Original Science,observable, todays science scientific principles

[pljames]

Excuse me I understand the English language but this gives me trouble. Most science is observable with or without a telescope or microscope. Observe,study, hypothesis, theory then fact. Today observe,hypotheis theory. Whats different with todays scientific study against ancient science study?

pljames

[paleolithic]

Maybe it's due to the new complexities of what's being studied, and that most "facts" are proven wrong somewhere along the line and replaced with new "facts", that are also proven wrong sometime later, especially when you're talking about astronomy and cosmology and such. It also takes a long time for a theory to become a fact, especially when you have people with questionable sanity saying we shouldn't speak of science because it's blasphemy, but at least they're not burning us alive anymore... poor Bruno.

[Ophiolite]

Most science is observable with or without a telescope or microscope.

I would challenge this statement. Just consider a few fields of study:

Cosmology - requires telescopes across the whole EM spectrum.

Astronomy - as above

Planetology - as above, plus unmanned probes, plus microscopes for examining meteorites

Biology - requires optical and electron microscopy

Archaeology - increasingly employing techniques like NMR to investigate artifacts

Physics - you wouldn't get very far without the various high energy colliders. (Microscopes, no, except in an analagous sense, but I believe they meet your thesis that we can 'observe' without 'modern' instruments.

 

Observe' date='study, hypothesis, theory then fact. Today observe,hypotheis theory. Whats different with todays scientific study against ancient science study?

pljames[/quote']Ancient science did not emphasise validation through experiment. That's a simple statement with huge implications.

[Mokele]

Biology - requires optical and electron microscopy

 

Not necessarily. They're helpful (and essential for some levels of biology), but aren't needed for all of biology.

 

Ancient science did not emphasise validation through experiment. That's a simple statement with huge implications.

 

I vaguely recall something about a guy named Bacon in the 1500's who began "modern science", in the sense of the emphasis on predictions, testing hypotheses and experiments. But I have a very bad memory for current events (by which I mean anything since the mid-Pleistocene).

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

Not necessarily. They're helpful (and essential for some levels of biology), but aren't needed for all of biology.

True. I was being too general. Since ethology holds more interest for me than most aspects of biology I am surprised I trapped myself. (One could make similar objections to my other points.) However, with minor rephrasing, I think my underlying contention remains true: modern science makes extensive use of microscopes and telescopes (and other advanced instruments), and in some fields these are not simply useful, but essential.

I vaguely recall something about a guy named Bacon in the 1500's who began "modern science",

Some modern science historians have downplayed Bacon's importance, but I think this link gives a balanced view.

http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/phibalas/dialogue2001/Scientific%20Method/Bacon/BaconInductiveMethod.htm

But I have a very bad memory for current events (by which I mean anything since the mid-Pleistocene).

Ah, yes: one of my lecturers considered any sediments younger than Cambrian to be 'superficial drift deposits'!