People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don’t think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn’t science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don’t know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions.
Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
Yes, if you take that sentence completely out of context from the rest of the sentences in that summary, you don’t need anything like testable hypotheses and falsifiable theories. But you do if you want to do science.
That is a strange response to finding out you’re not understanding the basic concept of the scientific method wherein a hypothesis has to be testable and a theory falsifiable is the cornerstone of modern science.
Literally no one is contesting any of this. At the very least i am not.
But at the same time it also ironically proofs my entire point.
This conversation wasn’t about the scientific method. It never was. I mentioned “scientific thought” which is a loan term i used specifically to set myself apart from established scientific curriculum.
Your quoting science with no relevance to what i am saying. Having to conclude you lack the rigor to work with such material. By focusing this narrow you have eliminated the entire value of philosophical tools to be used for creative scientific thought.
Nothing about sitting in a classroom or scrolling the web is a quantifiable testable an falsifiable theory. Your just relying on the information being true, which isn’t wrong, but doing so blindly isn’t right.
Go outside, touch grass. Do the science with your own brain and senses. I never told you what to believe only to open your mind a little.
Stop relying purely on other peoples conclusions yeses and nos and start giving your own conclusions and ideas especially to wilder scientific fiction and you will see talking about science actually becomes fun again.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don’t think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn’t science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don’t know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
That is not science.
Science uses the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sentence number two: “The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation”
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
Yes, if you take that sentence completely out of context from the rest of the sentences in that summary, you don’t need anything like testable hypotheses and falsifiable theories. But you do if you want to do science.
Buddy, are you ok?
That is a strange response to finding out you’re not understanding the basic concept of the scientific method wherein a hypothesis has to be testable and a theory falsifiable is the cornerstone of modern science.
Literally no one is contesting any of this. At the very least i am not.
But at the same time it also ironically proofs my entire point.
This conversation wasn’t about the scientific method. It never was. I mentioned “scientific thought” which is a loan term i used specifically to set myself apart from established scientific curriculum.
Your quoting science with no relevance to what i am saying. Having to conclude you lack the rigor to work with such material. By focusing this narrow you have eliminated the entire value of philosophical tools to be used for creative scientific thought.
Nothing about sitting in a classroom or scrolling the web is a quantifiable testable an falsifiable theory. Your just relying on the information being true, which isn’t wrong, but doing so blindly isn’t right.
Go outside, touch grass. Do the science with your own brain and senses. I never told you what to believe only to open your mind a little.
Stop relying purely on other peoples conclusions yeses and nos and start giving your own conclusions and ideas especially to wilder scientific fiction and you will see talking about science actually becomes fun again.
I see, you aren’t talking about science. Gotcha.
You’re getting upset every time I don’t rely purely on your conclusions.