Data gathering by experimentalists is not science?but the simple act of gathering is not.
Are you serious? It is the bedrock of reality that science is founded upon. Be gone with you charlatan.
In this case I have been telling you that observation is not science, it is science, akin to "its not physics, it is experiment physics", so why the upset?Skipjack wrote: Because
1. Natural History is a science too
CAN BE part of science. Some guy looking at the clouds is just looking. Some guy taking pictures of clouds is an artist or perhaps a journalist. Some guy taking many pictures of many clouds with records of same because he thinks they are interesting is a natural historian. Some guy setting up a camera to capture the lenticular cloud he has hypothesized should appear on the northwest quadrant of that particular mountain sometime during the hours of 1400 and 1600 because that is when the meteorologists say the conditions will be right to form the cloud according to his new theory is a scientist.Skipjack wrote: 3. Observation of a phenomenon is part of science.
And if they are not seeking observations to falsify/support a hypothesis, the ARE NOT acting a scientists, they are natural historians. Why the upset? Darwin was a natural historian for the early part of his working life. How is that upsetting?Skipjack wrote: Astronomy is mostly about observation. Heck it is called a fracking observatory for a fracking reason.
I am sure you would offend most of the astronomers out there if you told them that they were not scientists!
I KNOW where people get your common mistaken impression. It is akin to a janitor or garbage man (both honorable professions) calling themselves "sanitation engineers". "Scientist" SOUNDS classier than "Natural Historian" so most folks doing NH like to claim they are scientists. Such is life.Skipjack wrote:
Geez, really, sometimes I have to wonder where people learn this sort of BS!
Is it that you CAN'T read or just that in my case you WONT?icarus wrote:Data gathering by experimentalists is not science?but the simple act of gathering is not.
Wow, now math is not part of science either. I see where that goes.Natural Historians, like mathematicians, are indispensible to science but a breed apart.
Let us suppose that the ONLY think TB did was observe and record the state of the stars. That is the documenting of nature. That is natural history. IF in fact TB never detected patterns and thorized and hypothesized, then he was never a scientist. I SAID IF dang it, don't jump all over me with instances where he was a scientist and therefor "prove" that I am wrong. Keep up folks.D Tibbets wrote: Tycho Brahe was an excellent observational Astronomer (Scientist?). Kepler took his observations and used them to help form his laws of planetary motion. If Kepler was not also the observer, does that mean he was not a Scientist?
Neutron output proportional to I^5 is really good.rcain wrote:latest results up on the FoFu site:
FoFu confirms predicted I^5 scaling law & sets new record
read all about it - http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90
Improvements to FF-1’s ceramic “hat” insulator and related alignment capabilities are now ongoing, with firing expected to resume within a week.