and how do they know that whoever wrote those manuscripts used the Scientific Method? history is written by the winners, right? doesn't sound very scientific to me.
When I said manuscripts I meant primary sources (things written by people at the event). In history, primary sources are like raw data to scientists. I suppose things written a generation later or something would be equivalent to scientists looking at other people's data and reinterpreting it. To remind you, the Scientific Method is
1) Observation/Question 2) Hypothesis (a guess at why it happens) 3) Prediction (what data / primary sources would I need to see to prove me right?) 4) Experiment (get data / primary sources) 5) Conclusion (do the data / primary sources compare with my prediction?)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 01:23 pm (UTC)So, of course those are science questions.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-01 03:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 05:27 pm (UTC)1) Observation/Question
2) Hypothesis (a guess at why it happens)
3) Prediction (what data / primary sources would I need to see to prove me right?)
4) Experiment (get data / primary sources)
5) Conclusion (do the data / primary sources compare with my prediction?)