Science Jokes Thread.

Er, porchrat. You're going down this path with Swa again. You realise this, right?

If you're prepared to make such a commitment then I'd suggest sellotaping a cushion to your forehead and reading all Swa posts with your chin pressed firmly against your neck. This way your eyes are permanently in the "rolled" position, minimising potential damage...
 
LOL good point. I actually thought I had the guy on ignore now that I think about it. I must have removed it thinking the worst was over after he stopped flooding the Natural Sciences section with creationist garbage.

Nevermind Swa. Keep living in fantasy land where you think you have one-upped all us nasty atheists that only dislike you because you are a theist. :rolleyes:
 
porchrat said:
LOL good point. I actually thought I had the guy on ignore now that I think about it. I must have removed it thinking the worst was over after he stopped flooding the Natural Sciences section with creationist garbage.

Nevermind Swa. Keep living in fantasy land where you think you have one-upped all us nasty atheists that only dislike you because you are a theist. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think it's a good thing you took the effort to reply to his idiocy. Other people read the forums too, and it may well be enlightening to some.
 
porchrat said:
This one is not comparing differences in the scientific method as a concept and approach to gathering knowledge but differences in experimental techniques used within that method to arrive at the conclusion(s). Not the same thing at all.

It is hard to separate the techniques utilised within the study from the abstract method of thinking and arranging your investigation in order to demonstrate your conclusion so I understand the confusion.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing. You can't separate the two. That the technique of investigation has to be adjusted for every science shows that the scientific method is a myth or an ideal at best. There are many scientific methods. But of course we don't expect someone who's trying to live up to an ideal he read in some book rather than finding out how real scientists do things to understand this.

porchrat said:
This one is just saying that the basic outline of the scientific method is nothing but a basic outline and isn't an accurate reflection of the details of all studies. Duh. News at 11.

Here I don't understand the confusion. The articles subject matter is explicitly stated right up front and it goes on to directly critique the oversimplification. It is literally the entire content of the article... how did you miss that?
Click to expand...
I did not miss anything. The entire premise of the article is that it's such a gross oversimplification that it's simply not valid in practice. See again the red "Too simple!". Not only is the actual method not linear but the steps vary as well. It's an ideal but one that's not realised in reality.
 
Swa said:
It's the same thing. You can't separate the two. That the technique of investigation has to be adjusted for every science shows that the scientific method is a myth or an ideal at best.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious to me that the "technique of investigation" would be different depending on the field of scientific inquiry that one is engaged in. A physicist and a geneticist aren't doing the same thing.

Swa said:
There are many scientific methods.
Click to expand...

Enlighten us then. What are these 'many' scientific methods?
 
Swa said:
It's the same thing. You can't separate the two.
Click to expand...
I need read no further.

Of course you can. The scientific method is not a rigidly defined series of different kinds of tests, those are just techniques performed within the scientific method itself. Sure they need to conform to the principles enshrined within the scientific method in order to be valid for the process of scientific inquiry but the scientific method itself is far more abstract and includes far more than just simple tests. The scientific method is a set of general principles governing scientific enquiry. It doesn't even mean that every step will occur in every scientific investigation or that they will always occur in the exact same order. None of that demonstrates that there is more than one scientific method. The principles always remain unchanged in every scientific investigation.

The procedures you perform can all fall into the "testing" step of the scientific method. That includes PCR, scanning electron microscopy, mathematical proofs and all sorts of others. They are all different, but they are all tests that fall within the "testing" step of the scientific method. They do not define the scientific method.

Read up on it. Heck just read the Wikipedia article that alone will help. Now stop derailing the joke thread with this inane crap. :mad:
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
I need read no further.

Of course you can. The scientific method is not a rigidly defined series of different kinds of tests, those are just techniques performed within the scientific method itself. Sure they need to conform to the principles enshrined within the scientific method in order to be valid for the process of scientific inquiry but the scientific method itself is far more abstract and includes far more than just simple tests. The scientific method is a set of general principles governing scientific enquiry. It doesn't even mean that every step will occur in every scientific investigation or that they will always occur in the exact same order. None of that demonstrates that there is more than one scientific method. The principles always remain unchanged in every scientific investigation.

The procedures you perform can all fall into the "testing" step of the scientific method. That includes PCR, scanning electron microscopy, mathematical proofs and all sorts of others. They are all different, but they are all tests that fall within the "testing" step of the scientific method. They do not define the scientific method.

Read up on it. Heck just read the Wikipedia article that alone will help. Now stop derailing the joke thread with this inane crap. :mad:
Click to expand...
Porch, this is why I said READ THE ARTICLE! You seem to be confused with the method and the philosophy. The scientific "method" is generally described in textbooks as the 5 steps in the article. When students however leave the classroom they are confused because what they are doing is not what they were taught. Steps have to be repeated, done out of order, or even left out. Also from the article "science relies on creative people thinking outside the box" i.o.w. abandoning any existing ideas and coming up with a new method to solve a problem. If you've ever looked past your own ideals of what you think science is you'd know that.

The method you want to cling to is too simple to be accurate. It only gets one thing right: testing ideas with evidence. Again from the article. So it ceases to be a method and becomes an ideal or philosophy.

PS: The only one derailing here is YOU. Not nice to be stared at in the mirror hey? :D
 
porchrat said:
I'm not the one that started this nightmare and I'm the only one calling for it to stop.

Now stop.
Click to expand...
STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT

That's all you ever frikkin' say whenever you start an argument that doesn't go your way. If you can't stand the frikkin' heat then stay out of the kitchen.
 
After seeing that ridiculously childish post I now remember why I put you on ignore in the first place. I have now placed you back on ignore where you will remain Swa.

I'm asking you to stop not because I'm losing an argument but because you are knowingly attempting to further the derailment of this thread. Something that simply isn't cool on a forum. Show some consideration for those who share this forum with you.

Now sit back, chill, stop trying to derail this into another stupid argument and enjoy some science jokes.
 
Last edited:
Glad you're admitting that you're behaviour isn't cool. You're the one who knowingly and purposefully derailed the thread so you can cry foul as usual of your own behaviour derailing the thread. Nice try but it's no longer going to work with me. If you want it to stop YOU stop it.
 
Swa said:
Glad you're admitting that you're behaviour isn't cool. You're the one who knowingly and purposefully derailed the thread so you can cry foul as usual of your own behaviour derailing the thread. Nice try but it's no longer going to work with me. If you want it to stop YOU stop it.
Click to expand...

He just did. By blocking you.
 
The age limit on this forum really needs to be enforced...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X