PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:01 am
Doc, of course there's no science without observation. Now I invite you to minimally Googling on scientific method, like David once advised me wisely and generously on another subject.
I've made the point before that there is no specific set of procedures that is common to every endeavour that gets called science. The thing is, there is no generally accepted definition of science. As often as not, what people mean by science, when they are insisting on some 'scientific method', are the 'hard' sciences; physics and chemistry in particular and the sometimes ambiguous biology. If you follow your own advice, and read the wikipedia entry on scientific method, you might notice the assumption that falsifictionism is a defining feature of 'science'. It isn't. If it were, then the theory of evolution (the mathematical modelling pointed out by davidm, notwithstanding) doesn't qualify, since there is no means of falsifying it, short of distilling god in a test tube.
As I was saying to Walker:
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 9:19 am
It is, in essence the study of the natural world, the aim of which is to discover predictable patterns, that we can quantify, thereby giving us the means to manipulate our environment to whatever ends suit our purpose. Whether you attribute those patterns to 'design' is, as I said, entirely your business. But the one thing I suspect everyone would agree on, is that we cannot control any god by scientific or technological means. For that reason, there is no point including god in science, because if he, she or it is going to do mad crazy shit, there's fuck all we can do about it.
It's a rough and ready characterisation of the harder sciences; a bit clumsy, but it gives the general gist.
PauloL wrote:You can start with difference between an observational study and a trial experiment.
You can do both with cookery, gardening, crochet, building a fire, chopping tomatoes, riding a bicycle, learning a language, blimey riley, even learning to walk. It's a start, I suppose, but it doesn't inevitably lead to an outcome that everyone would call scientific.
PauloL wrote:After that don't feel lost, I'll guide you.
Well, that'll be down your own chosen rabbit hole.