And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific. This will be big news to professionals in astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.
Maybe "Rachumlakenschlaff" is Middle German for "Forrest Gump".
Rachumlakenschlaff said:
And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.
PatrickHenry wrote:
This will be big news to professionals in astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.
Ah... the psuedo sciences! Don't forget parapsychology. Actually, your list is very accurate in that all of these disciplines suffer from the same problem. While it is quite possible to practise science within them, and knowledge is definitely gained when this is done, none of their major tenants are ever proven or subject to the scientific method. They are all glorified exercises in pattern matching and statistical correlation, and they all keep changing the underlying science but continue to give their new theories the same name.
As a reminder, the
scientific method requires experimentation:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
The study of evolution consists of the above minus the experimentation, i.e., observation, hypothesis, conclusion. Therefore, it is not science. I fail to understand how scientists can claim to be practicing science when they do not follow the scientific method. If you would like to learn the value of experimentation, I would suggest talking with a physicist or aeronautical engineer. You should be very thankful that the planes you fly on were designed by and based on the principles derived by people who tested their theories with experimentation, and not by people who drew conclusions after observing the fossils of dead birds.
Astronomy: no one's figured out how to experiment on stars and galaxies.
Geology: anyone made an earthquake or moved a continent lately?
Anthropology: all the scientists that were around at the origin of man are dead and they didn't leave any notes.
Paleontology: how do you experiment on fossils? By definition, they're all past tense.
Climatology: the weather has been shown to be a chaotic system, unpredictable beyond a few days even with millions of data points. But that doesn't stop meteorologists from giving out 14-day forcasts that would, if they advertised for profit on TV, find themselves in the same trouble as Miss Cleo. As far as global climate change models are concerned, I seem to remember everyone predicting global cooling not that long ago... Fascinating how you can make a totally opposite prediction and people will still believe you. But it's science!!
Archaelogy: like paleontology, the study of the past. No one's figured out how to experiment on the past yet.
Cosmology: if we're talking astrophysics, then it has the same problems as astronomy. If were talking origins, then experiments on the past are once again the problem.