It's surprising how often you can find this in many areas of academia, let alone the science disciplines.
I read reports that apparently India focused on using well-tested anti-viral medication to battle covid, rather than the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, and did well for it.
Seems the vast majority of dictionaries and definitions of science would disagree with that.
There are always academic rivalries as to whether social sciences or even life sciences constitute "real" science as they are not perceived to be so-called "hard" sciences. There's kind of an academic hierarchy where physics sees itself as "above" the other sciences, but also theoretical sees itself as above applied - physicists see themselves as superior to chemists, biologists, and engineers. I'm not sure what if anything really backs up their argument beyond human vanity.
Government bore the cost of vaccination. We were just asked to come. In many places, health workers came by themselves. When we have 1460 million people to care about, cost matters. Therefore, no Pfizer.
Replicated studies, and scientific consensus.
Well, that's the experimental method. Which would rule out other forms of studies, qualitative studies, survey or focus group data, evolutionary science in most cases, or archaeological finds or paleontology, those things are not experiments that can clearly be replicated - those are reliant upon using rigorous methods of data collection and continuing to collect data to form the larger picture. New data can confirm or challenge previous narratives. But they are not experimental.
Yep. But NBC decided to be misleading in their title on purpose.I read them. Then noticed that the same guy – Duncan Agnew – was referenced in both! What?
Re-reading, the earth is generally speeding up as measured over decades, but recent climate change effects is slowing the process, so the long-and-short of it is we were thinking of deducting a second from the clock in 2026 to account for this acceleration, but Agnew reckons it'll take three years longer to get there now, because of the slowing of the speeding up ...
I believe that every student should be required to take a stats course. It's amazing how gullible people are when they are presented with stats. I have seen stats presented with less than 10 participants yet presented as reliable. And if the statistic seems to agree with someone's opinion, there is no way to persuade them that the stat is flawed.
Isn't it just data, just information? This looks like a rib bone. Until you verify and find repeated info, get validation?
If you check the wiki outline of science, then I think you'll see you're talking about the physical or natural sciences, a branch of scientific investigation, that conforms to its own axioms, but that does not encompass the totality of science as such.
Its not quite as simple as that.
Again, not that simple.
Bad science does that ... good science can tell us a lot ... historians make much use of Luke's Gospel becuase he's so reliable on a number of matters, none of which are to do with faith and morals, but just historical insights recorded at a certain place and time ... Good science tells us a lot about the age of the Biblical books, for example, and the types of narrative ...
You're on dodgy ground here, though, as 'new thought' was much based on the ideology of mesmerism and spiritism – what William James called the "Mind Cure Movement" – and a lot of that was 'dubious science'.
Depends what sciences. Ancient Greek psychological observations were pretty much spot on. The language is different, but the premise is much the same.
No, evolution has not been 'repeated' nor 'verified' – it's never actually been observed to happen (one species evolving into another), rather, there is just such a vast weight of observational evidence that it's nigh-on impossible to deny.
That would mean that their gods would be wrong. It would also make their gods subservient to their subjects.
Actually 'philosophy' is the first science, and 'metaphysics' is the first philosophy. The 'applied sciences' emerged from under the banner of philosophy.
And yet the evidence tells another story ... based on that, the contributions made to 'science' by 'religion' is considerable – the Christian cleric John Buridan, the Christian Bishop Nicole Oresme and the Franciscan Friar Roger Bacon are spoken of as 'the fathers of empiricism', and they helped establish the scientific method as a mode of enquiry based on observation and experimentation upon which you set so much weight.
And yet it is an accepted theory. Like all sciences, its understanding evolves.
And yet to say religious thinking and religious understanding does not evolve is, again, just anti-religious propaganda. It's nonsense, Wil, really.
Well, now who's being disingenuous?
Where do you think the pursuit of knowledge starts?
Quite. And sacred texts were never intended as applied science commentaries in the first place.
Not sure what you mean by "just" data?
library.fiveable.me
www.bruker.com
Which - what you describe is more or less the experimental method, and when people are gathering field data like digging up bones, they don't have enough control over the environment to have truly controlled conditions, unlike laboratory experiments where they have tightly controlled laboratory conditions, and using the same methods time after time in a field dig won't result in always getting the same bones or same number of bones, on another dig, so it's not replicable in that sense, however, by trying to be uniform in their methods they can cut down on confounding variables (I cannot think of an example of confounding variables in paleontology offhand though) Even using the phrase confounding variables sounds so experimental method and they may or may not use that wording using other research techniques - not sure on that one.
Well, but the canon has evolved within several religions hasn't it? And commentaries abound and sometimes become deutero-canonical, and then there is evidence of redaction or revision of some texts?
