Science and the Scientific Method - Any Connection?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Science and the Scientific Method - Any Connection?

Science and the Scientific Method - Any Connection?10-05-2026 22:13
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	What is "science", and is it related in any way to the "Scientific Method"? YOU go first!
11-05-2026 00:53
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Im a BM wrote: What is "science", and is it related in any way to the "Scientific Method"? YOU go first! Several replies have already been transmitted telepathically. "Science is not a method." "Science is not scientific." "Method is not a chemical." "Scientific is not a method." "Scientific is not a chemical." "Science is not related." That's a good start. What would the omniscient gods at Google say? "What is 'science', and is it related in any way to the 'Scientific Method'?" Don't worry your pretty little head about it. Google has it covered. Google says: "Science is a systematic approach to studying the natural world through observation and experimentation..." (italics added) This is entirely consistent with what they taught me in the Ivory Tower. This is NOT synonymous with "a set of falsifiable theories" is it? Indeed, it seems to describe a methodological approach to studying the natural world. Those "falsifiable theories" would seem to be the PRODUCT of such a process. Google pivoted and dodged the bullet regarding the "Scientific Method", yet goes on to describe it later in its reply to the query. Google say: "What is Science? * A Body of Knowledge (blah blah blah, kind of like a set of falsifiable theories..) * A Process of Discovery (blah blah blah, sounds like the Scientific Method) * A Focus on the Natural World (blah blah blah, stay away from supernatural) * Collaborative and Self-Correcting (blah blah blah, this gets into the "reproducibility" requirement of the Scientific Method) Relationship to the Scientific Method * A Tool for Investigation (blah blah blah, not a "set of falsifiable theories") * Iterative Process (blah blah blah, a process not product theories) * Objectivity (blah blah blah, a methodological approach, not set of theories) Key Components of the Scientific Method Observation... Question... Hypothesis... Experiment/testing... Analysis... Conclusion/Communication..." My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. Particularly when they are the kind of "falsifiable theories" that cannot be cited with any reference as having ever been published anywhere. Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, they have jumped through the proper hoops to get their "falsifiable theory" out where it can be discussed in any meaningful way, and validated (or not) as per its reproducibility. Otherwise, you are just talking about religious faith in the omniscience of the Keepers of Scientific Secrets, who refuse to share their sources. Edited on 11-05-2026 01:08
11-05-2026 03:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: What is "science", and is it related in any way to the "Scientific Method"? YOU go first! Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-05-2026 03:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Don't worry your pretty little head about it. Google has it covered. False authority fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Google says: "Science is a systematic approach to studying the natural world through observation and experimentation..." (italics added) Science is not a systematic anything. Science does not use observation. Science is not an experiment. All observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Im a BM wrote: This is entirely consistent with what they taught me in the Ivory Tower. Which is why you don't know what science is, and why you discard several theories of science. Im a BM wrote: This is NOT synonymous with "a set of falsifiable theories" is it? No, it isn't. Religion is not science. Im a BM wrote: Indeed, it seems to describe a methodological approach to studying the natural world. Those "falsifiable theories" would seem to be the PRODUCT of such a process. No process. A theory of science is not a process nor an end product of one. Im a BM wrote: Google pivoted and dodged the bullet regarding the "Scientific Method", yet goes on to describe it later in its reply to the query. Science is not a method or procedure. Im a BM wrote: Google say: "What is Science? * A Body of Knowledge (blah blah blah, kind of like a set of falsifiable theories..) Science is not a body of knowledge. [b]Im a BM wrote: * A Process of Discovery (blah blah blah, sounds like the Scientific Method) Science is not a 'discovery', method, or procedure. Im a BM wrote: * A Focus on the Natural World (blah blah blah, stay away from supernatural) What 'supernatural'? Science does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. Science is completely atheistic. Im a BM wrote: * Collaborative and Self-Correcting (blah blah blah, this gets into the "reproducibility" requirement of the Scientific Method) [/quote] Science is not reproducibility. Science is not a method or procedure. Im a BM wrote: Relationship to the Scientific Method Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: * A Tool for Investigation (blah blah blah, not a "set of falsifiable theories") Science is not an investigation. Im a BM wrote: * Iterative Process (blah blah blah, a process not product theories) Science is not a process. Science is not 'iterative'. A theory is not a 'product' or 'iteration'. Im a BM wrote: * Objectivity (blah blah blah, a methodological approach, not set of theories) Science is not a set of theories. It is a set of FALSIFIABLE theories. Im a BM wrote: Key Components of the Scientific Method Observation... Question... Hypothesis... Experiment/testing... Analysis... Conclusion/Communication..." Science does not use observation. All observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is not a question. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way 'round. Science is not an experiment. The only valid test is to try to break the theory. Science is not analysis. Im a BM wrote: [/b] My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". There is nothing more. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Im a BM wrote: It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Im a BM wrote: Particularly when they are the kind of "falsifiable theories" that cannot be cited with any reference as having ever been published anywhere. Science is not a publication. Science is not a cite. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, they have jumped through the proper hoops to get their "falsifiable theory" out where it can be discussed in any meaningful way, and validated (or not) as per its reproducibility. Science is not a journal. Science is not 'reproducibility'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Im a BM wrote: Otherwise, you are just talking about religious faith in the omniscience of the Keepers of Scientific Secrets, who refuse to share their sources. Nonscientific theories are not falsifiable. Most have become religions. The only authoritative reference of any theory of science is the author of that theory. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It IS possible to show a theory of science False. It is not possible to show a nonscientific theory False. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-05-2026 03:52
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	"The only valid test is to try to break the theory." - YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) And that "climate change" theory got broken by the internally consistent logic.. IBdaMann assures me that as long as your own logic is internally consistent, that's all that matters. Pretty consistent that there is "no such thing" as anything you never learned about. Pretty consistent that words you don't understand can't possibly have any meaning. Pretty consistent that nothing exists outside the domain of your very limited pre-existing knowledge. Pretty consistent that there is NO published source of information that you deem to be scientifically credible. Pretty consistent that no dictionary, textbook, or search engine knows better than you what words mean, if you allow them to mean ANYTHING. Pretty consistent that you do not accept any new information you did not already believe yourself to be aware of. Pretty consistent that your own internal logic provides you with an understanding of "climate change", "thermodynamics", and "chemistry" that is SUPERIOR to any published so-called "scientist". I will cling to my blind, religious faith in the "Scientific Method". I believe that it is REAL, and essential for understanding anything that can be legitimately called "science". I find safety in numbers as I know exactly where to find no less than a thousand citations in textbooks and peer reviewed scientific pubs to assure me that climate CAN change. And there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry. And that I AM "recognized" as a scientist who made a contribution of lasting significance. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... Don't worry your pretty little head about it. Google has it covered. False authority fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Google says: "Science is a systematic approach to studying the natural world through observation and experimentation..." (italics added) Science is not a systematic anything. Science does not use observation. Science is not an experiment. All observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Im a BM wrote: This is entirely consistent with what they taught me in the Ivory Tower. Which is why you don't know what science is, and why you discard several theories of science. Im a BM wrote: This is NOT synonymous with "a set of falsifiable theories" is it? No, it isn't. Religion is not science. Im a BM wrote: Indeed, it seems to describe a methodological approach to studying the natural world. Those "falsifiable theories" would seem to be the PRODUCT of such a process. No process. A theory of science is not a process nor an end product of one. Im a BM wrote: Google pivoted and dodged the bullet regarding the "Scientific Method", yet goes on to describe it later in its reply to the query. Science is not a method or procedure. Im a BM wrote: Google say: "What is Science? * A Body of Knowledge (blah blah blah, kind of like a set of falsifiable theories..) Science is not a body of knowledge. [b]Im a BM wrote: * A Process of Discovery (blah blah blah, sounds like the Scientific Method) Science is not a 'discovery', method, or procedure. Im a BM wrote: * A Focus on the Natural World (blah blah blah, stay away from supernatural) What 'supernatural'? Science does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. Science is completely atheistic. Im a BM wrote: * Collaborative and Self-Correcting (blah blah blah, this gets into the "reproducibility" requirement of the Scientific Method) Science is not reproducibility. Science is not a method or procedure. Im a BM wrote: Relationship to the Scientific Method Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: * A Tool for Investigation (blah blah blah, not a "set of falsifiable theories") Science is not an investigation. Im a BM wrote: * Iterative Process (blah blah blah, a process not product theories) Science is not a process. Science is not 'iterative'. A theory is not a 'product' or 'iteration'. Im a BM wrote: * Objectivity (blah blah blah, a methodological approach, not set of theories) Science is not a set of theories. It is a set of FALSIFIABLE theories. Im a BM wrote: Key Components of the Scientific Method Observation... Question... Hypothesis... Experiment/testing... Analysis... Conclusion/Communication..." Science does not use observation. All observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is not a question. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way 'round. Science is not an experiment. The only valid test is to try to break the theory. Science is not analysis. Im a BM wrote: [/b] My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". There is nothing more. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Im a BM wrote: It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Im a BM wrote: Particularly when they are the kind of "falsifiable theories" that cannot be cited with any reference as having ever been published anywhere. Science is not a publication. Science is not a cite. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, they have jumped through the proper hoops to get their "falsifiable theory" out where it can be discussed in any meaningful way, and validated (or not) as per its reproducibility. Science is not a journal. Science is not 'reproducibility'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Im a BM wrote: Otherwise, you are just talking about religious faith in the omniscience of the Keepers of Scientific Secrets, who refuse to share their sources. Nonscientific theories are not falsifiable. Most have become religions. The only authoritative reference of any theory of science is the author of that theory. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It IS possible to show a theory of science False. It is not possible to show a nonscientific theory False. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.[/quote]
11-05-2026 05:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote:[/b And that "climate change" theory got broken by the internally consistent logic.. You STILL haven't described what is 'changing' in climate, Robert. There is no theory of science called 'climate change'. [b]Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann assures me that as long as your own logic is internally consistent, that's all that matters. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... I will cling to my blind, religious faith in the "Scientific Method". Science is not a method. You simply cling to your religion and continue to deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: I believe that it is REAL, Of course you do. Too bad it isn't. Im a BM wrote: and essential for understanding anything that can be legitimately called "science". You deny science. Im a BM wrote: I find safety in numbers as I know exactly where to find no less than a thousand citations in textbooks and peer reviewed scientific pubs to assure me that climate CAN change. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate, Robert. Im a BM wrote: And there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry. No such branch of science. Im a BM wrote: And that I AM "recognized" as a scientist who made a contribution of lasting significance. Science is not a title. Science is not 'contributions of lasting significance'. You deny science. You are no scientist. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2026 18:04
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night, is the so-called "Scientific Method" important in ANY way for what you call "science"? Is the Scientific Method important to scientists for a reason you know of? Do chemists ever employ the "Scientific Method"? Other than "Science is not a method", do you have ANY IDEA what the Scientific Method IS? Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote:[/b And that "climate change" theory got broken by the internally consistent logic.. You STILL haven't described what is 'changing' in climate, Robert. There is no theory of science called 'climate change'. [b]Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann assures me that as long as your own logic is internally consistent, that's all that matters. Contextomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted whining... I will cling to my blind, religious faith in the "Scientific Method". Science is not a method. You simply cling to your religion and continue to deny theories of science. Im a BM wrote: I believe that it is REAL, Of course you do. Too bad it isn't. Im a BM wrote: and essential for understanding anything that can be legitimately called "science". You deny science. Im a BM wrote: I find safety in numbers as I know exactly where to find no less than a thousand citations in textbooks and peer reviewed scientific pubs to assure me that climate CAN change. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate, Robert. Im a BM wrote: And there IS such a thing as biogeochemistry. No such branch of science. Im a BM wrote: And that I AM "recognized" as a scientist who made a contribution of lasting significance. Science is not a title. Science is not 'contributions of lasting significance'. You deny science. You are no scientist.
14-05-2026 19:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, is the so-called "Scientific Method" important in ANY way for what you call "science"? Is the Scientific Method important to scientists for a reason you know of? Do chemists ever employ the "Scientific Method"? Other than "Science is not a method", do you have ANY IDEA what the Scientific Method IS? Science is not a method or procedure, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2026 20:06
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, is the so-called "Scientific Method" important in ANY way for what you call "science"? Is the Scientific Method important to scientists for a reason you know of? Do chemists ever employ the "Scientific Method"? Other than "Science is not a method", do you have ANY IDEA what the Scientific Method IS? Science is not a method or procedure, Robert. So, THAT is as much as you know about what the Scientific Method IS? You know that science is NOT a method or procedure. "Nobody ever said that it was, dumbass." - Into the Night You couldn't even LIE with "RQAA" to pretend that at some time you displayed actual knowledge of what the Scientific Method IS. Like nearly every other time you are asked to DEFINE YOUR TERMS.. What IS (e.g. "The Scientific Method")? All you understand about it is that "The Scientific Method is NOT (whatever)" But you usually just shorten your evasion to "Science is NOT (whatever)" You must have gotten some kind of teaching award for when you taught science to college students. (I know that I sure did)
14-05-2026 21:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: So, THAT is as much as you know about what the Scientific Method IS? Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: What IS (e.g. "The Scientific Method")? Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: All you understand about it is that "The Scientific Method is NOT (whatever)" Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: But you usually just shorten your evasion to "Science is NOT (whatever)" Science is not a method. Im a BM wrote: You must have gotten some kind of teaching award for when you taught science to college students. (I know that I sure did) Science is not a class. You deny science. You still ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 14-05-2026 21:50
15-05-2026 00:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15223)	Im a BM wrote: My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". Well, your gut has so much credibility. Did your gut tell you how much more? Science is a set of falsifiable theories ... that predict nature. That's a rather important detail. Im a BM wrote:It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. It sounds like you don't have the first clue of science is. You obviously think science is somehow a religion, a subjective matter of personal opinion and faith, in which a consensus of the clergy is absolutely needed ... You don't have a clue. No agreement is necessary. Science is not subjective and nobody gets a vote. No organization somehow owns science such that their board of governers must somehow approve material to be science. You are a lot more dense than scientists previously feared. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, Nature doesn't publish science. That publication features articles by people who use poor writing and extended long-windedness to conceal the fact that their articles are pointless gibberish. The articles/submissions ... are gibberish. It's a sad state of affairs that you believe that the vomit they publish is somehow science. If you have questions about what, exactly, constitutes a falsifiable model that predicts nature, just ask.
15-05-2026 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". Well, your gut has so much credibility. Did your gut tell you how much more? Science is a set of falsifiable theories ... that predict nature. That's a rather important detail. Im a BM wrote:It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. It sounds like you don't have the first clue of science is. You obviously think science is somehow a religion, a subjective matter of personal opinion and faith, in which a consensus of the clergy is absolutely needed ... You don't have a clue. No agreement is necessary. Science is not subjective and nobody gets a vote. No organization somehow owns science such that their board of governers must somehow approve material to be science. You are a lot more dense than scientists previously feared. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, Nature doesn't publish science. That publication features articles by people who use poor writing and extended long-windedness to conceal the fact that their articles are pointless gibberish. The articles/submissions ... are gibberish. It's a sad state of affairs that you believe that the vomit they publish is somehow science. If you have questions about what, exactly, constitutes a falsifiable model that predicts nature, just ask. Well put. Thank you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2026 17:58
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". Well, your gut has so much credibility. Did your gut tell you how much more? Science is a set of falsifiable theories ... that predict nature. That's a rather important detail. Im a BM wrote:It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. It sounds like you don't have the first clue of science is. You obviously think science is somehow a religion, a subjective matter of personal opinion and faith, in which a consensus of the clergy is absolutely needed ... You don't have a clue. No agreement is necessary. Science is not subjective and nobody gets a vote. No organization somehow owns science such that their board of governers must somehow approve material to be science. You are a lot more dense than scientists previously feared. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, Nature doesn't publish science. That publication features articles by people who use poor writing and extended long-windedness to conceal the fact that their articles are pointless gibberish. The articles/submissions ... are gibberish. It's a sad state of affairs that you believe that the vomit they publish is somehow science. If you have questions about what, exactly, constitutes a falsifiable model that predicts nature, just ask. Well put. Thank you. One interpretation of climate-debate.com history is that I began to post about five years after the trolls drove all the scientists away. And then I, singlehandedly, drove the trolls away. I wish I were so powerful. No, Google just stopped showing this website among results for searches seeking climate discussion groups, more than two years ago by now. No new members joined the discussion any more. Few old members remained. The "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" gang... sort of a "gang", at least in terms of "gang rape" dynamics, but more of a WACKY religious CULT... Well, they were half a dozen strong when I arrived. Now it's down to one and a half.
15-05-2026 19:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: One interpretation of... ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2026 19:20
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: One interpretation of... ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. A "nothing" who gets "nowhere". Scientific nobody say what?
15-05-2026 23:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Whining gets you nowhere, Robert.
18-05-2026 19:40
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3489)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: My gut feeling is that there is more to "science" than a "set of falsifiable theories". Well, your gut has so much credibility. Did your gut tell you how much more? Science is a set of falsifiable theories ... that predict nature. That's a rather important detail. Im a BM wrote:It sounds like a lot of science has to happen before everyone gets to the point of agreeing on the validity of the theories. It sounds like you don't have the first clue of science is. You obviously think science is somehow a religion, a subjective matter of personal opinion and faith, in which a consensus of the clergy is absolutely needed ... You don't have a clue. No agreement is necessary. Science is not subjective and nobody gets a vote. No organization somehow owns science such that their board of governers must somehow approve material to be science. You are a lot more dense than scientists previously feared. Im a BM wrote: Even if they can only get published in a "shit rag" such as the journal Nature, Nature doesn't publish science. That publication features articles by people who use poor writing and extended long-windedness to conceal the fact that their articles are pointless gibberish. The articles/submissions ... are gibberish. It's a sad state of affairs that you believe that the vomit they publish is somehow science. If you have questions about what, exactly, constitutes a falsifiable model that predicts nature, just ask. Well put. Thank you. One interpretation of climate-debate.com history is that I began to post about five years after the trolls drove all the scientists away. And then I, singlehandedly, drove the trolls away. I wish I were so powerful. No, Google just stopped showing this website among results for searches seeking climate discussion groups, more than two years ago by now. No new members joined the discussion any more. Few old members remained. The "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" gang... sort of a "gang", at least in terms of "gang rape" dynamics, but more of a WACKY religious CULT... Well, they were half a dozen strong when I arrived. Now it's down to one and a half. IBdaMann and Into the Night both replied. Apparently, the "Scientific Method" is of little importance to "science". That is what make the brand of SCIENCE DENIAL at climate-debate.com so unique and special, compared to most science denial rabbit hole echo chambers on the Internet. They have actually redefined what "science" IS. No "Scientific Method" to mess with. No "research" papers following it.. No papers at all in fact. No books. No dictionaries. Just a "set of falsifiable theories". "Science" is NOT a METHOD! "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann
18-05-2026 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: They have actually redefined what "science" IS. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: No "Scientific Method" to mess with. No "research" papers following it.. No papers at all in fact. No books. No dictionaries. Just a "set of falsifiable theories". "Science" is NOT a METHOD! This part is correct. Im a BM wrote: "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann I agree with IBdaMann. Your religion is stupid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-05-2026 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (24080)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: One interpretation of... ...deleted whining... Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. A "nothing" who gets "nowhere". Scientific nobody say what? Whining gets you nowhere, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Science and the Scientific Method - Any Connection?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
There is still no Global Warming science.	473	07-06-2026 04:44
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	402	04-05-2026 22:28
I The Savior Legend God Seeking Connection Support From All To Release World Solution Completely	3	02-04-2025 09:53
Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum	15	18-07-2024 21:11
The History of Science	10	22-04-2024 16:30