Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14654)	1/21/2003 2:03:50 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

to some extent it [scientific method] tries to do something that ultimately may not be possible - control all inputs to measure an output. Still, controlling inputs gives you a better understanding of the certain inputs that cause the output. For example: I would like to find what causes cancer. I try to weed out certain elements and focus on a single input, test it, and decide if it indeed caused the cancer or not. Of course, I also have a control group where I do not introduce that input and see the statistics there. Then I decide. While imperfect, this method is far better than, say, looking at tea leaves for the cause of cancer. Let's say that physics behaves like someone walking through a meadow -- initially, there is no path, but with repeated passing, the path becomes better defined. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the influence between one scientist and another who has read his work. While it is definitely a factor, I would say that as experiments are repeated and discrepancies stick out, people come up with entirely new theories, new paths. We mustn't fall prey to the fallacy of mistaking the model ("science") for the real world ("experience"). I am not sure I understand your point here. Observation and experimentation ("experience") ARE an integral part of scientific method of understanding the universe. What if the space moves, or can be perturbed? The scientific method would never be able to tell if it was an "experimenter effect" or "fraud". I guess you are referring to "We are maybe in ether and cannot see it because it is all around us". Even then, there are ways to determine such an influence, as discarding the ether theory with measurements regarding the earth's movement showed. The statistics of small proportions make it very difficult to construct an experiment where this type of effect can be measured, even though with multiple repetitions, it can be seen anecdotally. Exactly. Repeatability (is there such a word?) of an experiment is of course very important for this very reason.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (14654)	1/21/2003 2:07:50 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

cosmicforce, re:I think the main problem with the scientific method is that to some extent it tries to do something that ultimately may not be possible - control all inputs to measure an output. That's close, it tries to control all variables that are of "significant" importance. Knowing the temperature on mars when boiling water on earth is hardly important to the experiment. The scientific method is a tool not a religion, it will fail in some cases but it has proven itself in numerous other tests. It's understanding when the tool gives false information that is key. What would you replace the scientific method with?