Shared publicly  - 
Futurama. Science. Professor Farnsworth.  via ►
Neeraj Kumar's profile photoVictor York-Carter's profile photolazy stalker's profile photoPaulo F. G. Ferreira's profile photo
.increasing the rate of the scientific method...comical. 
Jerry G
The Key to Science is getting good at proving yourself wrong.
consider for a moment how many of these points have been skipped entirely by climatologists...the sequence has been 1, 3, 6 and we're now busy doing 5 to support 6
Jerry G
+Øyvind Brandvoll *buzzer* wrong. None of them have been skipped. 2 included several cycles of studying varying solar output, and several other falsified hypotheses, as potential sources, which turned out to not be the issue.
4&5 experimentation with the whole planet is not viable, so instead experiments are done with models and chemistry at reasonable scales. We know these things apply at this scale, because the same models give us fairly reliable predictions of the weather, when we input the current and past weather data.

The problem is step 7. Win Arguments with people who have a vested interest in denying step 6, congratulations you're part of the process of Science. At least you can't burn us alive any more.
Well +Jerry G , your added point 7 certainly has no scientific merit but the fact that you choose this apporach to discussion (you want to 'win' something) illustrates the real problem with climate science: any objection to the most popular theory is frowned upon and moral-based evil motifs are attributed to those who dare to think otherwise. you'd make a superb inquisitor in the 14th century. Still glad you aqcknowledge that the scientifi method in its purest for does not apply to climate science as we have no way of checking the real influence of fossil combustion products. just a simple test in a glass tube test by arrhenius :)
Need a new Futurama promo? Why not Zoidberg
Let me start by saying that I have no religious or other faith-based objection to Darwinism, but it strikes me that when science speaks of Darwinism, it cannot speak of it in terms of the scientific method. Nobody has ever observed one species transform into another. I'm no scientist, but on my good days, I do consider myself a reasonably intelligent member of society. Can anyone point me towards a resource that spells out what the hard evidence is for Darwinism?
+Dave Robinson To be accurate, Darwin never spoke about one species turning into another. He observed "adaptation", in which one member of a species differs from other that lives in another environment, because "natural selection" makes to survive the most adapted one. The idea of trans-species evolution came later, but we use to point our finger to poor Darwin.
+Claudio Estrugo point taken, but I believe "Darwinism" is the term used to suggest that Natural Selection (which is observable) can account for the various species we have. I had thought this was Darwin's idea, hence the title of his book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection".
Remember my Junior High School
Dave: Natural Selection doesn't talk about your posit. Try reading it and getting your head around what he is saying in it, then look at what's been found since--rather than reading anti-evolution websites.
"Darwinism" is an 'Intelligent Design' term not a scientist's one, and reveals your agenda. It has no meaning and can't be usefully used the way you are trying to use it.
"Evolution by natural selection" is observed, is used to develop new medicines and technologies, is tried and tested. It exists, end of discussion. The /details/ of how we developed through it, however, would need a time machine to get all the details of.
Hey +Paul May, thanks for the response.  The Wiki article on "Darwinism" does suggest that creationists use the term negatively, but it also suggests that it's quite a neutral term for scientists and cites usage among scientists.  I didn't mean to cause disruption by my usage of the term.  

It's the "what's been found since" that I've personally wondered about.  What I mean is, I've wondered not about the truth of it, but about the methodology of it.  I can't imagine how something like the scientific method outlined in this post would be executed on events that take millions of years to occur.

I get it with stars, since there are relatively few types, and billions of data points to look at.  You can literally see the various "transitional states", if you will, by looking around.  They are also "simple" enough that we can run computer simulations with our theoretical data and prove out what happens.

Life is a bit trickier though, as it is complex enough that (again as far as I've seen) we can't model one species becoming another with computer simulation.  There are also many more types of life and observing transitional states today just isn't possible.

If you could point me in the direction of "what's been found since" I'd be grateful.  I really don't need evidence for it, I'm just looking for how the methodology stacks up against the post above.  Again, my intention was not to bring religion into this.
Add a comment...