Difference between revisions of "Credibility of Common Sense Science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | ?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | ?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|credibility common sense science]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:12, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Credibility of Common Sense Science |
| Author(s) | Charles William Lucas, David L Bergman |
| Keywords | Validation, Theory of knowledge, Charged ring model, Bonding, Packing, Force |
| Published | 2003 |
| Journal | Foundations of Science |
| Volume | 6 |
| Number | 2 |
| No. of pages | 17 |
Abstract
?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility.
