If I could explain that, I might possibly also be able to explain what CNN has to do with news. But that one confounds me too, so... you're on your own!
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 12:31 pm (UTC)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: 2006-08-01 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-03 04:41 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?)