Science does have canons.

[paiute]

But science does have canons:

Canon:
A secular law, rule, or code of law.
1. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
2. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.

One such canon is that science is reproducible. Experiments must be able to be written down and sent off to another who can follow them and get the same result.

[KingMerv00]

But science does have canons:

Canon:
A secular law, rule, or code of law.
1. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
2. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.

One such canon is that science is reproducible. Experiments must be able to be written down and sent off to another who can follow them and get the same result.


1.an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.

2.the body of ecclesiastical law. ...

6.the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.

7.any officially recognized set of sacred books.


Randi was probably referring to the religious definitions of "canon".

[ReligionStudent]

But science does have canons:

Canon:
A secular law, rule, or code of law.
1. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
2. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.

One such canon is that science is reproducible. Experiments must be able to be written down and sent off to another who can follow them and get the same result.

Science must be reproducible, yes and no.

If you state a theory of the big bang, that does not have to be reproducible, but evidence, such as background radiation, you produce must be given through experiments. These experiments must be reproducible with the same outcome to support the first trials.

Thus your theory is not reproducible (ie you can't initiate the big bang), but the observable experiments you use to support your theory are.

[BillyJoe]

How is that any different from what paiute said?

[ReligionStudent]

I just think that the issue is with "Science is reproducable", which should be "Results should be reproducible" and that for observable things this is not necessarily true.

See natural science for instance

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm with King Merv--it's just a different definition of canons.

[tracer]

The army has cannons, too.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's also the Shakespeare canon--that we all know wasn't written by him. You see, the Illuminati got hold of Francis Bacon--

sorry, wrong forum.

[ReligionStudent]

There's also the Shakespeare canon--that we all know wasn't written by him. You see, the Illuminati got hold of Francis Bacon--

sorry, wrong forum.

You're wrong it was the templars. It's always the templars. Except when it's the US government destroying American buildings so it can go to war. (but that's only so they can get the templar gold for Haliburten)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, the Templars sure. But they conspired with the ultra-secret order of Enslaved Masons.

Especially on the sonnets.