[/quote]
Skipjack wrote: it is a waste of time other than as a random data collection exercise
So paleontology is not a science?
Random paleontological digs are natural history, not science. Inspecting the data, developing theories about said data, hypothsizing a state of affairs (conditions) that develop out of said theory that have a falsifyable state, and looking for data (digs, museums, coolections, etc) to falsify said hypothesis is paleontologic science.
Skipjack wrote: Astronomy is not a science?
Same statements writ cosmic.
Skipjack wrote: I would be very careful with statements like these.
Thank you, I believe I have been.
Skipjack wrote: I am sure that a lot of people would object.
Only those who don't read my statements well or don't know what science is.
Skipjack wrote: The gathering of data (observation) is also part of the scientific process.
"Data gathering" per se is NOT science, it is "natural history". Data gathering with a specific goal of falsifying a hypothesis is science.
Skipjack wrote:
You can not form a hypothesis without an observation to base it on.
Natural history first, then science: theorization, hypothsis, experiment/ testing
of hypothesis... Data supports, theory supported, data falsifies, rexamine theory. Random data gathering... back to natural history.
PS: One doesn't form a hypothesis based on observation, one forms a theory based on data from the available accumulation of past observation. One hypothesizes an outcome based on that theory and ...