Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:

So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself
unable to answer a question as simple as "what do
you think the scientific method is?"

No, that's not true, Jon. I told you that I prefer to
start with Maxwell's distrust of objects unobservable
in principle, setting a firm ontological basis. I then
stated that I lean toward enhanced naive empiricism.

Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch
phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer
such a simple question

I did answer it. Sorry I didn't use words out of your
rather small glossary. It's funny, you know, that you
decried another poster for possessing credentials.
Now you seem to have a problem with me because
I'm familiar with the terminology of scientific method.

you're just trolling.

No, I don't think so. I think you have a control problem.
When presented with ideas and interpretations you
don't comprehend, you become angry and start making
demands that the discussion center on you and the
areas you're comfortable with.

For example, I clearly answered many, in fact most of
your points in two posts now, but you chose to ignore
them all and insist I define scientific method for you.
But you've shown you're unfamiliar with the territory,
so it becomes a rather unfruitful exercise in debating
with a petulant child, which I'm not really all that keen on.

I assume you're angling toward some sort of elementary
school definition like: observation, hypothesis, experimentation,
conclusion, all that painfully useless rubbish pounded into
children in elementary biology classes.

I'd rather start with ontology, and have done so. If you
can't define that which is, then proceed to epistemology
and the nature of knowledge and belief, then the sort
of fifth-grade rote recitation you seem to be fixated on
has no underpinning.

Frankly, I doubt that would trouble you.

If you do manage to get past all that, then perhaps you
can start discussing falsifiability. That's a real meat and
potatoes issues you'd probably enjoy.

See, if you get to demand that I define scientific method,
then I get to ask your position on falsifiability. You know,
a lot of naive empiricists such as yourself believe it to be
necessary and sufficient to define method. I abjure this
position, though, as I have already stated -- really Jon,
must I type everything twice? -- and prefer an enhanced
naive empiricism. Would you care to know the
enhancement I lean toward?

I'll tell you, but first you must, in return, tell me your
position on falsifiability. It's fundamental, and of course
if your thoughts about scientific method theory is -- what
was it you said, "100% accurate" -- then you must have
a position on falsifiability.

Oh, and if you're not familiar with "all the keywords and
catch phrases," then, Jon, how can you certify your
positions as "100% accurate?"