Experiments That Do NOT Need a Hypothesis
-
Yes there are at least a couple types of experiments that do not require a hypothesis.
One type is Exploratory Experiments:
Unfortunately Richie won't understand any of that because he is a moron who learned about experiments from reading wikipedia.
Yes there are at least a couple types of experiments that do not require a hypothesis.
One type is Exploratory Experiments:
Philosophers of experiment have acknowledged that experiments are often more than mere hypothesis-tests, once thought to be an experiment’s exclusive calling. Drawing on examples from contemporary biology, I make an additional amendment to our understanding of experiment by examining the way that ‘wide’ instrumentation can, for reasons of efficiency, lead scientists away from traditional hypothesis-directed methods of experimentation and towards exploratory methods.
1. Introduction. Recently, philosophers have argued that experiments do more than test hypotheses. Additional roles have included determining whether scientific instruments are functioning properly (Galison 1987) and exploring new phenomena when theories are either absent or in turmoil (Steinle 1997, 2002; see also Hacking 1983 and Radder 2003).
Unfortunately Richie won't understand any of that because he is a moron who learned about experiments from reading wikipedia.
posted by Joe G @ 10:41 AM
10 Comments:
At 10:46 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
OH NOES, JOE IS GETTING SPANKED IN THE LAST THREAD WHERE HE'S TEACHING US THAT ALL HUMAN ENDEAVOURS ARE EXPERIMENTS AND CATS ALSO DO EXPERIMENTS! better try and bury in with another post :-D
At 10:48 AM,
Joe G said…
OH NO RICHIE IS A LYING LITTLE FAGGOT AS I NEVER SAID CATS DO EXPERIMENTS- I SAID THE OPPOSITE.
ALSO I NEVER SAID ALL HUMAN ENDEAVORS ARE EXPERIMENTS.
AND AS USUAL RICHIE THE COWARD CAN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE OP.
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
But I know why Richie the coward won't address the OP- it reutes his nonsensical claims...
At 11:23 AM,
Joe G said…
And Richie runs away proving that he is a little faggot coward...
At 8:59 AM,
The whole truth said…
Look at who's talking about running away, joey. All you and your IDiots buddies ever do is run away, from your opponents and reality.
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Reality says you evoTARDs are cowards and always run away from producing a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for your position.
And YOU are nothing but a piece-of-shit cowardly liar.
At 9:53 AM,
Larry Tanner said…
Hi,
Apologies for an OT comment. I was interested in your dialogue with Jerad on UD. Based on that dialogue, I tried to express ID's theory of OoL and development of species.
I'd appreciate your review and recommended changes to make it more accurate. Thanks!
Intelligent Design is a theory of common design. At some point in the distant past, an intelligent being released one or more organismic "seeds" on earth. Each seed presumably had been designed by this being--although I am not sure we can assume this--and introduced to earth for the purpose of living here. Although each seed is crafted to give rise to organisms with common features--such as teeth, eyes, brains, and so forth--they all represent different life forms. Some seeds are for plants or plant types. Some are for humans, some are for ostriches, some are for bears, some are for ants, some are for salamanders, some are for swordfish. And so on.
The evidence of design is found at the microbiological level, where cells and cell processes indicate that they should have resulted only from a prior engineering and manufacturing process. The cells and processes of living organisms must have been planned by a being, then assembled and finished into an integrated whole. These integrated wholes were used to seed the earth with life. Without these seeds, earth would have remained forever a lifeless planet of water and rock.
Following the initial seeding, the organisms reproduced. Generation after generation, they grew in number and established various ecological balances in diverging populations across the planet. These balances shifted according to climate changes, as well as according to the dynamics of different populations growing, strengthening, migrating in or out, or contracting disease. Today, many of these populations are identified as species and subspecies, and various relationships among the species can be shown scientifically.
Current biology mistakenly views the relationships between species as the result of (1) common descent and (2) evolution via natural selection. Current biology errs because the level of microbiological complexity required for life to appear on earth could not have happened without an intelligent being placing seeds here. Therefore, common design better explains all of the evidence.
At 1:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Hi Larry, I am familiar with you and I am sure you have produced an entertaining strawman.
Intelligent Design is a theory of common design.
Intelligent Design would be OK without a common design. Common Design is a specific case of Intelligent Design.
At some point in the distant past, an intelligent being released one or more organismic "seeds" on earth.
We don't know what the designer(s) did. That is what science is for.
For example it could have been an all-out colonization- a 'Noah's Ark' from another planet.
The rest is just pure tard- is that what you were shooting for?
Current biology mistakenly views the relationships between species as the result of (1) common descent and (2) evolution via natural selection.
ID doesn't say that.
ID says- Current biology mistakenly says that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms, that just happened to have the ability to reproduce and perform the required daily sustaining tasks, via accumulations of random mutations. And that natural selection, a result, doesn't do anything, let alone mimic a designer.
But anyway Larry, perhaps you should focus on producing both a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for your position.
I can write your position's story with one sentence:
Somehow, some things happened at some point in time, kept happening and keep happening to make things the way they are now.
At 4:24 PM,
Larry Tanner said…
Thanks for the reply, Joe.
If I take out the common design part and anything that specifies what the designer(s) did, then it seems like ID's theory is just "ID happened."
The only definite I now have, based on your statements, is that my position (by which I assume you mean evolution? materialism? atheism?) is wrong.
Is ID not required to specify what happened and "who" could have been responsible?
At 7:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Hi Larry-
ID makes the same claims as archaeology and forensics, namely that when agencies act they tend to leave traces of those actions behind. Then, via cause and effect relationships, we can detect those traces and study them.
That said, as per Newton's rules for scientific discovery, if what someone thinks is designed can be produced by blind and undirected processes, the design inference falls. And that is how it has gone throughout history.
Some design inferences have been refuted and others have withstood all tests.
So, just as with archaeology and forensics, we study thed esign and all relevant evidence to help us figure it out and hopefully answer those unanswered questions.
Ooops- yes there is a criteria for determining design:
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
He goes on to say:
” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”
Post a Comment
<< Home