• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religion Simplified

devildavid said:
You have it backwards. In science, observable evidence always comes first, leading to a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

No, a scientist may develop a hypothesis based on an event...he/she will try to explain that event. When they have a working hypothesis that might explain it, they will conduct an experiment(s) to see if their hypothesis can be justified
It is the results of these experiments that constitute the "observable evidence"

You have to have a hypothesis first, then the experiment, and from that you get the "observable evidence".
 
Rich2018 said:
No, a scientist may develop a hypothesis based on an event...he/she will try to explain that event. When they have a working hypothesis that might explain it, they will conduct an experiment(s) to see if their hypothesis can be justified
It is the results of these experiments that constitute the "observable evidence"

You have to have a hypothesis first, then the experiment, and from that you get the "observable evidence".
Click to expand...

You contradicted your claim when you said an event. The hypothesis does not come before some evidence of something, even if it is not all the evidence.

The event had to be observed which means evidence of it. Sure, they gather more evidence to get a clearer picture.
 
devildavid said:
You contradicted your claim when you said an event. The hypothesis does not come before some evidence of something, even if it is not all the evidence.

The event had to be observed which means evidence of it. Sure, they gather more evidence to get a clearer picture.
Click to expand...

No, try to think for a moment

A scientist will observe an event
He/she will attempt to explain it based on their knowledge, this is called a hypothesis
They will then try to prove their hypothesis right by experimentation and observation.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, try to think for a moment

A scientist will observe an event
He/she will attempt to explain it based on their knowledge, this is called a hypothesis
They will then try to prove their hypothesis right by experimentation and observation.
Click to expand...

The observation is the first piece of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom