herebedragons
New Member
I would like to have a discussion about the nature of evidence in scientific inquiry.
This discussion began over at EFT in the Science 101 thread where it was asserted that evolution is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method, and in particular that it does not test with experiment. I tried to explain that observations can be used to test hypotheses and gave some examples. However, it seems that they continued to equate observation with "looking at something". However, the idea that evolution needed to be tested by "experiment" continued.
The discussion then shifted to the Macroevolution Challenge where Infy presented a challenge for others to submit whether they agreed that specific examples were considered to be macroevolution or not. After 40 posts of blah, blah, blah ... Infy finally posted his answers here. In his answers he included an example of a single-celled algae becoming a colonial algae, which drew this response
So then a new member posted this thread Experimentation Versus Observation where she apparently noticed the same inconsistencies. I continued to press gilbo on what qualified as suitable evidence and did make some progress. I was not attempting to prove that evolution was true, however I was trying to nail his feet to the floor so that he would stop dancing around the issue of the nature of evidence. He determined that my line of discussion was off topic and wasn't willing to answer my questions.
I suppose all this is actually irrelevant to what I want to discuss here, I just wanted to give some background as to how this topic got started and also I wanted to vent some of my frustration about how this conversation went :x .
So, I would like to have a discussion as to what does and does not constitute evidence in the context of the scientific method.
Some of the questions that I think could be addressed are
What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?
What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?
Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?
Again, I want to focus this discussion on the nature of evidence, not whether evolution has evidence to support it.
Thanks
HBD
This discussion began over at EFT in the Science 101 thread where it was asserted that evolution is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method, and in particular that it does not test with experiment. I tried to explain that observations can be used to test hypotheses and gave some examples. However, it seems that they continued to equate observation with "looking at something". However, the idea that evolution needed to be tested by "experiment" continued.
The discussion then shifted to the Macroevolution Challenge where Infy presented a challenge for others to submit whether they agreed that specific examples were considered to be macroevolution or not. After 40 posts of blah, blah, blah ... Infy finally posted his answers here. In his answers he included an example of a single-celled algae becoming a colonial algae, which drew this response
When I called them out on this inconsistency, the discussion quickly turned to abiogenesis.Excuse me! 'Induced'? Who was there multiplied millions of years ago to 'induce' evolution of single celled organisms into multi-celled ones? That's cheating. You have to have an observation that NATURE does this by itself if you are going to prove evolution
So then a new member posted this thread Experimentation Versus Observation where she apparently noticed the same inconsistencies. I continued to press gilbo on what qualified as suitable evidence and did make some progress. I was not attempting to prove that evolution was true, however I was trying to nail his feet to the floor so that he would stop dancing around the issue of the nature of evidence. He determined that my line of discussion was off topic and wasn't willing to answer my questions.
I suppose all this is actually irrelevant to what I want to discuss here, I just wanted to give some background as to how this topic got started and also I wanted to vent some of my frustration about how this conversation went :x .
So, I would like to have a discussion as to what does and does not constitute evidence in the context of the scientific method.
Some of the questions that I think could be addressed are
What is required of observations that would qualify them to test a hypothesis?
What is the important issue(s) during the 'test hypothesis' phase of the scientific method?
Is there a difference between 'supporting evidence' and 'experimental evidence' ?
Again, I want to focus this discussion on the nature of evidence, not whether evolution has evidence to support it.
Thanks
HBD