In response to a claim at New York Times that there is no scientific method.
From Ethan Siegel at Forbes:
There are lots of different ways to do science that are equally valid; one scientific method does not necessarily fit all cases. In astronomy, experiments are virtually impossible, as all you can do is make observations of what the Universe gives us. In the early days of quantum physics, the results were so surprising that it took many years before it was even possible to hypothesize in a sensible fashion, as the rules defied intuition. And in many fields, there are too many variables at play to accurately model the system even when all the underlying, governing equations are 100% known. Yet the differences in the details of how science is performed in no way invalidates astronomy, quantum physics, protein-folding or climate modeling as sciences. By the same token, however, the similarities between these scientific endeavors and poetry or philosophy do not elevate the latter to the status of being considered science. More.
Quite honestly, we’re just waiting to see if that Royal Society meeting on theories around evolution happens or not. Is science evidence-based? Or is it all about tenure?
See also: Larry Moran finds light switch
Follow UD News at Twitter!