Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Yes! Forbes says there IS a scientific method

arroba Email

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!

Oh no Ethnan is wrong. If there is a methodology to science then its a methodology. Its not many ways. Thats saying conclusions in a subject can be drawn without rules governing investigation. NO! He shows why evolutionism GOT AWAY WITH IT. It was never demanded to prove itself using rules of biological evidence. Instead it used lines of reasoning and foreign subjects like geology and anatomy and genetics. Science to mean something must mean something. It must be rules to justify conclusions. Otherwise its just pre newton speculationism. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply