Replies

So in your mind gathering data is what is called an "experiment" in scientific circles.

What on earth - he asked, incredulously - would you consider an "experiment"?

So do you think observing the sun rising each morning is a repeatable experiment that proves the sun revolves around the earth?

The experimental observation of the rising of the sun is consistent with that particular hypothesis. Unfortunately, that hypothesis fails when additional observations are made about the nature of the relationship between the sun and the earth. What, did you think you can make one single observation, and then sit back forever, comfortable in the knowledge that you know everything there is to know?

I hate to embarrass you this way but you are completely wrong

Don't worry - if, by some unusual convergence you manage to score a single point someday, I'll just steal a page from your book and pretend it never really happened, that I didn't mean what I said, that I was really talking about something else, that "is" really means "was", and so forth and so on. Really, you've provided more than enough instruction for anyone who needs to know how to brazen through being wrong about nearly everything that flows from one's keyboard.

Observing naturally occurring data is not an experiment. Observing the fossil record is not a "test under controlled conditions"

So you assert, but as per usual, you are obviously in no hurry to do anything to actually support such an assertion - heaven forfend that we might have you living up to the standard you demand of everyone else. LVD declares that it's "not a 'test under controlled conditions'," and by gum, that's it - case closed.

I don't think so. Whenever you're ready to put a little meat on those bones by actually supporting such an assertion, I'll be around.

What on earth - he asked, incredulously - would you consider an "experiment"?

I posted it once - I can post it again.

experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

The experimental observation of the rising of the sun is consistent with that particular hypothesis.

What the heck is a "experimental observation" supposed to be?

So you assert, but as per usual, you are obviously in no hurry to do anything to actually support such an assertion - heaven forfend that we might have you living up to the standard you demand of everyone else. LVD declares that it's "not a 'test under controlled conditions'," and by gum, that's it - case closed.

I see you do like to make a fool out of yourself. It was not my declaration.

Sorry to embarrass you yet again:

Experiment - A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

I am sure your next statement will be "you not can find scientific definitions in the dictionary" or some such nonsense. Fine, please show us the supporting evidence for your "definition". OK, let's recap: general_re says "experiment" means observing data. General_re then becomes a world class hypocrite by claiming I have not provided supporting evidence when the fact is I have provided supporting evidence for my definition of the word and general_re wants us to take his word on it (general_re declares...case closed).

Please provide supporting evidence for your personal definition of the word "experiment"