/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2548791
Now could a mod sticky this?

Self-proclaimed Scientific Method. Who came up with those rules by the way?

>>2548816
Scientists.

>>2548816
It doesn't matter who came up with them. Even if the principles of science were first elucidated by a gang of baby rapists, it wouldn't change anything. That's the entire virtue of science and rigorous methodology in the first place.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Fail.
Publish after one test is retarded.
Steps can be done in any order (aside from conclusion obviously).

Only fags obey the law, OP. Are you a fag?

>>2548880
So that's your definition of fag.
Interesting,aether,but this is what most people mean with "faggot".
You

>>2548880
No.

>>2548859
No.
It is called a method for a reason.

>>2548897
>>2548893
1. Your maths is flawed.
2. I'm much smarter and wiser than you.
3. You're a retarded parasite.
4. Your science is not real science.

>>2548914
Prove it.

>>2548914
But you are a fag!
If 0=1
and 0=aether
and 1=faggot
then
aether=faggot

>>2548925
Bill Nye, and every other being has a symmetrical face. It's even symmetrical when people don't have a symmetrical face, because there is still symmetry. There are people who are more-symmetrical and less-symmetrical. The planet Earth has antipodes, meaning that again, it is a symmetrical being. Where you're standing/sitting now, directly on the other side of the planet is some form of mass. Every planet is orb-shaped like the Earth, and thus, every planet shares the exact same symmetric properties.

Furthermore, space bereft of any physical qualities, it is the opposite of mass. Without space, there cannot 'be' mass, as for something to 'be', it requires both body (mass) and area (space) <--- So, both mass and space come entwined, and due to the laws of symmetry, as mass is in physical form, space must be mental form. Taking into account the fact the planets are spherical, and they have a indicated 'top and bottom, left and right, front and back and inside and outside' - existing and plus and minus opposites cancelling each other out to 0; there must be a mental 'cube' around the planet, for it must be obeying 'laws' to be able to take that shape in the first place.

Problem?

>>2548985
But that is wrong.

>>2549021
Now it's your turn to start proving.

use established rules and laws of nature as essential parameters for constructing a hypothesis
form hypothoesis
gather evidence
assess probability
procure feedback
embrace feedback
refine results
get more feedback
profit

>>2548985
You didn't prove shit.
ALL HAIL THE TIMEPYRAMID

>>2549028
But you haven't proved anything yet.

>>2548985
lol planets are spherical cuzza gravity not kewbs

Pyramid signifies superiority, it's not a pyramid or one side of the Earth would be better quality than the other hurr hurr hurr

>>2549028
You called me retarded.
I said prove it.
You started rambling about something quite unrelated.

After observing those events, I am led to believe you are the retarded one.

>>2549088
Prove it.

>>2549092
I believe I just have after observing those events.
Now all I need to do is get my peers to review it, and retest.

>>2549086
But because an acoustic guitar has 2 types of strings,and 3 of each one,then 3X2=6.
3=TRIANGLE
A PYRAMID HAS 3-1+1=4

SO ALL HAIL PYRAMIDTIME

>>2548829

[citation needed]

>>2549102

The Sandia National Laboratories concur with these findings.

>>2548791
OP is correct. This "God" character has been appearing on /sci/ far too often. I was banned for voicing my butthurt about it last week.

Pic related

>Gather information and resources (observe)
>Perform experiment and collect data
>Retest
Why is the Big Bang Theory a theory?

See mods, the fact that my thread has generated so many posts correlates with my thoughts that there are so many pseudo-scientists in our midsts.

Scifags can't teapot.

>>2549172

because it has analytic, explanatory, and predictive power

>>2549218
But it doesn't qualify as a theory according to the scientific method.

>>2549181

number of people currently on /sci/: ~300
number of actual scientist: ~2

stfu negroid

>>2549172

It gets called a theory because it's the most successful predictive model for the problem.

"perform experiment" doesn't mean you have to create another big bang (though we've come a long way toward replicating those conditions anyway).

We can experiment on the properties of our existing universe to glean clues as to its origin and use that data to construct a model that we can then use to predict what should be out there and how it should behave. If what we find does not agree with what we predicted, we refine or replace the theory based upon new data.

For instance, we knew about black holes long before we ever observed one thanks to our cosmological models.

>>2549237

Looks fine to me. Perhaps you could point out what you think is the problem so we can tell you why you are wrong.

>>2549237
Yes it does.

OP's textbook definition of scientific method doesn't explain what's actually being tested or experimented on. This leads to the common misunderstanding that scientists have to reproduce the big bang (or evolution, or whatever) in the lab in order to be scientific.

Basically, a scientists comes up with a theory or hypothesis to explain some natural phenomenon.

Then he asks himself, IF my idea is true THEN what would I expect to see? So the theory/hypothesis is tested by setting up an experiment or hypothesis to find out of the real result matches with the predicted outcome. (Preferably, the predicted outcome is one that would differentiate the theory or hypothesis from competing ones.)

For example, the big bang theory predicted that stars and galaxies observed to be very far away would be very different from nearby stars and galaxies. A competing theory, the steady state theory, predicted that far-away stars and galaxies would be very similar to nearby ones. So the observations were made, and the big bang turned out to be the more robust theory because its predicts fit the data much better than steady state theory.