A religious scientist

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Retard.

Ah, the scientist in you is coming out. You're such a paragon of reason, of logic.

Why don't you run along and go start a thread about what sexual position Mary Magdalene prefered, or something equally spiritual?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
First of all, don't attempt to make an argument that I am not making. It only serves to propogate your silliness.

The witch tests of the past employed scientific methods, regardless of the bone-headedness their assumptions.

Astronomy and astrology also employ scientific methods, with a significant distinction. Whereas they both observe and note m ...[text shortened]... , astrology places significance on such movement while astronomy places no meaning on the same.

They try to employ scientific methods, but the reasoning behind it is wrong. The conclusions too. The only thing you can say is scientific is the method of experiment. That is not using science.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Nope, they just wanted to make absolutely sure they drowned whomever was accused of being a witch.
So your answer to the questions posed is "Nope." Beautiful. Either you didn't read the questions or are unaware of the facts of history. Either way, your response is incorrect.

Those who tried people for witchcraft had a suspicion of guilt aga ...[text shortened]... ore you is an idiot and all intentions are suspicious in light of your current understanding.[/b]

Those who tried people for witchcraft had a suspicion of guilt against the accused. They held to the idea that only a witch could float when immersed in water. To prove whether or not a person was a witch, the test would include immersion in water. If the person was observed to float--- according to their rule--- said person was a witch. If the person was observed to drown, they were not a witch. But, for the moment, forget the witchcraft charge. Substitute instead, a test for gold using the buoyancy thereof. The essence of the scientific nature of the experiment remains the same, albeit for categorically different reasons.

That you are not able to see the essence of both as scientific experiments is not surprising. According to your view, any perspective not in line with yours is lunacy. Anyone who came before you is an idiot and all intentions are suspicious in light of your current understanding.

No. it depends on how they came to the assumption that witches float. Maybe they observed some known witches (people who had been found to be witches by other means) floating, or they had through pure reasoning worked out that the properties of witches implied that they must float and then tested that by finding some known witches (see above) and thrown them in the water to see if they float. I somehow doubt that either of these was the case. Either way they would also have to throw some known non-witches in the water as well to check they were not getting false positives and again, how do you find someone who is definitvely not a witch?

The whole thing falls over as soon as you try to get a known witch or known non-witch with which to test the hypothesis. It is not a testable hypothesis and is not science.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Those who tried people for witchcraft had a suspicion of guilt against the accused. They held to the idea that only a witch could float when immersed in water. To prove whether or not a person was a witch, the test would include immersion in water. If the person was observed to float--- according to their rule--- said person was a witch. If the person was hich to test the hypothesis. It is not a testable hypothesis and is not science.

--- Penguin.

That was not science because there had been no controlled experiments using proven witches and proven non-witches to show differences in density.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That was not science because there had been no controlled experiments using proven witches and proven non-witches to show differences in density.

That's what I meant to say. You've done it far better in 1/5 the space.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by serigado
They try to employ scientific methods, but the reasoning behind it is wrong. The conclusions too. The only thing you can say is scientific is the method of experiment. That is not using science.

The only thing you can say is scientific is the method of experiment.
That is what I said.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That was not science because there had been no controlled experiments using proven witches and proven non-witches to show differences in density.

By that logic, no one can claim to be 'doing science' today either. The fact of the matter remains, without known constants--- or, at the very least, givens--- all of science is at least a little bit self-serving and presumptuous.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The only thing you can say is scientific is the method of experiment.
That is what I said.[/b]

What happens when you put an unqualified worker maneuvering a huge bulldozer?
I guess the same goes when someone without scientific qualification tries to use the tools of science.
Don't blame the tools, blame whomever used them without knowing what they were for.

Originally posted by serigado
They try to employ scientific methods, but the reasoning behind it is wrong. The conclusions too. The only thing you can say is scientific is the method of experiment. That is not using science.

Not even then. They were not conducting experiments at all. An experiment is a activity performed to analyse the accuracy of a statement. The statement is "Witches Float and non witches do not". The experiment to test this has to involve known witches and known non-witches. So how do we find a known witch?...

The 'experiment' they were doing assumes that the statement "Witches float and non-witches do not" is true but nobody had any evidence that that initial assumption had any basis in fact.

The scientific method was not being followed in any way whatsoever.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by serigado
What happens when you put an unqualified worker maneuvering a huge bulldozer?
I guess the same goes when someone without scientific qualification tries to use the tools of science.
Don't blame the tools, blame whomever used them without knowing what they were for.

Don't blame the tools, blame whomever used them without knowing what they were for.
I blame both. The tools were faulty in that their precision was based upon wrong information. Those employing them are to blame in that they knowingly removed themselves from directed paths and subsequently found themselves in unchartered waters--- no pun intended.

Originally posted by Penguin
Not even then. They were not conducting experiments at all. An experiment is a activity performed to analyse the accuracy of a statement. The statement is "Witches Float and non witches do not". The experiment to test this has to involve known witches and known non-witches. So how do we find a known witch?...

The 'experiment' they were doing assumes that ...[text shortened]... ct.

The scientific method was not being followed in any way whatsoever.

--- Penguin.

They were not conducting experiments at all.
Au contraire. According to my understanding of the word, experiment is said to mean:

1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition...

That is exactly the exercise with which those in charge were engaged. Which brings us to the next part. According to you:

The statement is "Witches Float and non witches do not".
I disagree. In fact, according to your next paragraph, so do you. This is not the statement they were testing. They had already assumed this to be true--- based on what, who knows. The statement they were testing was "The accused is a witch." To provide certifiable veracity to the response of that question, they applied the only known(!) test: buoyancy.

The scientific method was not being followed in any way whatsoever.
As far as naturalism had progressed at the time, they were very contemporary with the same.