Warm-up question:

Dear Investigator Fromz,

It is my understanding that science depends upon observation and replication. New discoveries have consistently caused old scientific paradigms to be discarded in favor of newer paradigms. Can you name a theory or two that now is disregarded for a new standard?

Signed, eagerly interested in learning more

Sure, lots of them. Getting ready fro work so I'll make a quick answer:

Aether, the invisible material it was once thought was the medium light can traveled thru. We now know light travel in a vacuum.

Mewtonian Physics, although some might say Einsteinian physicas just improved Newtons version since we still use the old version for things as complicated as moon trips.

Flat earth, I'm pretty sure it's somewhat rounded.

Dust on the moon so deep a landing vehicle will sink in and disappear.

Good start?

Dear Investigator Fromz,

Great start and thanks, Fromz. So can we say science is actually concepts in wait for further exploration?

This is what I am thinking. The field of psychiatry as we know it, (not the ancient practice in 5 BC where it was supernatural causes) did not come about until the middle ages and then classification and biological (and practice of such) until the 20th century.

So, I hope this does not sound like a stupid question ( a good instructor says there is never a stupid question, only a lack of a question), how would you define science in a few sentences that relates to its progression? Is it stable or influx? Is it "practice" like I feel medicine is? Only as good in the hands of the one displaying it?

Signed, eagerly interested in learning more

Wikipedia definse science thusly:

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

The scientific method starts with observing.

We all observe. Sometimes we abserve and notice things don't see as we thought they were. SO science is an ongoing process where everything is open to question. Perhaps someone saw that a sailing ship does not appear complete on the horizon but first the top, then the sails, finally the body (hull?) appears. They thought about it and said to themselves "Hey, that doesn't make sense if the world is flat." Then they followed the rest of the scientific process until they were able to prove the world round.

So I would say science is in a fairly steady state; it is done the same way - observe, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, revise if necessary, prove (or disprove) the hypothesis, upon final proof, pronounce a theory.

The state of our knowledge is in flux because science continues to add to what we know.

Is science only as good as the person pracaticing it? To the extent that one person observes better or may form better hypothesis or test vbetter, that is true.

BUT, before a hypothesis is accepted as theory (proven) it is also tested by others. So an individul's shortcomings have very little effect on the final outcome.

Cold fusion is an excellent example. (Simplified description) A couple of scientists announced they had created fusion on a table top using a glass of water.

Other scientists looked at what they had done, tested it, could not repeat it. Hypothesis dead, no cold fusion.

Did I answer the questions or get lost on a tangent?

Observation addressed to Instructor Fromz from eagerly interested in learning more:

I have a theory of great value that one-on-one, as I know the relativity of quality in giving, receiving and growth, is so much more valuable and meaningful than Wikipedia is. Therfore, I applaud your sessions with me.

I have more Q's, but I feel it only fair to not hog this space. I believe Gayle, for one, would be thrilled to have you keep this thread running for those of us that admit we are not all that and a bag of chips, yet hungry for knowledge in this area. Thank you for offering this thread. I believe it can have great growth potential for this forum and for your personal desire to teach.

Yes I'd love to see this column continue. Right now I do not have any questions, except about cancer and colostomy bags, and I can get those answers elsewhere. Maybe soon I will have a legitimate question.

The thread is alive as long as anyone wants to ask questions.

Don't worry about "turns." Simultaneous questions are only a problem is you're asking things I need to research deeply. Then, one question may have to wait while I figure out answers to them both.

Cancer, oh God I wish I has some answers there. I wish the real scientists investigating it had good answers to all of it.

I think I can handle colostomy bags but rather than shotgun, I'll hold any comments for questions.