"Science runs on an established methodology and standard of practice."
Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?
How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed? how many times does this 'established methodology and standard of practice' add, delete, or modify a previous 'established methodology and standard of practice'?
36 comments
The methodology never changes.
The actual information regarding the Periodic Table hasn't changed much either. The properties of a few elements are known with greater precision; minor changes caused mostly by increasingly accurate equipment. The only major changes are that very heavy elements have only recently been named.
Ironic that a science denier should bring up the weather....
In point of fact, the periodic table has only been rearranged or added to. The elements themselves are not subject to the whims or fads of a scientist's fancy.
The same goes for many other strong theories- a strong theory tends to have mostly additions as more proof is gathered, and any revisions or contradictory evidence are either incorporated into the explanation, or they are relatively minor, not affecting the overall standing of the theory as a whole.
This whole process is a Good Thing. It is a living, functional theory with explanatory powers and the ability to predict(gaps in the table were later filled with stunning accuracy). It is not the fossilized, desiccated dogma you are familiar with.
Not that I'd expect you to understand that.
Every time new information is observed and any time existing information must be updated, corrected, or expanded on.
How often do you write your diary? Does adding new entries and looking back on past mistakes with a different perspective on the actions you've taken mean you're doing this whole life thing wrong?
No, but what you just said is a pretty good indicator you fail at it for other reasons.
Science is not what the weather is. It's how you find out what the weather is going to be. And since the weather changes due to circumstances, the weather changes, but that doesn't mean that the way you found what is going to be changed.
the methodology itself is a constant, individual hypotheses and theories may be altered, or scrapped entirely to accommodate new findings, but the basic methodology by which those hypotheses are derived does not change. That is why science is better then religion, it can adapt to new discoveries, whereas religion just tries to pretend they don't exist.
Changing methodology - in fact pretty constant since the Scientific Revolution - doesn't change half as much as fundamentalists' basic theology, prophecies about politics and natural disasters, views of the End Times etc.
It happens continuously. that's why science gets superior results. Fundieism remains the same for centuries, which is why it gets such inferior results.
For example science is getting postcards from Mars, while fundies are saying the world is flat.
If science never changes, the periodic table of elements would just have earth, wind, fire, and water. Consequently we'd also still be living in caves and trying to kill animals with sticks.
I just don't get the conservative mindset which believes that it's wrong to change your mind if new evidence is found. I know Christianity demands an unquestioning faith and unchanging belief, but for some reason they just can't understand that that's not how science works.
How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed?
Not that often, actually. Most of the time it's updated to add newly discovered elements. But even if it was completely revamped every single day that doesn't mean that the old versions were completely wrong. More likely it means that they were either lacking some newly discovered information or the current information is being presented in a different way. Now, sometimes science finds that it was completely or mostly wrong about something but generally it tends to build on existing knowledge because the existing knowledge is usually good, just incomplete.
@Chaosof99: And there we see the problem. To the fundamentalists (maybe authoritarian followers in general?), truth is inherently obvious. Because it's true, it does not NEED to be interpreted. In fact, it SHOULD NOT be interpreted, but taken in as is. (Wait, this is starting to sound like one or two anarcho-primitivists' views of nature as well...Authoritarianism with nature itself as the admittedly-blind archon?)
To such ones, if you're trying to peer or interpret, you're doing it wrong. Truth and revelation know nothing of metaphor, only eternal fixity.
The Periodic Table changes each time we discover a new element. That's how it was designed. Dimitri Mendeleeve invented the table with the expressed idea that it would be added onto because he wasn't arrogant enough to presume that the handful of known elements of his day was all there was to find in the world.
You mock people for changing with the weather AVET, so do you still go outside in nothing but your swim trunks in the middle of a blizzard?
Established methodologies and standards of practice do not change unless someone gets a better idea. Science is all about better ideas.
Remember that for fundies, change is a sign of weakness, because it means you were wrong . Never changing your mind is a sign of strength, which is why they consider blind faith a virtue even in the face of contradictory evidence. Hence creationism.
Yes because science runs on established methodology and standard practice it changes. It's precisely why it changes.
You're almost there, just a little further... aw who am I kidding you have no idea.
"How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed?"
Not with the weather but as required in response to new evidience: scientific theories are tentative and have always bee subject to revision in the light of new observations.
That's a GOOD thing, after all: it wouldn't make any sense to discover evidence domnstrating a need to change our understanding of the antural world, but to simply shrug and say "Let's ignore reality and just continue getting it wrong."
@Skynight, I would assume weakness is blameworthy because it shows a lack of faith, and that's a sin. Better to cling to blind faith in this evil, evil world and be assured of your ticket to Heaven. Weak people fall away from the faith and wind up in Hell.
That's my analysis.
"How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed?"
Ooh, ooh, I know that one!
Never, since its inception. It was created with gaps for the elements the writer knew existed, but which we hadn't then discovered. Since then, it has only been added to as intended, not changed. Nobody's ever said "you know what, I reckon hydrogen's actually got an atomic weight of 37".
All the elements that occur in nature have been on the periodic table almost since it came into existence. The 'additions' are synthetic elements that human beings have created in labs.
Right? I'm talking from half-forgotten high school science here, but I'm pretty sure this is right.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
