search results matching tag: scientific publishing
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
- 1
Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (2) |
- 1
Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (2) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Islam: A black hole of progress.
Well, first of all, #3 isn't actually a theory, since it MUST be true that Islamic societies play a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing. You are not actually staking a falsifiable claim here.
What you are probably trying to say with #3 is actually: "Islam (or Islamic governance) (or Islamic influence) plays a significant role in Islamic societies' low rate of scientific publishing." If this is actually what you are claiming, your theory is not backed up by #1 or #2 in the slightest because you are not providing evidence of any causation.
>> ^chilaxe:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/rembar" title="member since September 28th, 2006" class="profilelink">rembar,
Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?
Islam: A black hole of progress.
@rembar,
Sure. Here are the 3 claims with #3 reworded.
1. Factual claim: A large portion of the population is Muslim living in Islamic societies.
2. Factual claim: Those societies publish ~1% of scientific papers.
3. Theory based on the above claims: Islamic societies play a significant role in their low rate of scientific publishing.
These all seem to be scientifically reasonable statements. Is there an error somewhere that would disqualify this as legitimate discussion?