Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that
best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?
Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More
testing and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the
data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers
are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through
repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking
for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and
conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is
based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means
the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable
scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is
the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means
to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some
knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an
emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.
What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus.

Not in the same way that you spin it, Bert.

You guys make this out to be harder than it really is. You are getting
stuck on the methods of observation and the methods of consensus.