llbountyhunter wrote...
zambot wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
zambot wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
zambot wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
Shepard cannot survive harbingers beam.
You want to test this? Go to rannoch.
Its also impossible to avoid the scientific theory when making a analysis.
Surviving the beam is not a prediction. It is an observation used to formulate the hypothesis. The scientific method does not make predictions about things that already happened. It is used to predict events after the hypothesis has been formulated to test its validity.
And yes, people make analysis all the time without using the scienfic method, partiularly in literary analysis.
Do you know what the method is? You cant make a analysis without using at least parts of it.
Using part of the scientific method is not using the scientific method. If you want to claim that IT uses the scientific method to gain the benefits of having survived the rigors of that method, then it has to use all of that method. Otherwise comparing it to real scientific theories is dishonest.
Did i say the entire process was used?
IT is still a theory by defintion
Yes, you said the scientific method was used to create IT. It was not.
IT is in fact a form literary theory or literary analysis. It's a pretty good one at that. It is in no way a scientific theory.
Still twisting the argument.....
Yes it was partialy used. I shouldve clarified.
A dictionary can tell you its a theory. (Not a SCIENTIFIC one) but yes it is also a literay analysis.
I'm not twisting anything. You cannot say something used the "scientific method" if in fact it only used part of it. However, now that we're clear that IT is not rooted in science and comparing it to valid scientific theories is not appropriate, I feel better.





Retour en haut




