When does theory become fact?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When is the last time you physically verified a scientific fact.

Never, as this is impossible.

I mean following the scientific method proved science right.

There is no "the scientific method" and scientific methods don't prove things "right" period, let alone prove the enterprise itself correct. Proof is for mathematics, and to the extent proofs exist in the sciences they tend to be (and strictly speaking should only be) within formal systems (i.e., mathematical).

My point is has anybody physically themselves recently verified any scientific fact

I've been doing research for years, and have sat through seminars, conferences, and other places where scientists meet to discuss their work, and never once have I encountered a scientist who ever verified a scientific fact, and rarely have I met any scientists who believe that such a thing exists. Facts are facts. They are defined as being true. Scientists assert that certain things are true, and many of these assertions are so supported that to doubt them one would approach solipsism. Most are less supported. Some are contentious. Many are incompatible with others.

If no one verifies scientific discovery other than scientists how do we know we aren't being mislead.

Read scientific research. Scientists build on the research of other scientists. The entire scientific endeavor rests upon a certain degree of trust in the literature, in that while there exists scientific fraud (not to mention mistakes & errors both by instruments and humans), the continual sharing of knowledge through the channels of communication scientists use wash these out. When you receive medical treatment, for example, a lot of what went into developing that treatment was built on scientific findings (sometimes all the way back to Newton) that the researchers assumed to be true, rather than test.

And therein lies another possible way to test whether scientists are misleading you. Your computer seems to work, as you post here. Which also means the internet works. This is a confirmation of so many different scientific theories and findings across disciplines that it would take a pretty long time to think of every one of them. Microwaves, cellphones, medicine, even sales increases due to advertisement are all confirmations that you aren't being misled. Nor could you possibly test the vast majority of scientific claims (unless you happen to have your own particle collider, an MRI machine, some supercomputers, an enormous supply of chemicals, an electron microscope, and so on).

 

[bobhikes]

I have done several chemical tests, biochemical tests and physical tests on the laws of science. A good example is in elementary school we shown that two objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Then we talked about the drag rule and had someone run normally and another run with a parachute like thing behind their back.
.

Speak for yourself.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but I can do soil tests that show conclusively that there hasn't been a global flood since the Great Lakes area was covered with a glacier.

I was never told to just accept what I was taught. If you were, that's unfortunate.

So with all your education, you never once carry out tests or experiments, to verify if the theories were true?

Is that what you are saying?

I had to test construction materials, like concrete, wood and steel (or other metals), their strength and how they handle stress and strains. My course also required me to learn geology, but it wasn't just about rocks and minerals, but also about testing soils.

Didn't say I didn't do testing, said I never verified a scientific law. I did plenty of testing.

Tested acidity of chemical and soil using the litmus test. Match a color to a prepared chart.
Tested blood type dropped a chemical in resulting matched a chart blood type.
Refracted light into a rainbow
Wave test with water.
Plus quite a few more.

They were planned results not verification of law. Match a chart only shows the chart matches.

The coolest test Beaming the moon I never did but it still doesn't qualify. What did you match your results to. Did you run a tape measure or beam some other type of signal to verify the distance you had as accurate? If you did you got me. If you beamed a light got a result you verified a light can bounce off a mirror at really far distances.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no "the scientific method"

Of course there is, any scientific text book for school students will correct your misaprehension there.
There is a great and very simply put article for you to read if you careto inform yourself better;

What is the 'scientific method'? An article from the physics department by Jose Wudka.

Frankly it seems amazing that you did not kmow that there was such a thing as the scientific method. It is anout the most basic and essential element of understanding science.

 

[bobhikes]

Never, as this is impossible.



There is no "the scientific method" and scientific methods don't prove things "right" period, let alone prove the enterprise itself correct. Proof is for mathematics, and to the extent proofs exist in the sciences they tend to be (and strictly speaking should only be) within formal systems (i.e., mathematical).


I've been doing research for years, and have sat through seminars, conferences, and other places where scientists meet to discuss their work, and never once have I encountered a scientist who ever verified a scientific fact, and rarely have I met any scientists who believe that such a thing exists. Facts are facts. They are defined as being true. Scientists assert that certain things are true, and many of these assertions are so supported that to doubt them one would approach solipsism. Most are less supported. Some are contentious. Many are incompatible with others.


Read scientific research. Scientists build on the research of other scientists. The entire scientific endeavor rests upon a certain degree of trust in the literature, in that while there exists scientific fraud (not to mention mistakes & errors both by instruments and humans), the continual sharing of knowledge through the channels of communication scientists use wash these out. When you receive medical treatment, for example, a lot of what went into developing that treatment was built on scientific findings (sometimes all the way back to Newton) that the researchers assumed to be true, rather than test.

And therein lies another possible way to test whether scientists are misleading you. Your computer seems to work, as you post here. Which also means the internet works. This is a confirmation of so many different scientific theories and findings across disciplines that it would take a pretty long time to think of every one of them. Microwaves, cellphones, medicine, even sales increases due to advertisement are all confirmations that you aren't being misled. Nor could you possibly test the vast majority of scientific claims (unless you happen to have your own particle collider, an MRI machine, some supercomputers, an enormous supply of chemicals, an electron microscope, and so on).

Thank you, I agree and trust is a must for all human endeavors. Since my career is fixing these electronic devices you mention I realize there limitations and how much trust we put in them as well.

The internet is a double edged sword. Yes I use it for information but the information no matter where I get it is slanted.

My goal is to wake people up just under stand science as you describe it. Not an absolute fact without question? Science only gets better if we keep questioning it even the basics.

I would argue though that math is also flawed and have in the past but that will be another time another thread.

 

[HiEv]

My point is has anybody physically themselves recently verified any scientific fact

Such but not limited to
The earth revolves the sun
funny fact I asked my kids this one they agreed it does but then I asked them how they know and they said because they were told in school.

I don't understand what's funny about that. Do you expect children to have to be full fledged scientists and to prove every claim before they should accept them? That's absurd.

Of course children are taught some things by wrote. There is simply too much knowledge people need to learn for teachers to have to teach every concept from first principals.

Did you run over your children with your car to teach them why they shouldn't run out in the road, or did they learn because they were told not to do it? I'm hoping they know because you told them so. ;-)

Gravity is much to hard for anyone to prove.

I don't think you understand how science works.

Science doesn't "prove" anything outside of mathematics.

Scientific facts are the building blocks of scientific hypotheses and scientific theories.

It is a scientific fact that just dropped my ChapStick and it fell to the ground.

Repeated careful observations of such facts leads to things such as the theory of universal gravitation (or "gravity", for short), which explains those facts.

Thus, scientific theories are more important than facts, because theories explain facts.

If no one verifies scientific discovery other than scientists how do we know we aren't being mislead. If all you do is read and take consensuses do you really know it is true? Talk about indoctrination.

The alternative you're discussing requires a worldwide conspiracy that somehow manages to perfectly cover up ever single example of someone disproving a scientific discovery which this "conspiracy" of scientists is trying to promote.

Seriously, it's ridiculously implausible, especially if you understand how the scientific method and scientists in general work.

Science isn't performed by a single scientist once and then indoctrinated as dogma. Science requires multiple independent replications and peer review, constantly scouring each others results for errors. Scientists gain acclaim by scientifically disproving long accepted ideas and replacing them with more accurate ones.

The fact is, the current scientific "conspiracy" is built in such a way that the more useful any scientific idea is, the greater scrutiny it receives due to the acclaim one would receive for correcting/improving it, thus the more likely it is to be true.

So, either science is built in such a way that a scientific consensus of relevant scientists is a good indication that the consensus is likely true or there's a global conspiracy that includes a large chunk of the world's population, but which somehow has never leaked to the public. Which sounds more plausible to you?

Kids in the US from 5 years old to 18 mostly are taught and told the scientific method is the most and only reliable system for accurate information.

And rightfully so. There is no more reliable and accurate method for discovering the way that reality actually works than the proper use of the scientific method. One need look no further than the rapid advancement of our understanding of the universe over the last century as compared to the rest of history to see how powerful a tool science is for discovering the true face of reality.

Furthermore, today we know how easily fooled both perceptions and memory are, so this is why only an unbiased method, such as the scientific method, can produce reliable and accurate information.

If you have a better option, I'd love to hear it.

My goal is to wake people up just under stand science as you describe it. Not an absolute fact without question? Science only gets better if we keep questioning it even the basics.

What you're arguing for is something which is already a fundamental part of the scientific method.

 

[shawn001]

Didn't say I didn't do testing, said I never verified a scientific law. I did plenty of testing.

Tested acidity of chemical and soil using the litmus test. Match a color to a prepared chart.
Tested blood type dropped a chemical in resulting matched a chart blood type.
Refracted light into a rainbow
Wave test with water.
Plus quite a few more.

They were planned results not verification of law. Match a chart only shows the chart matches.

The coolest test Beaming the moon I never did but it still doesn't qualify. What did you match your results to. Did you run a tape measure or beam some other type of signal to verify the distance you had as accurate? If you did you got me. If you beamed a light got a result you verified a light can bounce off a mirror at really far distances.

"The coolest test Beaming the moon I never did but it still doesn't qualify. What did you match your results to. Did you run a tape measure or beam some other type of signal to verify the distance you had as accurate? If you did you got me. If you beamed a light got a result you verified a light can bounce off a mirror at really far distances"

This was an experiment left on the moon by the Apollo landings.

APOLLO


The moon is drifting away from Earth.

 

[shawn001]

When does your theory become fact/

-When a group of 'prominent' people espouse your theory/belief
-When certain regional 'academia' teaches your theory/belief
-When you have 'figured out' that the most reliable answer is the one coming from someone you respect.

"
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course there is, any scientific text book for school students will correct your misaprehension there.

Right.

“Pre-college students, and the general public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” (emphasis added)

Lederman, N. G. (1999). EJSE Editorial: The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2).


“Myth of ‘The Scientific Method’


"This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no single 'Scientific Method'... Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate, hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual, or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone ‘certain’ knowledge." (emphasis added)

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.


"Activity without understanding seems to be a regular feature of classroom life for science students in American schools...Any plans for testing new frameworks for school science investigations would be poorly conceived, however, without taking into account the influence of the current paradigm of preference for educators—the scientific method (TSM)—and its role in allowing distorted images of science to be passed down through schooling practices." (emphasis added)

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.


"a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods" (emphasis added)

Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.


“In Science for All Americans, the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students...(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method.” (emphasis added)

Schweingruber, H. A., Hilton, M. L., & Singer, S. R. (Eds.). (2005). America's Lab Report::Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Laboratoriers: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, National Research Council.

Basically, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (they're the guys that publish the journal Science), and numerous other national and governmental groups concerned with education say that to the extent you are correct, this is a problem. A serious problem, as any such textbook is a distortion.

There is a great and very simply put article for you to read if you careto inform yourself better

I work in research. You don't. I am not interested in your "simple articles." Changes in scientific philosophies and practices occur before they are even noticed by those concerned with science education. The fact that the myth of The Scientific Method is recognized even by science education groups (let alone in the various peer-reviewed journals on science education) is a testament as to how wrong you are.

 

[Bunyip]

Right.

“Pre-college students, and the general public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” (emphasis added)

Lederman, N. G. (1999). EJSE Editorial: The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2).


“Myth of ‘The Scientific Method’


"This myth is often manifested in the belief that there is a recipe-like stepwise procedure that typifies all scientific practice. This notion is erroneous: there is no single 'Scientific Method'... Scientists do observe, compare, measure, test, speculate, hypothesize, debate, create ideas and conceptual tools, and construct theories and explanations. However, there is no single sequence of (practical, conceptual, or logical) activities that will unerringly lead them to valid claims, let alone ‘certain’ knowledge." (emphasis added)

Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.


"Activity without understanding seems to be a regular feature of classroom life for science students in American schools...Any plans for testing new frameworks for school science investigations would be poorly conceived, however, without taking into account the influence of the current paradigm of preference for educators—the scientific method (TSM)—and its role in allowing distorted images of science to be passed down through schooling practices." (emphasis added)

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.


"a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods" (emphasis added)

Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.


“In Science for All Americans, the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students...(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method.” (emphasis added)

Schweingruber, H. A., Hilton, M. L., & Singer, S. R. (Eds.). (2005). America's Lab Report::Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Laboratoriers: Role and Vision. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, National Research Council.

Basically, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (they're the guys that publish the journal Science), and numerous other national and governmental groups concerned with education say that to the extent you are correct, this is a problem. A serious problem, as any such textbook is a distortion.




I work in research. You don't. I am not interested in your "simple articles." Changes in scientific philosophies and practices occur before they are even noticed by those concerned with science education. The fact that the myth of The Scientific Method is recognized even by science education groups (let alone in the various peer-reviewed journals on science education) is a testament as to how wrong you are.

There remains a scientific method - just because somebody points out that there are differeing incarnations of it - does not mean that there is no such thing as the scientific method.
As usual, whilst bristling with pompous pontification your response doesn't actually mean anything. There is still such a thing as the scientific method. Frankly I find your claim to have worked in research utterly hilarious, I doubt that you have any education beyond primary school. Generally people who are educated don't feel the need to boast about it so much in almost every post.
Perhaps you could post another 2000 words that essentially says nothing? Sure, there is not a single scientific method - the scientific method still exists.

Or perhaps 4000 words and another ten irrelevant citations?


Maybe 10 000 words with a zillion irrelevant citations?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As usual, whilst bristling with pompous pontification your response doesn't actually mean anything.

Out of curiosity, is there any possible source I could cite (as apparently the NRC and AAAS aren't qualified in your view when it comes to the nature of science [NOS] nor are journals on science education) that, in saying precisely what I did- that there is no The scientific Method- would convince you?

For example, if instead of citing material about the utter inadequacy and inaccuracy of The Scientific Method in terms of science education, I instead cited reference material for practicing researchers, would that make a difference?

Or is this another dogma you're going to cling to regardless of evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

Out of curiosity, is there any possible source I could cite (as apparently the NRC and AAAS aren't qualified in your view when it comes to the nature of science [NOS] nor are journals on science education) that, in saying precisely what I did- that there is no The scientific Method- would convince you?

For example, if instead of citing material about the utter inadequacy and inaccuracy of The Scientific Method in terms of science education, I instead cited reference material for practicing researchers, would that make a difference?

Or is this another dogma you're going to cling to regardless of evidence?

Not really interested Legion, exchanges with you are pointless.

You have simply misunderstood your sources - there are different forms of the scientific method - which is in fact what your own citations are arguing. That there are different forms does not mean that there is no such thing as a scientific method.

My assumption is that you will proceed with some painfully pointless diatribe in which you make a semantic distinction between the scientific method and 'the scientific method' as if the term scientific method somehow means that there can be no variations, and that therefore 'the scientific method' does not exist because there are different versions. A diatribe so banal that it may succeed in boring me to death.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That entire post is unreadable.

Which one? The one in which I cited literature on science education or my question about whether there is anything I could cite that would convince you what I stated was true?

I would simply suggest that you do less pontificating and more reading.

I've read all of those sources I cited. I've read every source I've ever cited here.

 

[Bunyip]

Which one? The one in which I cited literature on science education or my question about whether there is anything I could cite that would convince you what I stated was true?

I've read all of those sources I cited. I've read every source I've ever cited here.

Sure. But clearly you did not understand what you read.

 

[Bunyip]

Have you read them?



I'm going to try a novel approach. Although I don't participate much anymore, there is a sort of "social media" site designed for scientists: to share research, ask questions, follow others' work, etc. Among the features is the ability for scientists to "endorse" others as possessing expertise in particular fields/topics, and the site sorts the topics each member's expertise by ranking them according to how many other scientists have endorsed the individual for that particular topic. Here are the ranked endorsements I have:

However, it could be that such rankings and indeed the entire cite (researchgate) has no impact on science research or literature at all. So I will offer a relevant counter-example. Recently (2014), an academic monograph Facet Theory and the Mapping Sentence was published by Palgrave (an academic press) by Dr. Paul M. W. Hackett. In the acknowledgement section he thanks two people "for their comments upon the neuroscientific aspects of the manuscript." Both of those people contributed two the manuscript via the site, one of them being me.

Note that the skills/topics I am ranked highest in include research methods, online research methods, & academic writing. Personally, I don't agree with this list at all (I would add certain skills and take-away others as well as re-order most) but I have no control over it and it is based upon my contributions (which means that I cover certain topics not because I know them better but because other researchers ask questions about them more). However, the point is that this isn't me citing literature so that you can claim I don't know what I am talking about. I am giving you the opinion of what other researchers think about my understanding of scientific topics in a quantifiable way. Now I expect you to write this off too (as specious, grandiose, or whatever), but then again I'm not so much doing this because I think you will ever change your dogmata. I am doing it because it is the only way I can think of to indicate that I am not simply quoting sources I don't understand, because explaining hasn't worked in the past (you've just written my explanations off as easily as you dismiss sources you haven't read).

Sorry mate, can't be bothered dredging through all of that. As I said, your educational claims are not inventions of yours I am interested in engaging with, I assume you simply made them up. The point however is that this is a debate site, and they are utterly irrelevant to whatever anyone argues. It is the argument that is important not whatever you fantasise your qualifications to be.

But sure, this is the internet - you are free to pretend to be whoever you like. Nobody cares mate, it is the argument that counts.

 

[shawn001]

This is a great video.

Feynman on Scientific Method.

 

[Sapiens]

Have you read them?



I'm going to try a novel approach. Although I don't participate much anymore, there is a sort of "social media" site designed for scientists: to share research, ask questions, follow others' work, etc. Among the features is the ability for scientists to "endorse" others as possessing expertise in particular fields/topics, and the site sorts the topics each member's expertise by ranking them according to how many other scientists have endorsed the individual for that particular topic. Here are the ranked endorsements I have:

However, it could be that such rankings and indeed the entire cite (researchgate) has no impact on science research or literature at all. So I will offer a relevant counter-example. Recently (2014), an academic monograph Facet Theory and the Mapping Sentence was published by Palgrave (an academic press) by Dr. Paul M. W. Hackett. In the acknowledgement section he thanks two people "for their comments upon the neuroscientific aspects of the manuscript." Both of those people contributed two the manuscript via the site, one of them being me.

Note that the skills/topics I am ranked highest in include research methods, online research methods, & academic writing. Personally, I don't agree with this list at all (I would add certain skills and take-away others as well as re-order most) but I have no control over it and it is based upon my contributions (which means that I cover certain topics not because I know them better but because other researchers ask questions about them more). However, the point is that this isn't me citing literature so that you can claim I don't know what I am talking about. I am giving you the opinion of what other researchers think about my understanding of scientific topics in a quantifiable way. Now I expect you to write this off too (as specious, grandiose, or whatever), but then again I'm not so much doing this because I think you will ever change your dogmata. I am doing it because it is the only way I can think of to indicate that I am not simply quoting sources I don't understand, because explaining hasn't worked in the past (you've just written my explanations off as easily as you dismiss sources you haven't read).

I will say that I've looked at my endorsements and they're a joke. Often people trying to connect or curry favor who have no idea of who I am and what I can actually do. If I went by those endorsements I'd be Indiana Jones with blue suit and a red cape, and that's not really me ... Dirk Pitt ... maybe, but that's another story.

As far as literature citations are concerned, I have about large number of actual publications. I feel that listing acknowledgements and/or thanks is very déclassé and I would never bother to do so.

 

[Bunyip]

I will say that I've looked at my endorsements and they're a joke. Often people trying to connect or curry favor who have no idea of who I am and what I can actually do. If I went by those endorsements I'd be Indiana Jones with blue suit and a red cape, and that's not really me ... Dirk Pitt ... maybe, but that's another story.

As far as literature citations are concerned, I have about large number of actual publications. I feel that listing acknowledgements and/or thanks is very déclassé and I would never bother to do so.

Probably because you had an argument to prosecute instead of just boasting about your qualifications.

 

[bobhikes]

What you're arguing for is something which is already a fundamental part of the scientific method.

So then what is your problem with what I am arguing. People argue that things like religions need to be proven all the time. Asking if these same people make scientists prove the basic facts once in a while or challenge the basic facts from time to time is wrong. Perhaps a big event every 50 or 100 years. People could dress like Newton or Einstein and redo there results.

How many times have you read in this thread that evolution is a Law as if that makes it unchallengeable.

 

[Sapiens]

So then what is your problem with what I am arguing. People argue that things like religions need to be proven all the time. Asking if these same people make scientists prove the basic facts once in a while or challenge the basic facts from time to time is wrong. Perhaps a big event every 50 or 100 years. People could dress like Newton or Einstein and redo there results.

How many times have you read in this thread that evolution is a Law as if that makes it unchallengeable.

Naw, people ask that religion be proven just once, never happens. We keep asking, but it never happens, not even once.

Science, on the other hand, is reproven often and occasionally redone.

Evolution is a theory, not a law, it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to have occured and be occuring, details of how are still, however, being discussed.

 

[Sapiens]

Question for anyone who reads this. When is the last time you physically verified a scientific fact. .

This morning.