# Barbara Forrest: The Trojan Horse at Dover
**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774
**Category:** Peaceful Science
**Tags:** Science, Society
**Created:** [December 15, 2020, 9:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774 "2020-12-15T21:35:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2020, 4:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774/41 "2020-12-17T16:07:10Z")
I agree.
My point is merely this: I think everyone agrees that the reliability of the conclusions we draw from empirical observations go up when they are repeated by others, and we establish more rigorous methodologies for what counts as useful or trustworthy observations, and what does not.
But that does not mean that it you haven’t, essentially, done scientific work, when you have read a length off your ruler, read a number you take to be absorbance off a digital display on your spectrophotometer, or seen rings form and expand in a patch of water on the ground. Even before anyone else has had a chance to repeat and assess that work (which would improve the reliability of your conclusions should they confirm them), you’ve still done scientific work. _You’ve done science._
---
### Author:  [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2020, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774/42 "2020-12-17T16:11:30Z")
> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> But that does not mean that it you haven’t, essentially, done scientific work, when you have read a length off your ruler, read a number you take to be absorbance off a digital display on your spectrophotometer, or seen rings form and expand in a patch of water on the ground. Even before anyone else has had a chance to repeat and assess that work (which would improve the reliability of your conclusions should they confirm them), you’ve still done scientific work. _You’ve done science._
What I am trying to say is that science isn’t just observing stuff. There’s more to it than that. There needs to be some empiricism and hypothesis testing somewhere in the mix.
---
### Author:  [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2020, 4:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774/43 "2020-12-17T16:17:10Z")
> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> There needs to be some empiricism and hypothesis testing somewhere in the mix.
Sure, but as I said I think empirical hypothesis testing is _implicit_ in much of what we do in our everyday lives.
Is my coffee still warm? I taste it (an empirical measurement), or hold the cup for a few seconds (another empirical measurement). There’s an implicit testing of a hypothesis there. I have a hypothesis about what I expect to taste or feel if it is warm, and what I should taste or feel if it is not.
Now, the reliability of my conclusions about the coffee might be good enough for my own satisfaction, and they would certainly go up a lot of I got many different individuals to repeat the test. But they do no less conform to the “recipe” of scientific hypothesis testing if I do not go through and have others repeat them. I have, in fact, performed an empirical test of a hypothesis, by holding my cup in my hand.
---
### Author:  [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2020, 4:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774/44 "2020-12-24T16:17:17Z")
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
---
### Author:  [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2021, 8:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774/45 "2021-01-06T08:05:54Z")
Just published the article for this here:
> **[Barbara Forrest: The Trojan Horse at Dover . Is ID just Creationism?](https://peacefulscience.org/barbara-forrest-trojan-horse-at-dover/)**
>
> Barbara forest argues that Intelligent Design is a Trojan Horse, just a rehash of creationism. Is this really true? I'm not so sure.
We will be discussing it here: [Barbara Forest: Is ID Science or Not?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forest-is-id-science-or-not/12959)
[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/barbara-forrest-the-trojan-horse-at-dover/12774.md?page=2)