Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5133407" data-attributes="member: 177">Well, yes and no.The basic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">scientific method</a> goes something like this:1) You come up with a hypothesis about how the universe works.2) From the hypothesis, you get a prediction of some observable physical phenomenon that will occur under a particular set of circumstances you can create.  The prediction should be something that directly follows from your hypothesis, and it is best if it is something that is not also predicted by other popular hypotheses out there.3) You devise an experiment to create the circumstances, and test if what you predicted happens.4) If what you predicted happens, then you take it as support for the hypothesis. If what you predicted does not happen, you take it as suggestion that the hypothesis must be altered, and repeat.Repeat the cycle enough times, and you can convince yourself and others that the hypothesis is correct, at least until someone comes up with a test that shows the Universe deviates from your current hypothesis. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Step 2 is extremely important.  There are many hypotheses out there for which we cannot, even in theory, get a testable prediction.  These hypotheses lie outside the realm of science.  Evolution and geology and several other topics are what we often call "historical sciences" because it is difficult to develop predictable tests for hypotheses, and test them today.  They have to take their data fro the historical record.  They tend to vary the method slightly, to something more like - form hypothesis, check a whole lot of available data to see if it is consistent with hypothesis, alter hypothesis.  If you do this properly, the results are still pretty reliable.  It is the same basic mental process, and still strongly supported by data.It is still science, in that you can imagine data coming to light that makes the scientists throw current theories out the window.  They simply don't get to choose when to find that data.If your friend has a problem with evolutionary science, remind him that pretty much all modern medicine is drawn from a basis in evolution.  I don't know the example you speak of in detail.  Perhaps there was one particular specimen that had some jumbled-up bones.  But Diplodocus in general is still a recognized dinosaur genus, with many representative examples.  If he thinks that someone making an error in one specimen means that the genus cannot exist at all...Well, that's like saying that because one person thought he solved a particular sudoku puzzle, but actually had an error in it that he discovered later, that sudoku puzzles in general don't exist.  As you say, the fact that the error can be discovered and corrected is example that the method works, even if individuals bobble on occasion. Here, I ought to inform you - EN World has a "no politics, no religion" rule. The beliefs of real-world religions are not up for critique on these boards.</blockquote>

Verification