The sciences are the most reliable method of inquiry that humanity has yet devised. The emphasis here is on "method of inquiry". What distinguishes the sciences from other fields, such as philosophy and theology, is the method of inquiry employed in the sciences.
Whether the sciences have but one core method of inquiry or several is a matter of how you slice and dice the various procedures used in the sciences. In this post, I'll take the view there is but one core method -- largely to keep things simple.
That core method can be represented in various ways. Sometimes as having a few steps, sometimes as having many. But here -- at the risk of over-simplifying it -- I will reduce it to just four essential steps. Remove anyone of these steps, and you no longer have a science, in my opinion.
You can add up to a dozen or more steps to this model, depending on what degree of detail you want to go into, but I think the most essential elements to the scientific method of inquiry are captured in just four steps.
The first thing to note here is that the sciences combine both observation (empiricism) with logical reasoning. This is a key to their power as means of inquiry.
The second thing to note here is that the sciences do not rely on metaphysical explanations for natural events. In fact, they eliminate consideration of metaphysical explanations within their scope by relying on empiricism as one of their two key components, along with logical reasoning. Empiricism, while not actually incompatible with metaphysical explanations, tends to render such explanations unnecessary.
Last, the practical "requirement" for peer review tends to vastly increase the reliability of the sciences.
Questions? Comments?
Whether the sciences have but one core method of inquiry or several is a matter of how you slice and dice the various procedures used in the sciences. In this post, I'll take the view there is but one core method -- largely to keep things simple.
That core method can be represented in various ways. Sometimes as having a few steps, sometimes as having many. But here -- at the risk of over-simplifying it -- I will reduce it to just four essential steps. Remove anyone of these steps, and you no longer have a science, in my opinion.
1) Create an hypothesis, usually based on observation, that explains something in terms of something else -- preferably a supposed cause of that something. For instance, your hypothesis might state that common table salt is caused by sodium and chlorine chemically bonding.
2) Logically deduce a consequence of your hypothesis -- if it were true. For example, you might deduce that, if it were true salt was the product of sodium and chlorine chemically bonding, then splitting pure salt into its atomic constituents will consistently yield sodium and chlorine, and nothing else.
3) Test your hypothesis. For instance, split salt into its atomic constituents and look to see what you find those are. If you find that only sodium and chlorine are consistently present, then your hypothesis is collaborated. That is, it is supported. If you find that some other substances are consistently present as well, then your hypothesis is falsified. That is, proven false. The sciences can prove something is false, but they cannot prove something is true -- merely that it is supported.
4) Submit your procedure and results for peer review. The first three steps are logically required. This fourth step is not strictly required, but human biases and errors being what they are, it is all but required in practice to ensure that your inquiry is sound. Besides which, you could actually argue that this step was almost logically required via this line of reasoning: If a procedure and result do not hold up under review, then the procedure and result are unlikely to be sound.
2) Logically deduce a consequence of your hypothesis -- if it were true. For example, you might deduce that, if it were true salt was the product of sodium and chlorine chemically bonding, then splitting pure salt into its atomic constituents will consistently yield sodium and chlorine, and nothing else.
3) Test your hypothesis. For instance, split salt into its atomic constituents and look to see what you find those are. If you find that only sodium and chlorine are consistently present, then your hypothesis is collaborated. That is, it is supported. If you find that some other substances are consistently present as well, then your hypothesis is falsified. That is, proven false. The sciences can prove something is false, but they cannot prove something is true -- merely that it is supported.
4) Submit your procedure and results for peer review. The first three steps are logically required. This fourth step is not strictly required, but human biases and errors being what they are, it is all but required in practice to ensure that your inquiry is sound. Besides which, you could actually argue that this step was almost logically required via this line of reasoning: If a procedure and result do not hold up under review, then the procedure and result are unlikely to be sound.
You can add up to a dozen or more steps to this model, depending on what degree of detail you want to go into, but I think the most essential elements to the scientific method of inquiry are captured in just four steps.
The first thing to note here is that the sciences combine both observation (empiricism) with logical reasoning. This is a key to their power as means of inquiry.
The second thing to note here is that the sciences do not rely on metaphysical explanations for natural events. In fact, they eliminate consideration of metaphysical explanations within their scope by relying on empiricism as one of their two key components, along with logical reasoning. Empiricism, while not actually incompatible with metaphysical explanations, tends to render such explanations unnecessary.
Last, the practical "requirement" for peer review tends to vastly increase the reliability of the sciences.
Questions? Comments?
