Talk:Main Page

From Falsifiable Scientific Method
Jump to: navigation, search

The recently added false dilemmas

There was a recent addition of these sections: An exception to the rule before we start Dr. Adam Kisby offers some exceptions to what this website wiki is all about. By immediate challenge to the very premise of the wiki the wiki becomes real and within the scientific method. You may disagree with this entry but resist deleting it from the wiki and treat it as a light house warning of rocks that can dash the hopes of any boat that sails too close to the rocks.


Notes 1. Blurb on Adam Kisby book Description: In A Revolutionary Kind of Science, Adam Kisby considers the paradoxical possibility that the apparent failure of anomalies research to produce entire series of scientific revolutions is due to its adoption of increasingly rigorous versions of the scientific method. Kisby demonstrates that principles common to many versions of the scientific method operate as epistemic filters, precluding from scientific consideration whole classes of *bona fide* phenomena. These phenomena potentially include homeopathic cures, reincarnation, unknown hominids, extraterrestrial intelligence, intelligent design, ancient high technology, cold fusion, astrological correspondences, a fifth fundamental force of nature, and psychokinesis. He then proposes modified principles on which to base a new kind of scientific method that properly accommodates anomalous phenomena. Reviews: “[An] interesting, worthwhile, much needed discussion.” —Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Science Studies at Virginia Tech., Author of Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies “Kisby has done an outstanding job critiquing the commonly used principles in science for separating out and evaluating data." —William Hagan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Cal. State

Using a false dilemma that confuses the way the current peer review system operates with the method of falsifiability, and claiming by false association that the shortcomings of peer review are shortcomings of falsifiability as a method, is not acceptable.

Comment by another user

When discussing the scientific method a context must be drawn. Four hundred years of scientific method contrasts 200,000 years preceding this. So can we please have some scope to place this discussion into context.

The relevance is?

What is the relevance of the recorded history of the scientific method being 400 years, and what is the relevance of 200000 years before it? The critical thinking that underpins the scientific method is much older than any formalization of science anyway. And even if a new mutation allowing critical thinking to exist appeared only 400 years ago (which it did not), humanoids looking modern earlier than that would not be a valid argument against science anyway. Martin J Sallberg