Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View Problems for Theistic Evolution?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 12:10AM #41
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,894

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:57PM, Blü wrote:


Scientific method is a subset of reasoned enquiry.  I think of it as reasoning honestly from examinable evidence, but for a more detailed view, where else to start but at the Fountain of All Knowledge?


There they add things like experiment, hypothesis, testing and peer review.


Honesty is a feature of all reasoned enquiry.  It includes fairness, frankness and transparency; maximizing your objectivity; hence disclosing anything that may influence your judgment (like, as in the case of creationists, not subscribing to scientific principles, who's paying you to do the experiment, any benefit you stand to gain that depends on particular results, &c); looking for, fairly describing and discussing points inconvenient to your argument, not least papers by others; and so on.





Still, I would like a template, a guidebook, a series of agreed-upon steps, a set of clearly laid-out principles.


A white paper on it would be nice.


 


 

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 9:27AM #42
Blü
Posts: 25,076

MMarcoe


I guess rule 1 is -


1.  Choose a topic from nature.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 12:02PM #43
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,894

Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:27AM, Blü wrote:


MMarcoe


I guess rule 1 is -


1.  Choose a topic from nature.





That's a good start.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 7:44PM #44
Blü
Posts: 25,076

And next might be -


2. Carefully formulate your question regarding the topic.


3 (a)  Start gathering relevant information from works and journals of science, from observation and data collection, from conversations and correspondence with people who have useful expertise.


3 (b)  This includes relevant examinable evidence.  It also includes evidence-based data, and reports of examinable evidence from other sources.


3 (c)  Carefully distinguish facts on the one hand from opinion, hypotheis and interpretation on the other.



Comment is invited, of course.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 20, 2012 - 8:09PM #45
d_p_m
Posts: 9,993

Then ...


4. a. Carefully formulate an hypothesis that explains all known facts, or at the very least, does not contradict any of them. The hypothesis should be testable, and useful - it should explain relationships and allow predictions.


4. b. Devise ways to try to falsify key aspects of the hypothesis, and test it, trying to prove that it is incorrect.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook