Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bill:
Dr.s George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck were very specific that the
scientific method is limited to the steps outlined in that article. Further,
in their textbook, they gave examples of studies that are not scientific,
and why, based on that definition. They wanted to make sure there is no
confusion. So from your answer, I see three options:

1) Despite the fact they were world famous professors teaching at Harvard,
they were mistaken concerning what are science and the scientific method.

2) The definition of science is fluid, so what was scientific 20 years ago
is no longer scientific, and what was not scientific 20 years ago is now
scientific.

3) You are wrong.

Which is it? Personally, I'll go with the professors as being correct, and
you wrong.

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: I checked with other science professors and graduate students, both in
person and via email, and they were unanimous in saying I had correctly
understood the textbook.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Bill Rea
<bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>wrote:

> Karl wrote:-
>
> >Look at
> >
> http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Scientific_Method_from_science_textbooksthat's
> >exactly what the definition states, when carried to its logical
> >conclusion. Deductive reasoning. Or do you claim that the scientists
> >don't understand science?
>
> The definition given there is wrong in the sense that it is a subset
> of what science is, not its totality. I'm sure Karl will come back with
> his standard answer so I'm going to bow out of this discussion as
> I see no value in it.
>
>
> Bill Rea, Ph.D. ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
> E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                       </   New
> Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332               /)  Zealand
> Unix Systems Administrator                           (/'
>