If you make an inquiries into the history of the scientific method, virtually everyone points back to the ancient Greeks - specificially Plato - for the basic invention.

A lot of this has to do with specific culture. We see this today with the conflict between Western and Islamic cultures. Islam itself is not what one would define as a Rational culture. Their philosophy transcends (or bypasses, depends on what you want to call it) rationaility (not that they are irrational people, but their core beliefs do not fall within the bounds of what Westerners define as Reason). The same is true of many, many Eastern cultures. The Greek way of looking at things and understanding the world was radically different in many ways.

Furthermore, Classical Logic is also a Greek invention. It too is based on Reason.

And while scientific method is alleged to use observation as the basis for theories, the fact is that many great inventions never used a scientific method for their development. When Edison created the light bulb, he didn't go through the full rigor of a scientific method to prove out the light bulb - he kept tweaking crap until it worked.

The same is true of the microwave, and of penicillin. In fact, if you read some of the history concerning penicillin, you realize how much of that was nothing but throwing random guesses up against a wall to see what stuck.

And this happens more often than not. However, the scientific method was definately used during the formation of various "Climate Change" analysis, and look where that's gotten us.

Exactly, Scientific Method has replaced the Bible among many of the Global Warming Community as the mantra for holding back the ideas and common sense of the unwashed and/or ignorant (as they see it).

They tie in famously with the left because they both see themselves as elite intellectuals who feel their superior intellect gives them the right to tell the rest of us how we should act.

Its like with Atheists, they don't believe in God so why should it matter what others believe? No, they feel they have to force others to believe as they do because their elite vision/beliefs give them the right to force that correct vision/belief on the less fortunate. Fact is they believe others are less than them and therefore they are entitled to rule over those less fortunates. They see themselves as benevolent tyrants. Its the same with the Left and the Global Warming Community. Like in animal Farm, "Some pigs are just more equal than others."

Yes! greenwolf! Those stupid atheists and their science. Pssht, don't they know there is only one book in which we should base all our beliefs and scientific theories. PRAISE HIM! goddidit.. debate over..

Ah, so sad.

No reputable scientist would ever say "The science is agreed, debate over." (I know you are kidding, jschere1, but it demonstrates the demagoguery of dogmatists like Al Gore.)

The scientific method requires, nay welcomes and invites, verification and peer review. If a conclusion is sound, it will stand up to inquiry. If not it will eventually be cast aside. Only if the one who propounds the theory fears it is not true do they fear testing and peer review.

Thus, by stating "the debate is over," Gore shows himself to be a demagogue (and I might add that by deeming Galileo and Copernicus to be "heretics," and fearing their conclusions, did the church invite distrust.)

In the true scientific method, the debate can NEVER be over, it is always incomplete; though it may be deemed "sufficient" (for the present time only).

Oh, and you bet Edison followed scientific method in any of his thousands of inventions (including the incandescent lightbulb), as well as penicillin. What you call "random guesses" were but hypotheses being tested. (tomato/to-HAH-to) Would you REALLY suggest that Fleming's findings (penicillin), published in British Journal of Pathology in 1929, and for which he won the Nobel Prize in Medicine were not scientifically rigorous?

Sure, scientific method was used in the various climate change conclusions; but that hardly suggests the method is wrong, only unfinished. To deny investigation moves their proponents toward demagoguery. Proper application of the same method will also disprove the current politically-motivated conclusions (but only if they truly ARE false, of course).

I personally do not accept the global warming as man-caused conclusions, but only because (contrary to Mr. Gore's assertions) the science is NOT fully settled. I will resist the demagogue's position that it is wrong (dammit, God says so), though; preferring to let further investigation (yes, scientific method) run it's course.

24. Author: BiggDawg Date: 12/21/2009 04:01 PM Reply

A few things:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No reputable scientist would ever say "The science is agreed, debate over." (I know you are kidding, jschere1, but it demonstrates the demagoguery of dogmatists like Al Gore.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to work at a place that developed various deviced for medical research. I used to hear the arguments between the scientists, and they generally got pretty vicious.

Trust me. This kind of crap goes on all the time. I heard name-calling and insults hurled over some minor molality (sp:?) levels in a stupid washing solution; it was that nuts.

A pure and unblemished as you like scientific method to be presented, it doesn't work like you claim. Nor does the scientific community behave in the almost monastic manner as you'd like to present.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and you bet Edison followed scientific method in any of his thousands of inventions (including the incandescent lightbulb), as well as penicillin. What you call "random guesses" were but hypotheses being tested. (tomato/to-HAH-to) Would you REALLY suggest that Fleming’s findings (penicillin), published in British Journal of Pathology in 1929, and for which he won the Nobel Prize in Medicine were not scientifically rigorous?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A while back, maye about 10 years or so ago, there was a PBS special (Frontline?) that did some reserch about the discovery of penicillian. If you can find it, I highly recommend you watch it.

I seriously doubt was was described in that documentary could be classified as a "method."

As for Edison: once more, throwing crap up against a wall to see what sticks isn't exactly what I'd call "scientific" or "methodical."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, scientific method was used in the various climate change conclusions; but that hardly suggests the method is wrong, only unfinished. To deny investigation moves their proponents toward demagoguery. Proper application of the same method will also disprove the current politically-motivated conclusions (but only if they truly ARE false, of course).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished?

I thought we had a "consensus?"

Furthermore, what's going on isn't "investigation." People are making assertions based on computer models that haven't even been verified as matching control conditions. Furthermore, as several climate scientists will point out, these various models don't even take into consideration important things like percipitation.

However, we have these same people trying to pressure peer-reviewed publications to essentially blackball dissenters. All of this is being done so that there is only one accepted theory. much like weeds crowding out the vegtables in the garden.

This isn't Al Gore's doing, this is the present scientific establishment. So, GreenWolf's cartoon is pretty accurate.

Notice the qualifier "reputable" on "scientist."

No argument on the cartoon, pretty funny at that. The only argument has to do with the caption that was added on posting, "Scientific Method," where that is incorrect. Perhaps "Scientific Dogma."

As for the rest? Well, I'll bow to the obviously superior experiences of those who cite anecdotes over those of us who actually do this stuff.

{eyes rolling}

ROFLMAO....Don't tell me you are actually attempting to look down your nose at me from your "elite intellectual" position of pseudo authority based on your position as an "established expert". Even for you that's pretty pretentious.