Ask a philosophy-sceptical "scientist"!

[Ben Kenobi]

Not usually blocked like this.

I guess it's two questions:

Who decides what research is done, which direction is taken?

Do scientists really follow the scientific method when they make their reports, ie, Mendel's thumb?

Taking both answers together, do these claims diminish the impartiality of science as a discipline?

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

Because I know of no studies carried out according to the scientific method which show a large correlation between the physical positioning of stars and the course of people's lives in seemingly unrelated ways.

But could not such tests be carried out (in fact, they have, and have found no significant correlation, except in limited and controversial ways)? It may make it less of a good theory right now than many other theories, but is it therefore also unscientific?

Maybe because astrology supporters don't want to use scientfic arguments to defend it

Please propose another method which generates the same wealth of accurate predictions that science has provided us with.

No other method has been given the chance since around the enlightenment, has it? The ideology of science so dominates society that no other method is given the chance to produce similarly good results. (I'm playing devil's advocate here, btw.)

has been any other method suggested ?

Every last physical law of the Universe. The tolerance of human life to, say, a change in the fine-structure constant is ridiculously low. The tolerance for an existence of some sort of intelligent life is obviously much higher.

But why, of all the set-ups of the universe that could have been, does this particular one exist?

We have no answer but for the obey of the phisic laws fron instant 0 to now. BTW, do you think that this set-up is special?

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Not usually blocked like this.

I guess it's two questions:

Who decides what research is done, which direction is taken?

Do scientists really follow the scientific method when they make their reports, ie, Mendel's thumb?

Taking both answers together, do these claims deminish the impartiality of science as a discipline?

The fact of the science as a impartial discipline is not the topics that are elected to investigate, buth that no erroneous fact can survive longer under the scrutiny of the Scientifc Method, in my humple opinion

[Odin]

Science is impartial by definition. In science an important principle is of Occam's Razor, "Explain things by using the least possible assumptions," hence, it is impartial.