we are on the internet and can investigate scientific journals and scholars who make claims. My reasoning behind this is because I see such large disagreement over matters such as evolution, stem cell research, global warming etc...

What I find within these debates is that one side applies a higher level of skepticism toward one claim then another claim, but never provides a reason for their selection.

For example Vicchio and xyzer is skeptical toward global warming. They disagree with certain scientist’s observations and generalizations. They seem to be using a different type of inductive/deduction reasoning then others. My goal within this thread is to make users think about the scientific method and how it is a vital component in formulate debate about a certain scientific claim. We should start using the proper vocabulary to articulate why some claims are better then other claims.

Here are some of the basic tenets to science that I think most people seem to be ignoring within scientific debates (please disagree, correct me, or add to this information)

In order for science to gain knowledge about the natural world a certain process called the scientific method is used. Here are the steps to the scientific method.
Step 1: Observe and generalize
Step 2: Formulate hypothesis
Step 3: Make a testable prediction
Step 4: Experiment or observe
Step 5: Modify the hypothesis as necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4.

“A hypothesis cannot be proved true; it can only be supported or disproved.” I feel as though this sentence carries a lot of weight and may sway one’s understanding of science in different directions causing disagreement.

The way I understand this statement is that scientific explanations are a process of elimination. We use the explanation that has testable predictions in which can be shown to be true or false. The prediction that is true is the better explanation. Now make sure to note that the better explanation does not mean it can not change. One of the most important criteria for an explanation is that it provides new discoveries and better explanations that grow from past explanations.

Here are some steps I have studied to be useful in evaluating scientific claims.
1.) State the article’s primary claim.
2.) List the evidence provided to support the claim.
3.) Examine each piece of evidence to see whether it meets a basic standard of scientific acceptability.

Now if a claim seems to fail these tests, then there is no reason to accept the scientific claim. What I fail to see from some people is why their understanding is better then another person’s. Maybe we could use the global warming debate as an example. We do not have to go into detail like people have done within the actual global warming thread. The point is to just simply state the basic disagreement while using the scientific method. I just want to see how people leap to conclusions, resist new ideas and how much they are driven by self-interest.

(if people think this thread should be moved to the philosophy forum, then go ahead and move it)

[Hostile55]

During an online debate I will do web searches and look at as many relevant articles as I can be bothered to. If there is a lot of contradictory information between the articles I delve a bit deeper. I prefer to break it down to truths about chemical interactions or some such basic detail that will allow me to understand, more thoroughly, what is being asserted. I then use my own logic to come to my own conclusion. The debate, whether on this site or otherwise, is really a testing ground for my reasoning rather than a forum for me to persuade others. If I can't fully explain something to someone then I have to read up on it, and if someone explains something to me in a way that I take issue with but can't argue with then more research is nessessary. I'm always open to persuasion but I have to persuade myself. I try to get to the truth even if it is uncomfortable.

[nose]

in response to rez.

Firstly any such "tenets of science" are always inevitably insufficient for either describing what science is or what science is not. 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. Futhermore, 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.

Take for example creationism. I'm not going to argue the point, but creationism isn't a science. But, by the methodologist demarcation criteria, if a creationist went and tested all their hyptheses, then they'd be a scientist.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by:

One of the most important criteria for an explanation is that it provides new discoveries and better explanations that grow from past explanations.

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.

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"

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.

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.

[ZNFYRH]

rez

I take a simple approach to it: I ask if I can observe it, and if I can observe the same result consistently under the same experimental conditions.

I've observed evolution. I've observed the Earth being round. I've been able to show both to others, thus making the evidence both consistent and generalized for all observers.

I'm also very careful to ask contextual questions. Now or last week? In front of me or in Podunk, Idaho?

Part of my real life job is to ask specific questions and narrow things down to their simplest parts. That's how I approach things logically.

I ask if anyone can see the same thing repeatedly, and I ask if the context is accurate.

[Jack]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by... 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.

Prediction is an element of the scientific method:

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ZNFYRH]

Yeppers.

That relates to the fact that what you're observing has to be repeatable.

[nose]

isherwood,

whether or not prediction is part of the "scientific method" it has very little to do with what counts as an adequate explanation.

If you disagree, could you explain the connection?

As to the necessity of repeatable experiments. I belive merely saying that an experiment must be reproducable is insufficient. If a purported "one shot" experiment can be explained by the theory that also explains other reproducable phenomenon, and the unlikeliness of the "one shot" experiment, then the one shot add scientific credit to the theory.

Take for example good ol' quantum tunneling. I'm sure you've all heard some physics crackpot claim that if they threw a ball at a wall an infinite amount of times, then it would, one some occaisions, go straight through the wall. Now say someone set up this experiment, and observered a ball going straight through the wall. This experiment cannot easily be repeated because of the unlikliness of the phenomenon, however, it is this unlikliness that provides support for quantum theory.

If you don't like quantum theory you can use any rare event (such as the planets' - or other celestial bodies' alignment) or any statistical governed theory (evolution, radioactive decay etc).

So if we can perform a "one shot" experiment that shows someone can read minds, do we adopt a parapsychology theory? No, the fact that it is a one shot experiment supports the falsehood of parapsychology because the theory cannot account for the unliklihood of the outcome. Simple probability theory however, can explain the outcome.

[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. Perhaps the grammer or a word that was not spelled correctly. 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"".

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?

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.

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.

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?

[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.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH rez I take a simple approach to it: I ask if I can observe it, and if I can observe the same result consistently under the same experimental conditions. I've observed evolution. I've observed the Earth being round. I've been able to show both to others, thus making the evidence both consistent and generalized for all observers. I'm also very careful to ask contextual questions. Now or last week? In front of me or in Podunk, Idaho? Part of my real life job is to ask specific questions and narrow things down to their simplest parts. That's how I approach things logically.

ROFLMAO. Wow. You really should learn to argue consistantly.

Quote by: You But as far as science is concerned, logic has no place.

[5010]

To Rez:
I don't have a lab, so I have to accept most scientific claims based on trust in authority. I use rules of thumb:

The major non-controversial theories that are simple enough that I can understand "from the armchair" also tend to be repeatable in classrooms. If it's in an elementary textbook, then I feel certain that the claim has practical value.

The most recent theories tend to be complicated, so I don't waste a lot of time with them. Instead, I let others decide if they are worthwhile and hope for products.

I tend to put low weight to 'evidence' that comes from complex computer simulations. Anecdotal experience with past simulations accounts for this low certainty. This is especially true for chaotic systems, like global weather.

I consider theories that explain the distant past to be interesting but highly uncertain. The claim 'we are evolving' gets higher certainty than 'we evolved from X'.

I don't question the promise of technology that is widely distributed. I tend to have a 'wait and see' attitude on tech that is not yet developed. I may review it and think 'gee whiz' or 'yeah right' depending on how far-fetched it is. If some invention has great practical value to the masses but isn't being mass produced then it trips the BS meter in my mind.

I'd rather upgrade something considered uncertain to a more certain status later on than downgrade something I thought was certain to the BS status. The former makes me feel like I'm learning. The latter makes me feel like I'm gullible.

I always take dietary studies with a grain of salt (even if they are low sodium diets).

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: nose in response to rez. Firstly any such "tenets of science" are always inevitably insufficient for either describing what science is or what science is not. 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. Futhermore, 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. Take for example creationism. I'm not going to argue the point, but creationism isn't a science. But, by the methodologist demarcation criteria, if a creationist went and tested all their hyptheses, then they'd be a scientist. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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" 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. 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.

Many aspects of astronomy CAN be tested. For example, the red shift PROVING the universe is expanding, the way light (which is not polarised coming from the sun) becomes polorised as it reflects off a body in space, tells us much about the composition of that body.

The "wobble" of certain stars tell us that somthing is efecting the star's rotation, and since it would take a massive body to do so, we can literally "prove" the existance of planets around distand stars.

Astronomy PROVED that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun, which is what got Galileo in so much trouble with the Catholic church.

Astronomy PROVED that a comet hit Jupiter, and the resulting plumes, PROVED much of what Jupiter's atmosphere was made of (MUCH more water than we previously thought for example).

Black holes, and now "dark matter" were once crazy theories, but now have been proven.

The Hubble telescope has taken pictures of "star nurseries" in distand places, PROVING how and where stars form in the first place.

Just because it can't be physically touched, does not mean it can't be observed and anylized.

[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.

[gallo]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Yeppers. That relates to the fact that what you're observing has to be repeatable.

Indeed, it does. If the observation cannot be repeated then it is anecdote and has no scientific import. Hypotheses become theories only because other scientists can repeat the outcome under the same circumstances.

[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Many aspects of astronomy CAN be tested. For example, the red shift PROVING the universe is expanding, the way light (which is not polarised coming from the sun) becomes polorised [sic] as it reflects off a body in space, tells us much about the composition of that body. The "wobble" of certain stars tell us that somthing [sic] is efecting [sic] the star's rotation, and since it would take a massive body to do so, we can literally "prove" the existance of planets around distand [sic] stars. Astronomy PROVED that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the Sun, which is what got Galileo in so much trouble with the Catholic church.

You can't even get that right. Galileo observed satellites around other planets and hypothesized that the earth was not the fixed center of the universe. Galileo hypothesized that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. Wouldn't it be better if you actually educated yourself before speaking?

Quote by: Mozart1220 Astronomy PROVED that a comet hit Jupiter, and the resulting plumes,

What ignorant balderdash. The impact of Shoemaker-Levy was an observation. It was predicted based on old fashioned Newtonian physics.

Quote by: Mozart1220 PROVED much of what Jupiter's atmosphere was made of (MUCH more water than we previously thought for example).

Did it offer evidence or was it proof, beyond a doubt, to the extent that we must reject evidence to the contrary in the future?

Quote by: Mozart1220 Black holes, and now "dark matter" were once crazy theories, but now have been proven.

How ignorant of science can you be?

Quote by: Mozart1220 The Hubble telescope has taken pictures of "star nurseries" in distand [sic] places, PROVING how and where stars form in the first place.

So observations are proof, rather than data? And I thought that science required an hypothesis, a falsifiable prediction, and experimentation that tested the prediction. How utterly ignorant to claim that observations of distant gas clouds are proof of anything.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Just because it can't be physically touched, does not mean it can't be observed and anylized [sic].

You seem to have a problem in differentiating an observation from proof. Observation and analysis are not the same as proof. I have observed vast expanses of water before me as I drove across the Nevada salt flats. I understand why there was no water there. I don't jump to the conclusion that there is a vast ocean that can only be seen from miles away. I observed it, but it isn't proof that it exists.

[rez]

Gallo, do you think Astrobiology is science?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: gallo You can't even get that right. Galileo observed satellites around other planets and hypothesized that the earth was not the fixed center of the universe. Galileo hypothesized that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. Wouldn't it be better if you actually educated yourself before speaking? What ignorant balderdash. The impact of Shoemaker-Levy was an observation. It was predicted based on old fashioned Newtonian physics. Did it offer evidence or was it proof, beyond a doubt, to the extent that we must reject evidence to the contrary in the future? How ignorant of science can you be? So observations are proof, rather than data? And I thought that science required an hypothesis, a falsifiable prediction, and experimentation that tested the prediction. How utterly ignorant to claim that observations of distant gas clouds are proof of anything. You seem to have a problem in differentiating an observation from proof. Observation and analysis are not the same as proof. I have observed vast expanses of water before me as I drove across the Nevada salt flats. I understand why there was no water there. I don't jump to the conclusion that there is a vast ocean that can only be seen from miles away. I observed it, but it isn't proof that it exists.

Galileo PROVED that the planets went around the Sun by OBSERVING that Venus and Mercury had PHASES, but the other three planets he could see did not. He built a model and OBSERVED the same thing, PROVING that not only must the bodies be circling a central light source, but that the Earth "his relative position" was third in line.

Now we have PROVEN Galileo right through the use of probes and sattelites, and by astronauts actually going into space.


If you don't like what science "proves" fine, but don't insult those who accept it for what it is.

TRUTH.

[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Galileo PROVED that the planets went around the Sun by OBSERVING that Venus and Mercury had PHASES, but the other three planets he could see did not. He built a model and OBSERVED the same thing, PROVING that not only must the bodies be circling a central light source, but that the Earth "his relative position" was third in line. Now we have PROVEN Galileo right through the use of probes and sattelites, and by astronauts actually going into space. If you don't like what science "proves" fine, but don't insult those who accept it for what it is. TRUTH.

No, sweetie. You're still wrong. And even if you shout, stamp your feet, and hold your breath, it isn't going to change. I've spent too many years studying science, teaching science, and doing science not to know what it is and how it works.

By the way, Kelvin proved that the earth could be no more than 4 million years old. That's TRUTH? Are more recent scientists misguided? Apparently they don't know the TRUTH.

By the way, even Wikipedia says, "Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, science tests some aspect of the world and attempts to provide a precise, unequivocal framework to explain it."

You might read Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What is this thing called Science? Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge. 266p

Curd, Martin & Cover, J.A. (eds.) 1998. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. W.W. Norton & Company. New York/London. 1379p.

or the first section of

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History - The Evolution/Creation controversy. Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York. 552p

The last book has an excellent explanation of science, and then contrasts it to pseudoscience. It is always better to learn what you are talking about before you speak.