<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
<B>I said paleontology isn't science because there's really no scientific method involved in it. Where's the hypothesis, and how can it be properly tested? </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, before we got into that argument, I
was trying to have a meta-argument as to why
this argument got started. It seemed to come,
as I said, out of left field, although I
think you were making a point with it that I
missed.<P>Anyway, I appreciate the analysis here -
science is a process of testing hypotheses,
paleontology doesn't seem to do that,
therefore it's not a science.<P>I suggest that it does test hypotheses. From
stat classes we probably all had to take, we
know that it's OK to look at *some of your
data*, formulate a hypothesis, or model, and
then use the rest of your data to test it.<P>Paleontologists find bones together, make
guesses as to why, which has implications
which can be tested.<P>Stegosaurus bones are found at the same level
of rock as Allosaurus. Paleontologists say
that means they lived at the same time. OK,
so what does that imply?<P>It implies that if and when more Steg bones
are found, they will be found at the same
level of rock, and if and when Allosaurus
bones are found, they will too.<P>Stegosaurus bones are not found in the same
level of rock as sabre-tooth cats. We
hypothesize that they won't be found
together at all. We hypothesize that, if
bite marks are ever found on Stegosaurus
fossils, they won't match sabre-tooth cat
mouths.<P>All of these are tests of predictions.<P>To take it further, carbon dating gives
roughly the same results for the whole group
of stegosauruses, sabre tooth cats give
vastly different, but roughly uniform within
its group results.<P>Conclusion - carbon dating is measuring
*something.* Given lab tests that show
carbon gives off neutrons at a predictable
rate, we conclude it's age. Given that
these things are in the same level of rock
as other things that have the same
radioactivity, we are *de facto* testing our
hypothesis about things in the same level
of rock being the same age.<P>Every new fossil discovery *is a test* of the
models that have been set up previously.<P>A couple of posts ago (and I'm getting a more
clear idea what your point was now when you
brought up paleontology), you said advanced
physics is pure crap (btw, Einstein and
quantum physics are already at odds, your
disproving Einstein may not shake up the
quantum guys). Whenever the advanced
physicists can, though, they test this
stuff. That makes it science again.<P>For instance, Einstein said light was affected
by gravity. A lot of people thought it was
ridiculous. Finally someone came up with a
way to test it. They looked at the stars
during an eclipse, and the ones right 'near'
the sun weren't where they were supposed to
be - as Einstein predicted (it's because the
gravity of the sun was bending the starlight
as it travelled past the sun).<P>Similarly, all sorts of tests are being done
on background radiation *to see if it matches
expected results*.<P>That, by the definition we both agree on, is
science.<P>------------------
<A HREF="
http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="
http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.<P><p>[This message has been edited by BoxJam (edited 05-01-2001).]
