If a scientist hypothesized Neanderthals existed in southern Africa.

[RandomPoster]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

 

[fncceo]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with funding.

 

[JoeMoma]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with funding.

And he should be credited for the discovery.

 

[night_son]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

The thing is, in the fields of archaeology, anthropology and paleontology there's an accepted narrative of the history and development of mankind in particular which is not easily altered, and even when altered, that narrative only shifts very slightly at any given time. Beyond that, every last procedure of your hypothetical scientist's expedition would be scrutinized, dissected, put under the magnifying glass of professional academic departments and societies and otherwise picked apart in an attempt to discredit any findings which alter too much that widely accepted narrative. Other than that, and provided he gains proper permits and permissions from South African ministers of antiquity, culture and the interior, well then he's likely on his way to a dig site.

 

[Crepitus]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What does funding have to do with the scientific method?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just don't give it to the Smithsonian, they'll put it on the next Anomalous Fossil Dump ship headed to Baltimore Canyon

 

[RandomPoster]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with funding.

You seem to be misinterpreting my post. I am saying that he had a preconceived hypothesis and set out to prove it correct. He found verifable evidence in support of his theory. He was trying to prove his theory right rather than trying to prove it wrong.

Now, if he had hypothesized that there are no fossilized Neanderthals remains in southern Africa and set out to prove himself wrong, then he would have been following the scientific method.

 

[fncceo]

I am saying that he had a preconceived hypothesis and set out to prove it correct. He found verifable evidence in support of his theory.

The actual definition of the Scientific Method.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

A man bakes a cakes in Cleveland. However, he is unable to get a bank to fund a doughnut shop startup in Dayton. Will the Browns eventually win the Super Bowl?

 

[JoeMoma]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

The Scientific Method has nothing to do with funding.

You seem to be misinterpreting my post. I am saying that he had a preconceived hypothesis and set out to prove it correct. He found verifable evidence in support of his theory. He was trying to prove his theory right rather than trying to prove it wrong.

Now, if he had hypothesized that there are no fossilized Neanderthals remains in southern Africa and set out to prove himself wrong, then he would have been following the scientific method.

No, it's not that complicated. Part of the SM is to test the hypothesis. It doesn't matter whether you call it proving the hypothesis right or proving it wrong.

 

[JoeMoma]

A man bakes a cakes in Cleveland. However, he is unable to get a bank to fund a doughnut shop startup in Dayton. Will the Browns eventually win the Super Bowl?

Not until they change there name to The Jones. No one can keep up with the Jones.

 

[RandomPoster]

I am saying that he had a preconceived hypothesis and set out to prove it correct. He found verifable evidence in support of his theory.

The actual definition of the Scientific Method.

It used to work that way for thousands of years. However, philosophers have set scientists straight on the matter. You see science is an experiment philosophers kicked off a few thousand years ago. In the early 1900s, a bunch of Physicists colluded with Mathematicians to lead the world astray. They reported back from to the Philosophers the results of the experiment. They called themselves Logical Positivists and they said that scientists prefer to stick to verifiable facts that can be proven true or false and have an aversion to basing things on beliefs that can not be proven to be true or false. For a while, the philosophers thought there may be legitimacy to their report. However, Karl Popper proved that a theory such as the moon exists can never be verified to be true, only falsified when the moon can not be seen. Now scientists no longer value verifiable evidence in support of their theories. They only attempt to falsify their theories and the only thing that matters is how little evidence there is against it.

 

[RandomPoster]

A man bakes a cakes in Cleveland. However, he is unable to get a bank to fund a doughnut shop startup in Dayton. Will the Browns eventually win the Super Bowl?

Again, the dodge onto funding, which clearly has nothing to do with the topic. Oh wait, that's why it's valued, because it changes the subject.

 

[konradv]

A man bakes a cakes in Cleveland. However, he is unable to get a bank to fund a doughnut shop startup in Dayton. Will the Browns eventually win the Super Bowl?

They have. Twice. They're just called the Ravens now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

How has he not followed the scientific method? No information in your post indicates this.

 

[Frannie]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What method did he not follow

 

[RandomPoster]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What method did he not follow

He set out with a pre-conceived notion that his hypothesis was correct and he sought to find evidence to confirm it. His hypothesis was that there were fossilized Neanderthal remains in southern Africa. His hypothesis could never have been falsified, only verified when the remains were found. Therefore, his hypothesis was unscientific.

 

[Frannie]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What method did he not follow

He set out with a pre-conceived notion that his hypothesis was correct and he sought to find evidence to confirm it. His hypothesis was that there were fossilized Neanderthal remains in southern Africa. His hypothesis could never have been falsified, only verified when the remains were found. Therefore, his hypothesis was unscientific.

So anything that has not been done or found is unscientific...………….

Look kid with your mentality the human race would still live in caves.

Grow up

 

[RandomPoster]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What method did he not follow

He set out with a pre-conceived notion that his hypothesis was correct and he sought to find evidence to confirm it. His hypothesis was that there were fossilized Neanderthal remains in southern Africa. His hypothesis could never have been falsified, only verified when the remains were found. Therefore, his hypothesis was unscientific.

So anything that has not been done or found is unscientific...………….

Look kid with your mentality the human race would still live in caves.

Grow up

I'm saying the opposite of that. I'm saying that his verifiable evidence in support of his theory is irrelevant because theories can never be verified. You also don't need any verifiable evidence to support your theory. It simply has to be theoretically possible to falsify it and its strength is only based on people's inability to prove it wrong.

Imagine I say there are Neanderthal remains in North America. You can never falsify my theory because there could always be some place that hasn't been searched on that huge continent. Therefore my theory is unscientific because it can't be falsified. Theories can never be verified, only falsified. Even if I find the remains, I wasn't following the scientific method.

If you disagree with me, you must believe that I should bear the burden of proof and that I should have to provide verifiable evidence of my claim and until then I am wrong and that you should not have to falsify my claim. If I claim Neanderthals existed in North America am I wrong until I prove otherwise? Should I have to provide verifiable evidence that supports my claim? That sounds like verification-ism.

 

[Frannie]

Imagine a scientist hypothesizes that Neanderthals did exist in southern Africa as well as Europe. Everyone laughs at him and no one will fund his expedition to search for remains. He happens to be wealthy and funds it himself. He and his team scour around, dig deep, keep at it and eventually uncover fossilized remains of Neanderthals in the southern tip of Africa. Should he be credited for the discovery despite not following the scientific method?

What method did he not follow

He set out with a pre-conceived notion that his hypothesis was correct and he sought to find evidence to confirm it. His hypothesis was that there were fossilized Neanderthal remains in southern Africa. His hypothesis could never have been falsified, only verified when the remains were found. Therefore, his hypothesis was unscientific.

So anything that has not been done or found is unscientific...………….

Look kid with your mentality the human race would still live in caves.

Grow up

I'm saying the opposite of that. I'm saying that his verifiable evidence in support of his theory is irrelevant because theories can never be verified. You also don't need any verifiable evidence to support your theory. It simply has to be theoretically possible to falsify it and its strength is only based on people's inability to prove it wrong.

Imagine I say there are Neanderthal remains in North America. You can never falsify my theory because there could always be some place that hasn't been searched on that huge continent. Therefore my theory is unscientific because it can't be falsified. Theories can never be verified, only falsified. Even if I find the remains, I wasn't following the scientific method.

If you disagree with me, you must believe that I should bear the burden of proof and that I should have to provide verifiable evidence of my claim and until then I am wrong and that you should not have to falsify my claim. If I claim Neanderthals existed in North America am I wrong until I prove otherwise? Should I have to provide verifiable evidence that supports my claim? That sounds like verification-ism.

Theories can and are verified.

Your mind is very disorganized