when did science start forming a conclusion then search for data to prove the conclusion. Doesnt the scientific method say that we form a hypothesis, obtain data, then form the conclusion? In the cases of global warming and evolution they are starting with a conclusion and searching for data to prove it. Why do they throw out data that doesn't fit their model?
2007-02-15 16:52:40 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ok genious. answer the question. There is a change when you find data to produce a conclusion. Real science analyses data to form a conclusion
2007-02-15 16:59:08 · update #1
The first step is OBSERVATION. That observation begs a question, which births a hypothesis. A hypothesis the can sound like a conclusion (especially if it was close). Then the hypotesis is tested, and on it goes. More of that evangelical science class huh?
2007-02-15 17:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Say what? You need to take a science class. The scientific method starts with an OBSERVATION not a hypothesis. What would your hypothesis be based on if you didn't make an observation first? Evolution and global warming are both observations, the first step in the scientific method.
edit: You really don't seem to have a clue. What do you think a hypothesis is? A hypothesis is what you believe the conclusion will be. You then gather data and testing to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. A conclusion is not always formed if the hypothesis is proven false. The observation still stands, we simply form a new hypothesis or modify the old hypothesis based on the outcome of the data. Therefore the scientific method does not always end in a conclusion.
edit: Dude, how can you analyze the data unless you find the data to analyze first? You make no sense. Seriously, dude, consider enrolling in a basic science class at your local community college.
2007-02-16 00:57:47 · answer #2 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 11⤊ 0⤋
Actually, you start with data, formulate a hypothesis that fits the data, make predictions based on the mechanism, then test the hypothesis by looking for its predictions. The new data is a starting point for yet more investigation. Data that don't fit may not fit for a number of reasons. A technique may be flawed corrupted or imprecise, or the model is wrong and needs to be revised based on the new data.When one test disagrees with a dozen, you investigate why the outlier is there, but use the congruent tests.
One of my favorite cases involved phonons. Ordinary diamond is a mixture of C-12, C-13 and C-14. The heat conduction properties of diamond were categorized. A theory regarding phonons said that a pure C-12 diamond would conduct heat twice as well because the molecular vibrations would be well organized. A technique to produced diamond by vapor deposition of pure C-12 was developed. The diamond produced by this technique conducted heat ten times as well. The researchers had to go back and reevaluate the model.
2007-02-16 01:17:12 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science has not been going backwards. The ToE was not a conclusion that Darwin sought evidence for. He started by observing the evidence, making a hypothesis, and testing evidence to see if his hypothesis was true. The same with global warming...evidence led to the conclusion, not the other way around.
Religionists are the ones who go the other way.
2007-02-16 01:01:29 · answer #4 · answered by Scott M 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
i think both conclusions have been reached through years of evidence. what data has been thrown out that disproves evolution? global warming may be a little trickier, but scientists believe we have to change our ways soon to avoid major problems, so that could influence things. but to pretend the two issues are part of some liberal godless conspiracy as you imply is dumb.
2007-02-16 01:03:50 · answer #5 · answered by ajj085 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
what do you think a hypothesis is?
I think X will happen when I do Y.
Then I test it to see if it is true or not
Also what makes you think they throw out data? I am sure it dose happen Scientists are human, but you would be really said to think it is some vast conspiracy to prove what they want. As if they are some unified group.
2007-02-16 00:57:01 · answer #6 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
First, you observe. Then, you hypothesize. Then, you experiment. Then, you gather data. Then you can rework your hypothesis. Then you experiment again. Then you form your conclusion.
2007-02-16 01:09:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You know nothing of which you speak. You're starting with a statement but not backing it up. Isn't that a little hypocritical of you?
2007-02-16 00:58:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
you are so dead wrong here i cannot even begin.
The only assumptions evolution makes are that the laws of physics that apply today applied 200 million years ago.
2007-02-16 01:27:05 · answer #9 · answered by abcdefghijk 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Science has not changed. What's your problem - other than scientific illiteracy, of course?
2007-02-16 00:56:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋