Ah, Argumentum ad hominem.
I'd humbly suggest that rather than attack the messenger for all his failings, real and imagined, one can instead address the argument.
If you truly believe in a Scientific Method, despite all of the expert testimony and evidence to the contrary, convince me.
"There's no such thing as "The Scientific Method"."
Do you hear the wind when it blows through your ears?
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
I think you are losing it Bobby.
Forgive Dr. Bobs postmodernist relativism. Because the scientific method is employed differently in each branch of science (or even within branches) the method is some how not a method but a bunch of stuff...as opposed to a continuum of extremely closely related methods. Its sort of like how you employ vastly different means to make sound out of a violin or a xylophone or a tuba or a flute. Since there isn't one standard way to do it...there is no method for playing an instrument (even though it is a continuum of highly related methods overlapping 90% in each case). By this logic there is no such thing as linguistic analysis because different tools need to be used if languages have nasal sounds or a highly analytic structure or a complex lexography. Thus there is no linguistic analysis method despite them being so similar in scope and depth that one can indeed be cosmically pedantic and call them so different no "method" exists.
NOW I GET IT...excuse me while I go and look for a frozen waterfall in 3 parts. :)
You can't have science w/o the scientific method. Fortunately, we have real scientists in the world:
Quotes About Scientific Method
The person that provides one example of something proven scientifically w/o the scientific method will be the first....take all the time you need.
Worth hearing from a very fine man once more.
Love The "Feynman"
I want his van.
LOL! Of course. Wikipedia Says So! The ultimate authority!
Try this instead:
"For example, the notion that there is a single scientific method of observation, hypothesis, deduction, and conclusion—a myth perpetuated to this day by many textbooks—is fundamentally wrong . Scientists do use deductive reasoning, but they also search for patterns, classify different objects, make generalizations from repeated observations, and engage in a process of making inferences as to what might be the best explanation. Thus the picture of scientific reasoning is richer, more complex, and more diverse than the image of a linear and unitary scientific method would suggest." - National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
@Dr. Bob - Looking at the universe with a theistic perspective I find perfectly natural.
Again, that is because you have presupposed the existence of your God, whom you consider to be a useful idea,
That is "Where to begin".
Of course it is. Presupposing the existence of a monotheistic creator deity is what led humanity to a belief in Natural Law.
Believing in Natural Law led us looking for and trying to understand the natural laws.
The point is just that such a notion is not incompatible with science. It's the historical root of science. We can still do most science by just believing in the existence of natural laws without wondering why that should be the case, of course. But it does involve turning our brains off a bit or at least ignoring deeper questions.
In the end, all science is philosophy. That's why we get Ph.D.s ;-)