There is no scientific method

[gamila]

That there is no scientific method is shown by the early reception of darwins theory of evolution-this shows the fact that science has no method

some say the scientific method is falsification

but at the time of its presentation darwins theory was falsified by the cambrian explosion

even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory

if falsification is the scientific method
darwins theory was shown to be false


colin leslie dean points out dawrin admitts the cambrian explosion destroyed his theory
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf

"Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

it has been shown in another thread

about15913.html

that Wilberforce showed that darwins theory was falsified
even darwin admiits the logic of Wiberforces points

Darwin himself thought Wilberforce's criticisms fair or at least faceable. `I have just read the "Quarterly" ' he wrote to Hooker in July, 1860. `It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the "Anti-Jacobin" against my Grandfather ... '33. A letter to Lyell on 11 August is significant:'... This morning I recommenced work and am at dogs; ... By the way, the Bishop makes a very telling case against me, by accumulating several instances where I speak doubtfully; but this is very unfair, as in such cases as this of the dog, the evidence is and must be very doubtful

this is a good example of the fact that science has no method
some say the scientific method is falsification
but even darwin saw the cambrian explosion falsified his theory

if falsification is the scientific method
darwins theory was shown to be false
thus
that should have been the end of darwins theory

[AFJ]

Gamila wrote:
That there is no scientific method is shown by the early reception of darwins theory of evolution-this shows the fact that science has no method

Gamila,
Isn't that because in reality in the case of evolution, historical science is being treated as operational science? Colin Leslie Dean has a point, but he takes it in a philosophical direction.

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.

Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=644

You bring up really good points Gamila, but then you throw the baby out with the bath water. Wouldn't it be better to spit out the bones and chew the meat? There is a a scientific method based on experimentation and observation which explores how things work, but we are all limited in knowledge.

Please do not use NS and evolution as a litmus test for the scientific method. Evolution sells so it gets a pass.

[gamila]

There is a a scientific method based on experimentation and observation which explores how things work, but we are all limited in knowledge.

there is no method as the case pointed out with darwins theory
it was falsificed and he even admits that
thus that should have been the end of darwins theory

[AFJ]

As far as I am concerned it is falsified, but obviously to many the arguments against it are not strong enough. The evolutionists are very persistent though--I do give them credit--their dedication to the ever changing theory resembles faith.

[mcar]

So here we go again... (oops.. sorry for that one). If there's no scientific method, can we thus say that we learn without processes as well? since we do things without a plan or order?

[gamila]

If there's no scientific method, can we thus say that we learn without processes as well?

fact is there is no scientific method as the darwin case shows
it was falsified at the time -darwin admitted it- and that should have been the end of his theory
but it wasnot

[canalon]

Scientific method and Evolution by natural selection have the same relation as the laws of physics and the Cold Stirling engine principle. Even if the latter was proven to be impossible, it would not invalidate the basics of physics.
And the theory of evolution by natural selection as understood and used now is to what Darwin understood what a modern Ferrari is to N.-J. Cugnot fardier à vapeur... But since for the moment you have failed to impres anyone by your understanding of evolution, and its supposed flaws, i am seriously starting to wonder if you are able to provide any insight into a discussion about evolution.

[gamila]

And the theory of evolution by natural selection as understood and used now

colin leslie dean has in another thread shown that based on todays definition of natural selection the theory of natural selection is
wrong

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ection.pdf
THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG



about15762.html
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit

3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right

Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie


”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005



seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

[Jasper903]

(This is entirely my own opinion as formed under the tutelage of my first-year biology instructor.)

The scientific method is less of a man-made process as it is "what happens" when the process of science is engaged in. If that was the method was entirely man-made, it would have been altered as much as, say, religious theology. Instead it maintains its pure form, though individuals may deviate form it, because it is not dependent on man at all. It is as man-made as 2+23. We labeled it, but the concept was already out there, involved in the workings of the universe. When our ancestors picked up 23 rocks, and then picked up one more, they had 24 whether they knew it or not. In the same way, when we as children discovered that a flashlight did not work because the batteries were dead, we used the scientific method, though we did not call it that.

[gamila]

nevertheless there is no scientific method as the Wilberforce example shows

Wilberforce showed that darwins theory was falsified
even darwin admiits the logic of Wiberforces points

[telanerv]

gamila you might as well say the following as they are equivalent:

There is no time
there is nothing "right' and nothing "wrong"
as these are also abstract human concepts

and maybe, gamila, there is no spoon

[gamila]

fact is
if falsification is the scientific method
darwins theory was shown to be false
thus
that should have been the end of darwins theory