Back then, they believed that "If two wised men argue, they would eventually arrive at the truth" and then some one who saw that the process was circular and pointless so he introduced the scientific method!
I don't like that guy -.- We do need scientific facts, but we also do need two wise men arguing, and I don't believe that we do.
Most of the time it hasn't been on science for me personally, though I have had some great science based discussions (is the universe infinite for one). However, I generally don't think that reasoning is always the best way to understand something (there needs to be experimental validity for it to serve a purpose after all) and thus I tend to shy away from the subject.
Since there is little scientific data, that is pretty much pure logic.
And if WISE men argue, you will get somewhere.
What is the point of this forum? To argue... Why are you here if you think that reasoning gets you no where?
Even just for scientific stuff. Your brain interprets that scientific data. If you had all the facts right in front of your eyes, but no brain, you would not get any conclusions...
Science does reason, just little. It needs to take higher levels of reasoning.
Science basically is two wise men arguing. The whole skeptical part of the scientific method comes after one man publishes his work and then others try and repeat his works, if they can't do it or they get a a different answer, they continue and say why the first man's experiment worked and why the second guy's didn't. If the second guy gets it to work again, it starts to for a theory and then laws are broadder more repeatable theories. Science involves lots of arguing, just look at psychology or physics, both are filled with opposing theories on various topics and people trying to argue their points.
evoltuion is not science its a theory just as much as creationism and neither can be proved without me taking up like 12 pages also i have a life wich is a nother reason
I actually agree. The evolution theory did not have much to do with science at first. It was more of a logical theory of animals envolve. Survival of the fittest for example, is not science at all.
And then IN SEARCH of evidence, they found it. Like I was saying, you find what you look for.
If I keep on my mind that I want to find the number 69, I will keep seeing it.
And with that evidence they find, they reform it to fit the theory.
that workes the same way with craetionism, you dont find evolution, you observe it, which is impossible beacuse there has never been one documented evolution throughout history
Actually, I think survival of the fittest does relate to science. It is Biology, which is the study of life. I think that is science....
@zerato, what do you mean by documented evolution? Do you mean a document stating that things are evolving? Well evolution occurs over years and years and years, so no one was writing way back then. And evolution isn't something that you notice. Humans right now are evolving, believe it or not, but we don't necessarily notice it.
