10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy

Uploaded By:
potholer54

Save & Share

Tags: atheism christianity creation evolution fundamentalism god Potholer54 science

Find more videos in the "Education" category

Want to embed this video on your blog or e-mail it to a friend? Scroll down for tools.

The 'Made Easy' series explains the evidence of our origins, from the Big Bang to the human migration out of Africa. This video explains how we acquire this knowledge, and how ideas go from a hunch in a laboratory to accepted theories taught in school.
The video cuts at the end, and the final sentence should read: "In the next video, I'll look at whether belief can be regarded as science."
(Music: "The Harry Lyme Theme" written and performed by Anton Karas.)

See more videos uploaded by potholer54

Related Videos

Errata 2	Prove that Jesus is imaginary in less than 5 minutes	Chemistry Music Video: The Scientific Method

9 - Human Ancestry Made Easy	7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy	6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

OBJECTION! I'm ... ( 2 weeks ago by Nightmare060)

OBJECTION! I'm sorry. I realy am. But this is where you fail. Steaphen Hawking thaught of evidence for the big bang from his hypothasis. For the big bang to have happend, there would still be left over radiation that has not cooled from the explosion. And if I recall correctly, that was descoverd! Ever wonder what static on analogue TV's are? That, my freind, is the 3 degrees of radiation that has not yet cooled. The big bang is as much a fact as evolution is or as much as gravity is.

you base your ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentDIVINE)

you base your pseudo science on assumptions!Nightmare060
not facts!
you forget that you have no way to verify billions of years just because you think they happend looking at radiation! you fail to grasp how you are completly being religious in your faith in evolution without actual facts!

Disclaiming facts ... ( 1 week ago by Nightmare060)

Disclaiming facts and resorting to personal attacks now are we? I should have expected you'd sink that low. We can prove that the universe is millions of years old not just by radiation, but because the speed of light is constant. And since light takes millions of years to span the universe too us, then the universe has to be old! If the universe is young, then it would have to be very small and therefor collapse in on it's self. So therefor, if you are a creationist you must deny gravity.

you are arrogant to ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentDIVINE)

you are arrogant to assume you understand what light is and how fast is can travel!
that is typical of the humanist drone you are!
YOU do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves
you chump atheist monkey wannabe drone!

Tut tut. Now we're ... ( 1 week ago by Nightmare060)

Tut tut. Now we're realy getting desperate aren't we? It's been tested and proven many times over how fast light travels, and the fact that it is constant. And I know perfectly what gravity is. In a simple way that even YOU can understand, it's the force of a spinning space body that keeps your feet on the ground. Now that wasn't hard was it?

"there is plenty of ... ( 1 week ago by garith21)

"there is plenty of science to prove the bible is fact yet atheist chumps deny it! " Great, where's your evidence? Are you going to talk about how a chariot wheel "found at the bottom of the sea" and verified by no one is "proof of the parting of the red sea", are you going to use "there was places in the bible that existed" kind of like how New York's a real place but that doesn't mean Spiderman exists. So tell us what this evidence or science is.

Only the ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentDIVINE)

Only the Judeo-Christian Bible contains scientific facts that anticipated scientific discovery by hundreds and in some cases several thousand years. What Holds the Earth Up?Flat Versus Round Earth,Sun, Moon and The Paths of the Sea,Stars
— Who? What?The Bottom of the Ocean,Lightning, Thunder and Rain,etc....

The Judeo-Christian ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentDIVINE)

The Judeo-Christian Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Creator and God of the Universe
— the God of science. Only the Judeo-Christian Bible is the Divine Revelation provided by our infinite Creator to direct us in the path to eternity

The Judeo-Christian ... ( 1 week ago by intelligentDIVINE)

The Judeo-Christian Scripture made scientific observations that were confirmed centuries later by modern science, while the sacred scripture of other world religions merely reflected the scientific superstitions of their culture. How could the Judeo-Christian Scripture anticipate scientific discovery by 3,000 years?

like what? Wash ... ( 1 week ago by garith21)

like what? Wash your hands in clean water? How come there's nothing about quantum physics, how our solar system is traveling at amazing speeds or anything else that a bunch of people with no scientific understanding couldn't figure out after watching a few hundred people die with dirty hands. How about how time is relative, or any of the formulas for it?

"What Holds the ... ( 1 week ago by garith21)

"What Holds the Earth Up?" according to the bible pillars "Flat Versus Round Earth,Sun, Moon and The Paths of the Sea,Stars
— Who? " Astronomy was known long before this time, also the bible depicts the earth as a flat round disk, at no time does it state it's a sphere.

The problem with ... ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

The problem with your 'objective views' is that the 'scientific community' do not follow the rules. For example, many new concepts are rejected by by the 'peers' for the simple reason that the 'peers' cannot grasp the novelty and different thinking of the new claim. The peers are being subjective in their rejection of the objective new evidence. In addition, the beief's of an 'established' scientist often outweigh the new evidence of a 'novice' scientist, even though the latter is correct.

yeah, like who ... ( 1 week ago by garith21)

yeah, like who would accept the idea that time is relative from a patent clerk? =P

Your seem to be ... ( 1 week ago by clairewaldorf2)

Your seem to be arguing that scientific method is invalid because human being are fallible.

No. I am not saying ... ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

No. I am not saying that the scientific method is incorrect. I am saying that it is far from perfect in practise for the simple reason that many scientists do not follow the objective method.

But surely ... ( 1 week ago by clairewaldorf2)

But surely conservative resistance to new ideas can be overcome by reasoned argument; otherwise, the success of new scientific ideas would never be possible and we should remain intellectually stagnant.

I agree that ... ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

I agree that overall the we tend towards progress and increased knowledge. What I am saying is, if not for the fallibilities of humans, the progress could be even more rapid. I am talking from direct experience. I can assure you, results of research can sometimes not get published becasue of a 'mental block' by the 'peers'.

In addition, the ... ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

In addition, the opinion of a more highly social standing scientist (e.g. a consultant physician) often outweighs the more intellectual approach a a 'mere' graduate biochemist - not becasue the biochemist is no less intellectual / clever, but simply because society values clinicians far more. It is snaobbery, quite frankly.

Perhaps an example ... ( 1 week ago by clairewaldorf2)

Perhaps an example of snobbish resistence in the past would be Wegener's ideas about continental drift. Wegener was a climatologist who was speaking outside of his field when he proposed it. Of course, resistence in that case also had to do with Wegener's inability to propose a plausible mechanism.

Actually, you have ... ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

Actually, you have hit the nail on the head concerning another problem with publishing results. Sometimes, experiments lead to interesting but inexplicable results. Without a plausible, proposed mechanism some journals (via 'peers') are reluctant to publish.

"Sometimes, ... ( 1 week ago by potholer54)

"Sometimes, experiments lead to interesting but inexplicable results" I think a good example of this is the cold fusion hoopla about 15 years ago. The "discoverers" of this process by-passed the peer review process and went straight to making an announcement to the media. Maybe some journals rightly take the view that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"I am saying that ... ( 1 week ago by potholer54)

"I am saying that it is far from perfect in practise for the simple reason that many scientists do not follow the objective method." It is far from perfect. But as Winstron Churchill said of democracy, it's the worst system except for all the others. In the long run you can't keep theories that work out of the science journals, and you can't keep theories that don't work in the classrooms.

Agreed. ( 1 week ago by zensho1)

Agreed.

Its ok; just use ... ( 1 week ago by wynd2007)

Its ok; just use use a towel to wipe your mouth and it'll go away. :)

Tell a friend: