In Adam’s defense, I don’t think it’s terribly fair for you to say this, David:
If you look back over the past few pages of this thread, there are dozens of examples of people in the evolutionist camp slinging around the word “theory” when they should have said “hypothesis”. For example, JonF:
Just trying to be fair.
Jab1 wrote:
“Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent [religious] experiences in any way ‘inferior’ to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence — the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion — to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.”
V. S. Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain
David B. wrote:
"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists
"The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research
scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the
appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege
science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science
ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps
listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include,
a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a
hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw
conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific
method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.
"One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method
may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research
journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a
standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited
by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final
journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was
investigated.
"Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that
no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson,
1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific
method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be
disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of
the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory
workbench.
“Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems
with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of
course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be
learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when
puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually
be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in
favor of discussions of methods of science.”
William McComas
Holly:
Yes, perhaps I should have said hypothesis. I don’t think that has any bearing on the thrust of my argument.
Libertarions:
OK, I’ll grant you that much, maybe even most, scientific resarch fdoes not follow the so-called “classical scientific method”.
What’s your point? Are you arguing that naythong that is named as science is ipso facto science?
jrf
No; I didn’t mean to criticize you or your argument. The word “theory” has two distinct meanings. One can tell from the context which meaning is meant. As has been pointed out before, it’s a common Creationist tactic to say, “Evolution is only a theory”.
I’m just being nitpicky at David. 
jab1 said:
I posted a correction to the origin of length-of-day estimates for the Precambrian in the same thread.
With respect to Libertarian’s above post about the ten myths of science:
My first thought, when I read the article, was that the author could not possibly be involved directly in day-to-day research in the physical sciences, else he would not have been so dismissive of a fundamental way to approach science THAT ACTUALLY WORKS. I then discovered that the author, Dr. William F. McComas, is indeed not a scientist but a pedagogist; he is the director of the Center to Advance Science Education at USC. (BTW, the article was published in a journal devoted to science and math pedagogy at the high school level.) He is apparently much decorated in his field, but I submit to you that he is one of those well-meaning folks who observes at a distance, and thus doesn’t really understand what it’s like to actually perform science. His perspective comes a little too close for my taste to that post-modernist “everything is subjective” crap that gets flung around with unbelievable ease in the social sciences.
Yes, creativity of thought plays an extremely important role in the conduct of science. So does serendipity. Plus, I don’t recall anyone ever saying that any ideas ever conceived of outside of the framework of the scientific method were automatically invalid. However, once I’ve had my brilliant thought about how to develop a grand unified theory of everything, I still have to take certain steps to convince my fellow scientists of the worthiness of my thought by: 1) gathering data, 2) formulating a formal hypothesis, and 3) testing the hypothesis.
If I don’t take those steps, my proposals don’t get funded (i.e., the review panel will assume that I have no idea how to properly conduct research).
If I don’t take those steps, I don’t get my papers published in peer-reviewed journals (at least those that are worth a damn).
Since scientists are people too (imagine that!), there surely are cases in which scientists may not operate in complete objectivity. I’m privy to a particular case of that right now. However, the “scientific method” at least provides a guideline for conducting research in the most objective way possible. If someone is truly conducting research in a largely subjective fashion, that body of work will be exposed for what it is (poor science) in relatively short order.
Just what are you suggesting, Lib, by citing this article in response to one of David B’s comments about the scientific method?
Fillet wrote:
[shiver…]
That’s a bit like saying, “I found out he wasn’t a doctor but a dermatologist.”
JonF wrote:
And Fillet wrote:
Nothing, except that the “scientific method” is not the holy grail of science. Discovery is. And discovery often happens by mistake and chance. The scientific method is like deductive logic, useless for inspiring us, but useful for documenting our inspirations.
How I fixed my farm truck
Truck was blowing fuses at night.
I used a couple of fuses and saw that the problem only occured when the interior accessory lights were adjusted to bright.
I hypothesized that there might be a short in one of the accessory light wires.
In turn, I disconnected the power from each accessory until I no was no longer blowing fuses.
I reconnected the rest of the accessory lights excepting the one at which fuses stopped blowing.
Fuses were no longer blowing. This was proof that there was only one short.
I traced the wire from that accessory light and found that the ground wire had fouled with the power wire to the cigarette lighter.
I fixed it the short.
Elapsed time: about 8 minutes.
While I did not deliberately use the scientific method, it is what I did.
I am quite sure scientist don’t whip out a crib card to make sure they don’t forget a step. This doesn’t mean that they are not following the method.
THe term “scientific method” is descriptive of what careful people do while attempting to solve a problem.
It is by no means the “10 commandments of science”
Lib, OK, I could have expressed myself better. What I meant was that Dr. McComas teaches others how to teach science & what it is, but he has apparently no personal experience in the conduct of scientific research in the physical sciences (which are a completely different ball of wax from social sciences). That’s no better than trying to learn programming from someone who read all the books but never actually hacked their own code.
BTW, there are, in practice, numerous scientists whose daily tasks & responsibilities do not include teaching, so scientist does not automatically = pedagogist.
You also said:
There’s no such thing as a holy grail of science. Nor is the scientific method an end unto itself. You’ll note that I said earlier:
Discovery is wonderful. Discovery is fantastic. It’s a marvelous feeling when you come to a realization that you’d never had before, or when you find that no one else has ever before noticed the things you have. I’m all in favor of trying to infuse this spirit into people who are learning about science.
But the brutal truth of the matter is that not every day is a “Eureka!” sort of day, with discoveries popping up everywhere. Much of the advancement of science requires long hours of intense & often dull labor before one can demonstrate that that wonderful insight that hit like a ton of bricks actually has some basis which others can test for themselves. This is the level at which the scientific method performs an invaluable service by giving everyone a common framework in which to assess ideas.
It is also extremely important that people are taught that scientific research is conducted in as objective a manner as possible, and that scientists don’t pull results and interpretations out of their derrieres.
Exactly, Scylla
That was your inspiration. What you did following that was merely to prove your inspiration was right. But if you had taken analogous steps with a bogus hypothesis, your fuses would still be blowing.
Fillet
[qote]It is also extremely important that people are taught that scientific research is conducted in as objective a manner as possible, and that scientists don’t pull results and interpretations out of their derrieres.
[/quote]
Yes, you are right, of course.
That said, it is also extremely important that people are taught that scientific discovery can be subjectively inspired (as in Einstein’s famous thought experiments), and that the purpose of the scientific method is to document your discoveries.
What you don’t want, I presume you you would agree, is students who close their minds to all inspiration, thinking that they can derive discoveries by following certain steps. A logical deduction has never led to any new truth, but has always simply proved an hypothesis first assumed.
I just don’t want kids thinking that science will do their work for them if they will just paint by the numbers.
Lib said:
On these points I couldn’t agree with you more! 
Lib:
At least in my particular example I am afraid that inspiration had nothing to do with it. I understand that there are only a few explanations for why a fuse can blow:
A short (most common)
Wrong type fuse, or defective fuse (repeated failures disproved this)
Too much juice in the circuit (most frequently due to improperly installed user modifications, none of which I had)
The Creationist view: God didn’t want the interior lights in my truck to work so he blew the fuse(impossible to prove false.)
No inspiration recquired
I remain open to the possibility of the inspiration divine or otherwise. A more likely explanation for the motive force behind “THe Divine Wind” is a rapid but subconscious consideration and sorting of the possibilities, synonymous with “intuition” “gut-feeling,” “hunch,” and “lucky guess.”
sean uk wrote:
It’s not just skin cancer melanin protects against, it’s also sunburn. Plus, being darker in color would allow a hunter to sneak up on his prey more effectively at night, and make him family more difficult for other night predators to pick out.
Er, his family, not “him family”.
The Divine Wind? Hmm. Well, I really hadn’t even thought of any sort of mystical inspiration. (Recall that I gave Einstein’s thought experiments as an example.) I meant simply inspiration of the mundane sort; that is, the occurence of a first idea, or postulate — in your case, the mental list of things that it might be. It was after a review of your hunches that you used a sort of scientific method to zero in.
Your inspiration could have come from any source. You could have seen a cloud shpaed like a cigarette lighter, for that matter.
I think the scientific method is a lot like the process of writing code. Yes, you follow a basic series of common sense steps: think of something; code it; try it; revise it… But it’s that first step, that “think of something” that seperates the women from the girls.
I posted the Question?
Why are Black people Black? Yes i know Melanin (forgive me if i’ve mispelled this, can’t remember of the top of my head) protects against skin cancer and so is an advantageous adaptation.
But what about the drawback? Black is the best absorber of heat, which is a problem
in a blazing hot African climate.
Tracer replied
quote:
Ok, but surely the main problem with sunburn is that it causes cancers long term,
which brings me back to the difference between long and short term
disadvantages.Granted theres also Heatstroke , but is this a function of dehydration
or sunburn? I’m not sure.If the former then my point still stands.
As to your second point i have to say i don’t find it convincing.
Surely ‘modern primitive’ tribes (if you’ll forgive the expression)
like the Masai hunt during the day?Humans aren’t adapted for night
hunting,our senses are to poor.Hard to track properly at Midnight.
Not to mention they could find themselves being hunted by better
adapted night Predators.
sean uk wrote:
Point taken. Darker skin probably wouldn’t help us hunt. However, my point about darker skin providing better camouflage against those “better adapted night predators” still stands.
Oh! Wait! We MIGHT still be able to hunt under moonlight – in which case, a darker skin COULD help us.
And still no creationist has posted any decent scientific evidence to back his claims…