LGBTitp - Part Seven

[Pyrian]

Meh. I don't see much point in having a "personal definition" of anything. Semantics are about communication, they're meant to be shared. If one person has a different definition of science than others, all that means is that you can easily talk past each other and have arguments that are fundamentally meaningless because you're talking about different things in the first place.

[Coidzor]

Hence why so many people come in here and ask what others mean when they use certain terms.

And why nearly everyone is annoyed by the whole pansexual thing, whether because they still don't understand the definition, they're tired of giving the definition, or the fact that there is no consensual definition and you have to figure it out from pansexual to pansexual.

See also, Transgender, Transexuality, et al.

[Drolyt]

In my mind a "controlled experiment" is one where you are testing whether something is true or false based on an isolated variable and where you can control all the other variables so that you are sure (or at least as sure as possible) that the result is accurate. In my mind a field of study where you cannot conduct such experiments isn't a science.

Part of my reason for defining things this way is historical. Science originally only refereed to what was previously called "natural philosophy". The difference between the two is the methodology I described above. The tendency to refer to fields of study such as the social sciences as "science" is to my mind an attempt to make said fields of study "valid" in the eyes of the public because of the prestige science has. But I guess in the end it is just sophistry, a number of people agree with my narrow definition of science but I think we are still in the minority.

Edit: I should note that technically the original meaning of "science" is closer to what we would call simply "knowledge". Ditto for philosophy, which is Greek for "the love of wisdom". That I prefer to use philosophy as the broader term and limit science to natural philosophy with an empirical methodology is perhaps arbitrary.

[Ostien]

Meh. I don't see much point in having a "personal definition" of anything. Semantics are about communication, they're meant to be shared. If one person has a different definition of science than others, all that means is that you can easily talk past each other and have arguments that are fundamentally meaningless because you're talking about different things in the first place.

But you are speaking like there are agreed upon definitions of these terms and some people are just going outside of them. Language is mailable and changes and is context dependent.

My point on science was that you really cannot study social constructs in a controlled environment, there is no baseline. If you make a double blind study on gender and that women tend to do X and men tend to do Y you have not made a conclusion of a fundamental difference but perhaps only shown an effect of a social variable you don't know about. That is not saying it is not useful but it is calling into question the notion that you have made any absolute conclusion just observations and correlations. you may want to call that science, and it is influenced by that method but I stress that there needs to be a clarification of what the end results are with social variable in contrast to hard science. Otherwise you can get erroneous and perhaps harmful conclusions.

And why nearly everyone is annoyed by the whole pansexual thing

Not everyone is annoyed, I for one am always intrigued by various definitions. The only thing I may get annoyed about is people telling me how I should identify. But I'd suspect many would be annoyed with that. The language not having a solid definition is not annoying it is fascinating.

Science is the process of hypothesizing, testing, and refining until you figure out how or why something works. Just because you can't boil something down to a number with three or four decimal places doesn't mean it isn't a science. Double-blind studies are just as scientific as growing things in petri dishes, and seeking statistical significance is as valid as seeking complete certainty; it's the methodology that matters, not the results. The social sciences may have fewer proven theories and laws and more correlations and working hypotheses, but that doesn't make them any less of a science; in fact, any field that would "pretend you have all the factors figured out" wouldn't be a science, because as soon as you know all the answers, you're not longer doing science.

I can agree with much of that surprisingly enough. My concern is that science becomes this standard by which things become useful. Also my annoyance that many tend to view knowing all the factors as the core of science, which as you pointed out is not true. Sure a scientific method can be used in the social science and yield some interesting correlations but my point is that you cannot compare it to the hard science, you cannot say that that is what the social sciences should strive for. You need to recognize that there are fundamental differences in what is being studied and thus has an effect on what can be achieved. This was my point.

[Pyrian]

But you are speaking like there are agreed upon definitions of these terms and some people are just going outside of them.

In this particular case, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's all well and good to discuss what can and cannot be determined in regards to studying the social behavior of humanity. Claiming personal judgments as to whether or not such studies constitute science, on the other hand, is worse than useless; it's a semantic game substituting misuse of terminology for argument. It's a blatant attempt to undermine valuable work via derogatory rhetoric.

[Reinboom]

I believe this to be relevant and an interesting bout of news (to this group):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...EMnMgD9GQ5FG80

Personally, I'm happy that Caster gets to run again after the gender fiasco.

[Ostien]

In this particular case, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's all well and good to discuss what can and cannot be determined in regards to studying the social behavior of humanity. Claiming personal judgments as to whether or not such studies constitute science, on the other hand, is worse than useless; it's a semantic game substituting misuse of terminology for argument. It's a blatant attempt to undermine valuable work via derogatory rhetoric.

But my point is that while a scientific method can be used it is unwise to categorically say that the social sciences should "cleave itself of philosophy" and that it has to be more scientific to be credible. While scientific methods can be used and bring understanding to the field I'll disagree that the field of social study should be seen as exclusively scientific or that it should become that way. This is what the discussion has been about the use of the term science to social studies and the degree of integration of scientific methods to a field which belies the existence of repeatable experimental results.

This is a debate and debates will have "judgments" no matter what but that is what makes debate useful, navigating those judgments. There is real disagreement as to how you define scientific results even within the scientific community. Whether that result of a study is scientific or not is part of any discussion of scientific rigor. All results need to be suspect, science is inherently a suspicious discipline! To say otherwise is misunderstanding the terms of the debate.

Again what I am disagreeing about is how much you can call social research science (not that you cannot use scientific methods) when the very variables you are trying to illuminate are subjective across not just cultural but individual psycho-social development. You can try and control for these and get better results but fundamentally what you are studying is how individual psyches have developed which are not consistent even in the same conditions. Humans beings have demonstrated over and over again that their behavior is not like that of mechanical systems and should not be treated as such. There can be observations on trends which use science but the goal should not be to remove philosophy, remove philosophical interpretation, from social research and replace it with only those scientific methods that are inadequate by themselves.

This is my judgment, my position. A position that is by no means without merit or real concerns. I know I am in the minority, that many here value science more then I do, they value it as useful for everything, as an absolute Truth devoid of nuance and fallibility. Many will laugh at my chosen path to seek a Ph.D. in a philosophical discipline, say that it is useless. I will disagree.

[Delusion]

According to news papers some people used tear gas on the crowd during Gay Pride here in Finland.
One of the victims was a 1 year old baby.

Things like these that make coming out seem even scarier.

[Murdim]

I know I am in the minority, that many here value science more then I do, they value it as useful for everything, as an absolute Truth devoid of nuance and fallibility.

Well, I do place a considerable value on science, and I do sort-of think of it as an absolute Truth devoid of nuance and faillibility. I also think that for a lot of reasons, some of which anchored into the very notion of subject, the scientific method breaks and loses most of what makes it trustworthy as soon as it tries to study the human being in their quality as a subject.

[Ostien]

Well, I do place a considerable value on science, and I do sort-of think of it as an absolute Truth devoid of nuance and faillibility. I also think that for a lot of reasons, some of which anchored into the very notion of subject, the scientific method breaks and loses most of what makes it trustworthy as soon as it tries to study the human being in their quality as a subject.

Ah! A point of common ground. Splendid!

Seriously that is more or less my point. I may quibble of the absolute Truth part but at that point we're just splitting quarks. The idea that science tends to break down at the level of the social is the gist of what I was getting to. Others may disagree but there it is.

[Drolyt]

In this particular case, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's all well and good to discuss what can and cannot be determined in regards to studying the social behavior of humanity. Claiming personal judgments as to whether or not such studies constitute science, on the other hand, is worse than useless; it's a semantic game substituting misuse of terminology for argument. It's a blatant attempt to undermine valuable work via derogatory rhetoric.

Except it isn't a personal judgment, my definition is in fact the traditional one and the use of the term outside of the natural/hard sciences is a modern construction. Originally "science" meant knowledge and had nothing to do with methodology. During the scientific revolution the term was adopted to represent the sort of empirical study and strict methodology they were using in the hard/natural sciences. Science became prestigious and so other fields took the term as well despite not being able to adhere to the same standards as the hard/natural sciences. I disagree with this usage and only consider the hard/natural sciences studied rigorously to be actual science. Whether or not this is all sophistry is another question.

[Pyrian]

Except it isn't a personal judgment...

Sure it is. The current, widely accepted definition isn't yours. By using another definition - by your own description cherry picked from a certain time period, neither ancient nor modern but somewhere in between - you are merely confusing any discussion you try to use your particular "protest" terminology in.

[Drolyt]

Sure it is. The current, widely accepted definition isn't yours. By using another definition - by your own description cherry picked from a certain time period, neither ancient nor modern but somewhere in between - you are merely confusing any discussion you try to use your particular "protest" terminology in.

Except I'm not cherry picking, I'm not the only person preferring this particular definition, and there are good reasons to use the more narrow definition. Admittedly most of those who agree with my definition are in academia rather than the general public, particularly fields like philosophy of science and epistemology. Here is a popular article attacking the use of the word "science" in reference to a particular social science, psychology. It is a good read.

Edit: Wikipedia claims something different, that the term social science is from the time when science simply meant knowledge and that most social scientists admit it isn't science by definition. Make of that what you will, there doesn't appear to be any sources.

[Serpentine]

There is considerable evidence that almost all conceptions of gender are societal rather than inborn. Men wouldn't prefer either hunting or gardening in greater concentrations unless society told them to. There is no inborn trait that says men like to hunt and women like to garden, it is completely sociological.

Er... No Yes, almost all conceptions of gender are primarily social, not instinctive, but that doesn't mean there are no differences between males and females at all. In fact, there are a number of physical "inborn traits" that reflect the male hunter and the female gatherer (and if you can point to any societies in which this is reversed, I would be very interested). For example:
Men have narrower, more specific fields of vision for focussing on prey. I'm not sure, but they may be better at seeing moving objects. Conversely, women have wider fields of vision - the better for spotting predators around - and a greater ability to pick out a particular object amongst many - the better for spotting the tasty fruit in the grass, or the mayonnaise in the fridge.
Men are on the whole bigger, stronger and have greater endurance, which makes them better hunters. I'm not sure what the female equivalent is but it might include greater dexterity, meticulousness and possibly the whole communication thing.
Men handle pain better, but women feel it less, or something like that.

That's straight off the top of my head, and I have no doubt there's much more.
Basically, our evolutionary background is of hunting males and gathering females. We may well have been matriarchal at some point, but that doesn't mean that the women then must have hunted or anything like that, just that they were in charge.
I haven't heard that specific "gay/ish males would be more likely to get into agriculture" theory, so I won't comment on that. While I'm at it, though, I will mention that the development of agriculture has probably been a major factor in the evolution of Homo sapiens over the last few tens of thousands of years or however long it's been since we invented it. Can't think of many off the top of my head, but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't.

Ideally, a Science must employ the Scientific Method. In practice, even the most sciency of sciences often cannot or, for ethical reasons, will not. They are still totally science. I think it's very much worth mentioning that the scientific method doesn't actually necessarily require a controlled experiment, but rather that the evidence - preferably a controlled experiment - is replicable, which can simply mean available for anyone to see and review. Thus, evolutionary science, which is based far more on observation than on experimentation, is still very much a science following the scientific method because anyone can go out and make the very same observations.

[Quincunx]

Pyrian, not to say that you don't have a very strong point--because you do--but this thread is accustomed to treating one-way communication as valid. "I am I and I am [orientation]", the essence of many a post, doesn't invite any sort of reply and yet we're overlooking that and treating it like another stepping stone in a conversational path. It may be that you're right but I am pretty sure most of your opposition doesn't care if the message is received so long as it's broadcast.

. . .Many will laugh at my chosen path to seek a Ph.D. in a philosophical discipline, say that it is useless. I will disagree.

Ostien, building a strawman in the same breath as declaring your superior education in matters of logic is. . .gauche. It's the social faux pas we're laughing at.

[Drolyt]

Er... No Yes, almost all conceptions of gender are primarily social, not instinctive, but that doesn't mean there are no differences between males and females at all. In fact, there are a number of physical "inborn traits" that reflect the male hunter and the female gatherer (and if you can point to any societies in which this is reversed, I would be very interested). For example:
Men have narrower, more specific fields of vision for focussing on prey. I'm not sure, but they may be better at seeing moving objects. Conversely, women have wider fields of vision - the better for spotting predators around - and a greater ability to pick out a particular object amongst many - the better for spotting the tasty fruit in the grass, or the mayonnaise in the fridge.
Men are on the whole bigger, stronger and have greater endurance, which makes them better hunters. I'm not sure what the female equivalent is but it might include greater dexterity, meticulousness and possibly the whole communication thing.

All true. Men are physically built better for hunting, but gay men no less so. That was more my point, there are physical differences between men and women, but the only physical difference between heterosexual men and homosexual men is their sexual preference, any differences in behavior is cultural.

Men handle pain better, but women feel it less, or something like that.

Strangely common misconception. Men both handle pain better and feel it less, the idea that women are better at handling pain seems to come from the idea that men couldn't stand the pain of pregnancy, which is technically true. Women couldn't handle the pain of pregnancy either if it weren't for the fact that the body produces things like endorphins to help with it (and even then it hurts like hell, or so I'm told, since I've never and never will experience it).

That's straight off the top of my head, and I have no doubt there's much more.
Basically, our evolutionary background is of hunting males and gathering females. We may well have been matriarchal at some point, but that doesn't mean that the women then must have hunted or anything like that, just that they were in charge.

I don't really buy the matriarchal thing anyways, and I don't doubt that throughout most of prehistory the males did most of the hunting, I simply am arguing that there was no societal prejudice against males that would prefer to plant corn.

I haven't heard that specific "gay/ish males would be more likely to get into agriculture" theory, so I won't comment on that. While I'm at it, though, I will mention that the development of agriculture has probably been a major factor in the evolution of Homo sapiens over the last few tens of thousands of years or however long it's been since we invented it. Can't think of many off the top of my head, but I'd be very surprised if it hasn't.

Uh, agriculture only developed around 10,000 years ago. That is too short a time for evolution to act under the best of circumstances, and that is not even considering my argument that modern humans are more greatly affected by nurture than nature and are therefore no longer affected by natural selection.

Ideally, a Science must employ the Scientific Method. In practice, even the most sciency of sciences often cannot or, for ethical reasons, will not. They are still totally science. I think it's very much worth mentioning that the scientific method doesn't actually necessarily require a controlled experiment, but rather that the evidence - preferably a controlled experiment - is replicable, which can simply mean available for anyone to see and review. Thus, evolutionary science, which is based far more on observation than on experimentation, is still very much a science following the scientific method because anyone can go out and make the very same observations.

The scientific method is an invention of secondary school textbooks. Even if we do use your definition, I would argue that in the social sciences results aren't replicable.

[Thufir]

Many will laugh at my chosen path to seek a Ph.D. in a philosophical discipline, say that it is useless. I will disagree.

So, presumably, these hypothetical 'many' don't actually know what PhD is an abbreviation of?

[Serpentine]

Uh, agriculture only developed around 10,000 years ago. That is too short a time for evolution to act under the best of circumstances, and that is not even considering my argument that modern humans are more greatly affected by nurture than nature and are therefore no longer affected by natural selection.

Probably, no, no, no. Natural selection works in a single generation, and there are new species that have popped up in historical time. Evolution can work surprisingly quickly. Take red-headedness: that is the result of a single mutation, which has resulted in interesting population changes.
Humans do work far more on learning than on instinct, but that doesn't mean instinct and other non-learned factors are negligible. Even if you're right, your link between this and natural selection is erroneous. We are very much still effected by natural selection, it's just that the selection is on different features.

The scientific method is an invention of secondary school textbooks. Even if we do use your definition, I would argue that in the social sciences results aren't replicable.

You'd better tell that to every one of my university lecturers, then, because they're all about scientific method. In fact, I think you'll find it's much, much older than secondary school. I urge you strongly to rethink that statement, because I cannot take you seriously in a discussion on science after it.
Anyway, I would argue that they are very much so.

[Lord Raziere]

I like science and evidence and facts and such, and I think science is perhaps the best tool humanity has, but I don't think its perfect, and science knows that, and understands that it doesn't know everything, I'm even a lover of sci-fi and I believe that science will help progress humanity to a better future however...

call me a romantic, but I think more with my intuition and gut, I can also think analytically but actually I think its more of a balance I've developed- sometimes I just say "heck with it" and go with what I'm feeling, sometimes I weigh my options and choose the best, most rational thing to me. maybe I'm both a guy of Enlightenment and Romanticism.......like both so yeah.....

but yeah, I like science and all that it does, but sometimes I like to go with my gut and a hunch.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

I like science and evidence and facts and such, and I think science is perhaps the best tool humanity has, but I don't think its perfect, and science knows that, and understands that it doesn't know everything, I'm even a lover of sci-fi and I believe that science will help progress humanity to a better future however...

call me a romantic, but I think more with my intuition and gut, I can also think analytically but actually I think its more of a balance I've developed- sometimes I just say "heck with it" and go with what I'm feeling, sometimes I weigh my options and choose the best, most rational thing to me. maybe I'm both a guy of Enlightenment and Romanticism.......like both so yeah.....

but yeah, I like science and all that it does, but sometimes I like to go with my gut and a hunch.

I think you may be anthropomorphizing things a bit here.

Science is just a tool with which people learn about their world. Science doesn't know things, by applying the sciences people can expand their knowledge. It's not that "science doesn't know everything" as much as people using science don't know everything. Which is a problem with the way it's being used and not science itself.


This is likely going even more off-topic, but the "gut hunches" can be explained through usage of science, it just takes much longer to think about why you think something without conscious thought so people don't think about it and follow their hunches.

[golentan]

Humans have instincts. Humans have Boku instincts.

To demonstrate, what is the well known best way to deal with a fire. "Evacuate in an orderly fashion, keep exits clear." Unless you're trained to deal with it and actively doing so, of course. Everyone knows this is the best way to keep people alive.

When the alarm goes off, people panic and stampede, blocking off the exits. People outside, on seeing the flames, will walk towards it and gawk at the spectacle, further blocking easy egress by those within and access by fire fighters.

Never did figure out the evolutionary rationale for the latter part. The stampede is fairly common, but the gawking at disasters is pretty much unique to humans and close relatives. The "Ape Reaction." Maybe it's related to your longtime habit of making bloodsport of each other.

[Murdim]

Concerning the debate on semantics : I think that the phrasing for "science in its narrow, modern usage" would be positivist science. And yes, this ambiguity means that something can be both science (as in, knowledge) and pseudoscience (as in, trying to take credit on the use of scientific method while failing to apply it rigorously) at the same time.

Also, it is a misconception that the scientific method requires an experiment in a lab-controlled environment. Many other forms of evidence (e.g geological or astronomical) work just as well.

[Lix Lorn]

Also, it is a misconception that the scientific method requires an experiment in a lab-controlled environment.

Many of Einstein's theories were based on maths. He did them in his head.

(This is an agreement)

[Ostien]

Ostien, building a strawman in the same breath as declaring your superior education in matters of logic is. . .gauche. It's the social faux pas we're laughing at.

Yes, that was a poor decision of mine. I was not trying to be supirior and sorry if it came off as such. It was a mistake, I was feeling cornered and challenged that I could contribute to the debate in a meaningful way because of my perceived orientation to scientific disciplines. I take issue that someone not involved in the discipline of science cannot debate it. This was all I mean by that, it was supposed to be a direct respond to a perceived ad-hominem attack and I responded in kind. It was poorly and awkwardly worded. I apologize.

I still think science is a great tool for many situations but making solid conclusions based on social constructs (not physiological differences) is misguided. We can gather evidence as to why society has been organized in such a matter. Science tends to place more of an emphasis on those physiological differences as the end reason for behavior rather then seeing them as the conditions that have set the stage (this has been my experience at least). J.S. Mill brings up a good point in On The Subjugation of Women, he makes an argument that women were placed in a condition to be physically weaker because of childbirth and it's necessity in society (thus were physically weaker). This of course would lead to many subjugations steaming from this. So a physical difference did cause a social condition.

However to think that society is still organized in such a way is ignorant to social realities that shape society in far greater ways now then physiological differences. Science sometimes tries to be too blind, this results in being blind to things that are not physiological or at least placing more emphasis on them. My point is that perhaps physiological differences were of greater effect in the past but human society is no longer organized in such a matter and that fundamentally changes the situation. Yes, the legacy from those physiological differences still linger because they have been socially ingrained (the perception that women are weak has lead to job discrimination), but they are far from absolute or even reliant on those physiological differences to a great extent. We can clearly overcome those differences now and do.

[Serpentine]

Science tends to place more of an emphasis on those physiological differences as the end reason for behavior rather then seeing them as the conditions that have set the stage (this has been my experience at least).

You are painting "science" with an extremely broard brush, there. Which science? What scientists? You mean physiology? Of course. Biology? Probably. Those things are the major underpinnings of psychology and the like, too, but I wouldn't say that they... what you said. In any case, I don't think you're even coming close to treating an entire philosophy/methodology that spands vast swathes of reality the least bit fairly with statements such as the above.

[bluewind95]

According to news papers some people used tear gas on the crowd during Gay Pride here in Finland.
One of the victims was a 1 year old baby.

Things like these that make coming out seem even scarier.

They did what?! That is simply disgusting!

I believe this to be relevant and an interesting bout of news (to this group):
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...EMnMgD9GQ5FG80

Personally, I'm happy that Caster gets to run again after the gender fiasco.

Aye, it's good that they finally cleared her. Seriously, though... what were they thinking? I think these 11 months must have been pretty darned horrid for her, with doctors running a bunch of tests to see if she was really a woman. That's just... wrong.

[Ostien]

You are painting "science" with an extremely broard brush, there. Which science? What scientists? You mean physiology? Of course. Biology? Probably. Those things are the major underpinnings of psychology and the like, too, but I wouldn't say that they... what you said. In any case, I don't think you're even coming close to treating an entire philosophy/methodology that spands vast swathes of reality the least bit fairly with statements such as the above.

Serp, we have gone over similar things before. I think that we both tend to go on the extreme and defensive side. We had a discussion a while ago on Dr. Zucker and his treatment of children who are gender variant and I was attacking the DSM IV. You said that the current DSM does not condone Zucker's "treatments." However, as recent as 2006 Zucker has been in the news with his practices and by all accounts for GID are the dominant in psychology (he is also the chair on the working group for sexual and gender identity disorders for the DSM V). This has been confirmed by psychotherapists with a more client-centered or similar disposition that that is in fact the how the majority of psychology operates, as a medical model and often oppressive and essentialist (I respect those such people in psychology who are opposed to this model). I went of the attack because of this activity and saw the DSM as being a tool used to justify these practices. In reality there is probably more of a middle ground, but I stand by my reaction to the DSM and detest for that type of "therapy." This simply illustrates where I am coming from on the subject, for better or worse.

I'm concerned with sciences that take human beings as its subjects, I hold them to a higher degree of scrutiny. Psychology is a major example of this and as such a major concern of mine (as well as those in the field of psychology some of which do not wish to be seen as a science). Social sciences as well use scientific methods and may consider themselves a science, so be it. But when human subjects are involved great care needs to be taken to differentiate human subjects from other types of subjects. I do not think enough attention has been paid to this concern in the social sciences. Gender as a social construct form example, garners less scientific study then gender as a result of physical difference (or for example the way the two relate, such as the brain physically changing due to external stimulus) . Both are open to study but I'd like to see the former more in the field of scientific concern. I am not saying there is none of that (such as some great work in neuroscience that does not view the development of the brain as static from social conditions) but I think there is not enough in general.

[Drolyt]

Probably, no, no, no. Natural selection works in a single generation, and there are new species that have popped up in historical time. Evolution can work surprisingly quickly. Take red-headedness: that is the result of a single mutation, which has resulted in interesting population changes.

Natural selection does not work in a single generation. It takes extraordinary amounts of time for even minor changes to become dominant. Yes a mutation can happen in one generation, but at that point it has only affected a single individual in the population. Even if that mutation goes on to become common, perhaps within a few generations, that doesn't necessarily mean natural selection is at work, the mutation may simply have been irrelevant, like several of the vestigial organs we have.

Humans do work far more on learning than on instinct, but that doesn't mean instinct and other non-learned factors are negligible. Even if you're right, your link between this and natural selection is erroneous. We are very much still effected by natural selection, it's just that the selection is on different features.

I must apologize, I do not mean to imply that natural selection doesn't work at all, just that human's capacity of nurture over nature and modern societies medicine and technology have made it a very weak force. Allow me to explain myself a little better. For natural selection to work which individuals survive to produce offspring has to be decided at least somewhat by genetics. While this is still partially true, I am simply arguing that because other factors than genetics are far more dominant in human society natural selection takes a back seat.

You'd better tell that to every one of my university lecturers, then, because they're all about scientific method. In fact, I think you'll find it's much, much older than secondary school. I urge you strongly to rethink that statement, because I cannot take you seriously in a discussion on science after it.

First off, you've quoted Wikipedia in a serious scientific discussion and you don't think you can take me seriously? I have never claimed that there wasn't a methodology to science, but what is commonly called "the scientific method" was invented by high school textbooks as a means of dumbing down science. I assumed you were using the naive secondary school definition (hypothesis, develop experiment, test) because otherwise your statement was nonsensical, anyone doing science is following the scientific method by definition, otherwise it isn't science.

Also, it is a misconception that the scientific method requires an experiment in a lab-controlled environment. Many other forms of evidence (e.g geological or astronomical) work just as well.

Yes, but you still need to be able to test your hypothesis. Any test that has the simple features that it is replicable and can easily prove you wrong will work.

Many of Einstein's theories were based on maths. He did them in his head.

Bull. Einstein hypothesized in his head yes, but everything he did was tested by experiment. Relativity came about because the experiments of the time disagreed with previous theories (namely the speed of light appeared to be the same regardless of the speed and position of the observer, which in Newtonian mechanics is frankly Lovecraftian). His Nobel Prize was in fact for the Photoelectric Effect, work he did almost entirely in the lab as opposed to theorizing.

[Asta Kask]

Natural selection does not work in a single generation. It takes extraordinary amounts of time for even minor changes to become dominant.

Not necessarily true. It depends on the strengths of the selection pressure. Look at the work with domesticating foxes. You have major effects in just twenty generations. It seems that most selection pressures in natures are weak.

[enigmatime]

In response to this thread, I completelly support it. In response to the current discussion, the rate at which natural selection takes place fluxuates depending on the environment in which the organism lives.