Lafcadio

I don't quite agree with your second phrase, but isn't solar system a situation when you cannot do a controlled experiment? Then why "you would say not" ?
And even according to your further claims it meets your expectations.

Buridan

Spin kept on, staunchly
And how do you prove that, scientifically :rolling:

The point here is that Bruno's view on uniformity is a philosophical view, which - afterwards - has proven usefull for science. There was some kind of science even in the Greek and Arab world, which did not held to uniformity. Science depends on a lot of "Philosophy" and "Theology" (like Bruno and others have shown) - and uniformity is derived from Theology (not only from Bruno's). However, to make statements and hypotheses based on one's philosophy does not make them scientific as such.

The question of what is scientific is very much about attitudes. It is not about what position one helds about whether Copernicus or others are right, it is about e.g. a willingness to test one's hypothoses by real, quantifiable data. Which Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei did - and Bruno did not.

But here we are(copyright Spin) and I think it is best just to stop as you don't seem to get the point:huh:

Always the witty one :wave:

Always the one with the succint message :Cheeky:

What's beyond noone is that you simply are quite alone in insisting that Bruno was a staunch advocator of science.

Good day:wave:

Buridan

If that is your point, how come you are so concerned with the scientific method - which, as you say, is not used in all sciences? Do you mean to imply that those sciences are not scientific, or that "the scientific method" is just an expression?

Then you should be a bit more carefull about so loudly proclaiming that "the scientific method" is not being followed in e.g. the area of evolution :huh:

Bobinius

Right, but I would be skeptical about the 'amusement' part.

So you equate Kepler's thinking with an ellipse. I did not argue about his final model being greek, but about his thinking. And again, it was Aristotle, not greekness in general. The ellipse is not his whole thinking isn't it? Of course it is his most important part.

? It is very relevant to your bold claims.

'Kepler observed data ...formulated a theory' etc. Without Brahe's contribution, there would have been no Kepler. So, you now you are arguing that he used a mixture of Brahe and his observations?

Don't you think it is important to see how some scientific ideas get developed? The whole exercise was not to show somehow that he did not obtain scientific achievements (which were important mostly for offering Newton a 'shoulder'), it was to see how he finally arrived there.

You accused him of a lot more. His so called 'crazy' ideas included. But the problem for you is that you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruno was a philosopher. Not a scientist. He defended and argued all over Europe for Copernicanism. And Copernicanism was the thing that started the Scientific Revolution (Kant calls it the Copernican revolution). Secondly, Bruno had the most advanced cosmological model of his times. I already pointed out some of the relevant points there, which can be found in modern cosmology. The fact that he (or others) did not investigate those ideas scientifically it was because they were far ahead of those times. What would have happened with Copercanism if Kepler, Bruno or Galileo did not defend it?

We were talking only about what you see fit. You presented a myth. It is not the case.

:huh: Of course, this means that all I know about this Scientific Revolution or Kepler was found out 2 days ago. And that I am wrong and you are right.

Barking up the wrong tree. See above.

You have some fobias about the internet? You should know by now that while debating on the Internet usually you need to bring evidence and information, links that is accessible to the participants. Sending people to read this and that is just your style, but does not prove anything. Those are not arguments, only your classical Ad Hominem style. Are you even aware that there are books in electronic format? They are eviiiil you know. Welcome to the 21st century.

Secondly your point is irrelevant anyway. That astrology quote is perfectly consistent with my points. He defended and studied Astrology. Read them until it comes to you.

:banghead: This comes from a guy for who regarded science as 'applied inductive reasoning'. or 'Strong empirical evidence means inductively founded evidence.'

You had absolutely no idea about the hypothetico-deductive model. And you can't seem to make sense of it now. But go on Lafcadio, and lecture everyone about the scientific method.

For the others : http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...7&page=3&pp=25 Lafcadio begins his rambling on sci method in this page.

In science nothing can be proven true. There are an infinite number of hypothese compatible with the data. You have no idea about these problems. But keep lecturing around.

Kepler's Laws are a theory.

It takes thinking. Btw did you make some advancements from your last conception of knowledge taken from the dictionary?

Some bold claims from someone who hasn't read the book. It is the google in my library. But the last edition is in the bookstore. Browse it.

'no physics (almost), no math' - right. See section I. And if if riemmanian geometry is not math, and the equations of GR or QM are not math, then I do not know what is. But you know better.

And for your information, I graduated Medicine. But you should have remembered lecturing me (while of course, you were mistaken) about Anatomy and Physiology.

It's not scientific? Geesus. Do you know more than the quote 'God does not play dice'?

You can find one of his essays 'Quantum Mechanics and Reality' in that book that has no physics and math. Please refute his arguments and you will be noticed.

You never proved that he used his own observations mixed with Brahe's. And you honestly think that while arguing for the extraordinary small approximation error in Tycho's observations (obtained with very good instruments and vision), Kepler would have mixed this with his data? Really? think again.

Of course, my evidence does not show that he did not use Tuthankamon's observations. The burden is on you cabron.

It is new to you. The average Joe never heard of Paul Feyerabend and 'Against Method'. But keep lecturing everyone.

Michelson-Morley hypothesised about the existence of ether and the possibility of measuring the absolute speed of light taking ether as a reference system. What they did was to falsify this hypothesis.

I am glad you reviewed the fixed Mars trick. Now you can understand that he determined the orbit of Earth first, Mars had to be in the same point, fixed.

You cannot deduce from the relation found for the orbit of Mars the rest of the relations. By determining the rest of the orbits you can see that they verify the same relation. It is not necessary.

I consider Bruno more than a neoplatonist. I already told one of the points that differentiates him from neoplatonists. I don't consider Kepler a neoplatonist either. Just that both had influences.

Kepler's laws do not explain anything. They don't tell you why they have elliptical orbits or why they sweep equal areas in equal moments of time (the conservation of angular momentum) or the 3rd law (from Gravity).

You can start looking for what 'naturalistic' means in the Infidels Library. It is something more than your medieval conception of it.

No one said Kepler was a fanatic astrologist. Straw man. He advocated astrology. A different one than 'this Astrology' that he keeps criticizing.

'There are two possible diagnostics for you: a) dyslexic b) stupid'. Not to mention 'clown'. Listen, it is really easy for me to call you either a) retarded or b) mentally insufficient, but I don't see the point in these uncontrolled attacks.

Well, take a course in Informal Logic then. See when Argument from Authority applies.

Begging the Question is not a Non- Sequitur. It is a form of circular reasoning, and it is always deductively valid.

Non Sequitur means 'it does not follow' and is refered to deductively invalid inferences, like Affirming the Consequent.

While Begging the Question has this form:

A ^ B

therefore

A

This is a valid inference called simplification.

Or it can have this form

A

therefore

A

This is identity. It is Fallacious informally, because it does not prove the conclusion. The conclusion is part of the premises. Got it? Do a google.

:wave:

Ahem. You don't. I expected a definition, not some assertions (as usual). Google 'deductive + inference'.

But of course, everyone 'thought that the circular orbits were proven'. Can you see the fallacy in the Argument from Pigheadedness? It is wrong. It is the evidence that decides, not what the majority thinks it is proven. Kepler was correct because he had evidence.

I am too busy to continue, so I'll stop here. Maybe if you could change personal attack strategy we could have more fruitfull debates. We made some progress anyway.

VALE

NOGO

I really don't know where you are coming from here.
You seem to be seeking a simple answer where there is not.
The scientific method can be thought as an ideal. Ideally we would want to do controlled experiments where we keep everything else constant and vary just one parameter. But in many cases we cannot do such experiments. That should be obvious. We cannot do controlled experiments with stars (astronomy) no more than we can in geology because such experiments would take thousands of years if not millions. That does not invalidate astronomy and geology.

You seem to have a hang up here which I don't.
As I said above it is also not followed much in astronomy and geology.
So what?
Are you suggesting that evolution needs propaganda in order to stand?

NOGO

Obviously you did not understand what I wrote.

Once you make a model, observing more data which unexpectedly agrees with the model does not constitute doing controlled experiments.

But it can be very convincing if the new data has no other explanation and that your model was not originally conceived to explain this new data.

But as convincing as it might be it is still not knowledge obtained through the scientific methid.

Buridan

My question is quite simply based on your use of the expression the scientific method, as if there is one method that extends through all sciences.

You said in a previous message (#372) that

What I find puzzling and not documented by Philosophers of Science is this focus on one, and one only method as the scientific.

Especially as you then go forward to proclaim that

This made me wonder why you were so eager to dismiss evolution as something not following the scientific method, rather than admitting that there exist several methods that come under the umbrella of science.

Precisely. So why do you insist that one does not follow the scientific method in those sciences? How would you argue for something being science if it according to you does not adhere to what you repeatedly call the scientific method?

I am just wondering why you cannot admit that there is more than one valid method being followed in science.

NOGO

I do not need to "admit" it since that has been my position since the start.

What I am saying is that one such method is called and has traditionally been called "The Scientific Method". An unfortunate name perhaps but one cannot change history.

You are talking about scientific methods and I am talking about The Scientific Method. One is a general term and the other is a specific name given to one particular method.

Let's call it NOGO's method for the sake of argument.
NOGO's method calls for experimentation in order to confirm hypotheses.
Astronomy, Geology and Evolution very often cannot do experiments with the phenomena which they investigate and therefore cannot follow NOGO's method.

I can't make it clearer.
Do a search on The Scientific Method and see for yourself.

Buridan

Indeed, I have falsified by controlled experiments all attempts by myself to change history.

My point is that even if some people sometimes or rather often have used that expression does not imply that we - presumably learned people - should do the same. Quite simply because those who are involved in the science of studying science stopped talking about one such method long ago.

I think here it may be in order to mention that Karl Popper generations ago showed how difficult it is to confirm hypotheses. Since then (and this includes also findings by e.g. Carnap), it has been the rule to talk about falsification as a solution to the problem of induction which is inherit in your - sorry to say - rather naive talk about "confirming" things.

Well, I took my first course in the History of Science in 1980, and have kept informed on the debate in that field since long before any search machine :Cheeky:

Lafcadio

My bold claims were about the ideas Kepler developed in a scientific fashion. Not about the ideas he didn't. And the latter do not disprove the former.

I always have argued for that.

Of course it is, as shown above an ellipse does not follow from circumscribed platonic solids or from astrology but from facing with evidences.

Oh right. They are rational?

Rather for heliocentrism, he doesn't argue for Copernicus' epicycles for instance.

His model had no application at all, so how could be it advanced? Like was shown here, this model was first formulated by Greek philosophers, it's a matter of imagination, not reasoning and dealing with evidence.

And I showed a lesser degree of similarity than you insinuated and showed the irrelevance.

We don't investigate a concept of God scientifically because this is far ahead of our times
Even today we don't investigate scientifically an infinite universe. Guess why?

Would be defended by others. There were several pro-Copernican astronomers in those times. And even before him. It's known that Copernicus was inspired by some accounts of some Greek philosophers who believed in a moving Earth. Also there are some Arab astronomers before him who modelled heliocentric systems.

As long as you critique my point, you should refrain from red herrings. If you develop your own point, then be my guess.

Your argumentation is quasi-null. Your conclusion does not follow.

If you equivocate google usage with internet, you clearly show you are not able to talk about these things.

Some material is just not on the internet. It's your fault that you enter a discussion without having a proper reading not my fault that I rely on such sources. I haven't quoted anonymous authorities so you could even argue about unaccessible material.

Straw man. My argument is against your instant google "documentation" not against electronic resources.

Straw man. I am not supporting the idea that he didn't. Your memory falls short when it's about our discussion.

Science is inductive. Any formulation that hold an "as long as" it's inductive.

Not deductively. Better said, no ontology can be proven true.

We're not talking about hypotheses but about theories. If you can't make the difference you just excluded yourself from this conversation.

As this was a reply to your question, it was obviously I hold that. Your problem is?

Some of the dictionary definition cover the some of the philosophical definition, but again you show you missed both.

Shut up, you googletalker. You still have no idea that there are two books under the same cover!

If you're a Medicine student it figures why you're impressed by few symbols.

Have you at least read his book? What's his scientific argument against quantum mechanics?

I have read it. Tell me the scientific experiements that disprove quantum mechanics. I don't need to refute his arguments, modern science shows very well where he was right and he was wrong.

You're arguing from ignorance. What should I prove to someone that proves continuously stuborness and misunderstanding. Prove yourself worthy of a discussion and then we'll talk.

Straw man.

Red herring.

Oh, google on anarchist epistemologists now. Does science follow his philosophy?

And to find something else. Now go back on Kepler.

Straw man. I never claimed the contrary. I just claimed they are two steps in the same work. He knew his method before he started to make some calculations projected in two steps.

I don't understand what are you saying here.

Ad nauseam. They don't explain why the orbits are elliptical but they explain why the planets are in some position on the sky and not in another.

a) we talk about the naturalistic philosophy of 16th century b) 16th century it's not medieval

The straw man is yours. I haven't claimed some one did.

I gave you a choice. The other is not limiting your intelligence in anyway.

It seems you should redirect your advices to you.

Straw man. I haven't claimed that, but that the fallacy is a non sequitur and I shown why.

When you presuppose the conclusion does not follow. Probably you presuppose too much and you'd hate to know you're conclusions are not valid.

. I don't give a damn about expectations. I answered to your question.

No dude, keep your learning methods for yourself

Red herring.

Non sequitur. He could be hallucinating. He could be lying. He could be wrong. To estabilish something as evidence you need feedback. Ever wondered what's the peer review for?

Hypocrisy. Your replies are full of venom and ad hominems.

See?