and some of the lamebrain theories it has brought us.

I wonder if the application of scientific method has yielded anything useful?

Man....I can't think of anything.....so probably not.

Seriously, scientific method is great as long as it entails more than just a theory. Or, as I use to kid my Quality Assurance folks, even something with a 98% level of confidence can be 100% wrong.

...um, no. Gotta call shenanigans on this one.

Actually,

it was the scientific method that proved:

- the Earth is NOT the center of the universe,

and

- the world is NOT flat.

Those were beliefs that were promulgated as religion,

and, increasingly, it looks as though human caused climate change is also more of a superstitious belief that will eventually be DISproved through the application of the scientific method.

Isn't that so true to life. This is what politics and emotion can do for argument. The reverend Gore has buffaloed so many in selling his snake oil.

Al Gore and his father were great con men.

Hey! If not for Gore inventing the interwebs, we would not even be posting here today. You all ought to send him a thank you e-Christmas-card. ;p

So you bought in on Y2K?

True, true.

I'll probably take some heat for this (no pun intended) but in the last few years I'm begining to believe there is something to all this climate change talk. I can't prove it scientifically, but you see so many changes being reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to dismiss them as natural occurences.

Having said that I also believe the current proposed "solutions" are nothing but a fleecing of the general public and won't do much to stop whats going on. They are only going to make a few people rich at the expense of all the others. I don't know what the answer is. I'm certainly no activist enviromentalist. I'll save energy and make sound enviromental decisions if the also make economic sense. If not then it's business as usual. If something doesn't make economic sense then it also doesn't make enviromental sense in my book.

2. Author: andytv Date: 12/17/2009 11:29 AM Reply

I wonder if the application of scientific method has yielded anything useful?

Man....I can’t think of anything.....so probably not.

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

The discovery of Penicillin: accident in a petri dish.

The laws of displacement: revelation in a bath tub.

The laws of gravity: a guy getting hit on the head by an apple.

Microorganisms: accidentally discovered while looking at tooth scum.

X-Rays: discovered when someone playing with fluorescent light bulbs noticed their film was all exposed.

Vaccines: discovered by accident/

Photography: came about because of a broken thermometer.

Microwave ovens: discovered because someone had a candy bar in their pocket.

The Pacemaker: discovered because someone pulled the wrong part from a supply box.

Between scientific method and sheer dumb luck, I'd probably split the odds 50/50.

5. Author: BiggDawg Date: 12/17/2009 05:59 PM Reply

Actually,

it was the scientific method that proved:

- the Earth is NOT the center of the universe,

and

- the world is NOT flat.

Those were beliefs that were promulgated as religion,

and, increasingly, it looks as though human caused climate change is also more of a superstitious belief that will eventually be DISproved through the application of the scientific method.

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

This is not true.

Scientific Method is based basically out of Greek Reason and philosophy. The afforementioned tenants were accepted scientific facts because they were laid down by (I believe) Ptolemy...a Greek scientist.

It was established science, and maintained by an overall consensus of scientists.

This was only overturned when a polish monk (a religious man) showed how the earth actually rotated around the sun. Even then, it was the same types of people trying to call rational minds "Climate Change deniers" that were attacking notions that the world was round and the sun rotated around the earth.

The whole notion that the Flat World was somehow created by a religion is totally and utterly false. It is a huge myth. A Flat World, earth-centric view of the Universe was adopted and supported by the scientific community of the time. This is furthered by the fact that the Bible does not make specifics as to planatary alighments (the study of the stars is a bit of a taboo in the Old Testament), or the order of the Universe. There are different parts of the Bible that can be interpreted as supporting a Flat World, but then again there are also parts of the Bible that can be interpreted as supporting a Round World argument.

The Bible, in the end, focuses on other things entirely.

I also think it is a little telling that the people pushing this scientific fraud do so in the name of "Climate Change." As if the climate doesn't change, and hasn't changed over the millions of years the earth has been around.

That'e because they know if they keep calling it "Global Warming," it's going to come back to bite them (like it is right now).

"Scientific Method is based basically out of Greek Reason and philosophy."

Not necessarily, though there is certainly no conflict between them.

"Scientific method" is the process of establishing a testable hypothesis, and then collecting empirical data to disprove it (or not).

In fact, since the earth is NOT center of the universe, and the world is NOT flat, those could NEVER have been "proven" by the scientific method even if they were accepted by general belief. They could only (eventually) be disproven by said scientific method, which obviously has been true.

"The Bible, in the end, focuses on other things entirely."

Which is likely true, but what's the point? No one (except you) brought up "the Bible," only "religion." They are not the same, I am sure you can agree. It was, indeed, religion which promulgated and perpetuated those falsehoods long after the scientific method had disproven the beliefs that the world was flat and universe-centric.

Food for thought:

The ice in Greenland is melting (a fact). Under the ice archaeologists are finding the remains of Viking farms and homesteads. They now understand that when the Vikings settled Greenland, there was no ice sheets covering the land. That being the case, isn't it logical that we are currently in a cold period? That as the earth moves around the solar system we go through hot and cold cycles? If Global Warming takes us back to those warmer times, is that not part of the cycle of life on earth? Wouldn't human intervention to maintain the earth's current temps be more artificial/harmful than if we simply let nature take its course?

"That being the case, isn’t it logical that we are currently in a cold period? That as the earth moves around the solar system we go through hot and cold cycles? If Global Warming takes us back to those warmer times, is that not part of the cycle of life on earth? Wouldn’t human intervention to maintain the earth’s current temps be more artificial/harmful than if we simply let nature take its course?"

Of course you are correct.

It is nothing short of hubris to actually believe that mankind can (much less, has) affect the global climate in any meaningful way, either for the better or for the worse.

16. Author: BiggDawg Date: 12/20/2009 02:16 PM Reply

"Scientific Method is based basically out of Greek Reason and philosophy."

Not necessarily, though there is certainly no conflict between them.

"Scientific method" is the process of establishing a testable hypothesis, and then collecting empirical data to disprove it (or not).

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

VictorXXX and I have had some lenghty arguments over this.

The fact is that the "scientific method" requires developing a hypothesis - which is the belief in an idea - from available facts. whether those facts are relevent to the theory is a different matter. The fact is, you go from a bunch of disassociated facts, to belief, and then (hopefully) to proof.

The part of *proving* a hypothesis is based out of Reason, not the creation of the hypothesis itself. There is a reason why I say this. As Westerners, we are HEAVILY influenced by the ancient Greeks, moreso than we perhaps understand. And the origins of our modern scientific method - when you dig deep enough - goes right back to people like Aristotle and Archimedes. That because the notion of Reason - which is second nature to Westerners because of our roots in ancient Greek culture - is not present in a lot of different cultures.

Greek influence on the Middle East, especiallt after the conquests of Alexander the Great, eventually brought about the Inductive Method, which is a precursor to a stated scientific method.

The fact is, though, that a lot of really important discoveries were found by pure accident. Furthermore, their advancement took lots of trial and error, which isn't all that scientific, nor really methodical.

A little like suggesting that all haute cuisine is based on cro magnon man, since they also used heat to cook...

Both the scientific method and the discipline of logic have come a long way in 2500 years.

One does not "prove" a hypothesis in the scientific method, one only disproves it (or fails to do so).

To be precise, ALL discoveries happen by accident, or more accurately, by simply observation of existing phenomena. Yet it takes the scientific method to move it forward. To view the specifics proposed above:

Pure MYTH, on a par with saying Washington chopped down a cherry tree:

. The laws of displacement: revelation in a bath tub.

. The laws of gravity: a guy getting hit on the head by an apple.

The others may have all been discovered through observation (accident? "potato" or "po-tah-toe?"), but it then took the scientific method to establish what and why the bread mold killed bacteria, or how to make mercury into photographic material, what was causing flourescence and what an X-ray was and how to produce and use them, and so forth.

"I wonder if the application of scientific method has yielded anything useful?

Man....I can’t think of anything.....so probably not."

An ironic statement, given that it was written by artificial light, on a computer, and posted on the internet.

Perhaps the forest keeps getting in the way of the trees?