Reply To: Demon power ups
No I don’t.
Wikipedia “the scientific method”
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 must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “[i][b]a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century[/b][/i], consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”
From the Overview
[i][b]The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[/b][/i] Science builds on previous knowledge, and this can lead to improvements and refinements over time. The scientific method can function in the same way, meaning that it can become more effective at understanding, and even generating new knowledge. For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) formalizes the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.
This model can be seen to underlay the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them, an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences. The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
You can see from above that the rudiments of the “Scientific Method” go back well over a thousand years.
[color=darkred][size=6]The whole point of this red herring is that you said that “Science doesn’t work by comparing pieces of evidence compiling that with adds up, setting aside that which doesn’t and making comparative judgements on various pieces of evidence and drawing a conclusion as to the nature of what is correct and what is incorrect.”
That is what science does. It’s the exact same thing that the author was asking you to do in judging the content of this site. Not all of it is going to match up, some of it may be wrong. That does not ipso facto disqualify the site and any reason to visit it. Your job with the site and the book is to draw your own conclusions as to the nature of reality…or at least the book’s reality.[/size][/color]
[color=blue]And incidentally, that is basically what Wizardry tries to do with animagic. Although, since animagic is much more squishy than physics, I’d argue that Wizardy might be called a semi-soft science. But it does manage to create a systematic method for dealing with mana and animus that is repeatable and [i]mostly[/i] reliable.[/color]