Using Science to Explain Scientific Method?

[Acim]

Really thought of putting this somewhere like "science and religion" sub forum, but since I'm fairly sure science cannot explain SM's existence, I do think of it as philosophical inquiry.

Anyway, here are several things about the scientific method that I've heard, some on this site:
- there is no single method
- (therefore) "the" scientific method is actually a myth
- it is the best method we have for explaining and/or investigating phenomenon
- it is the process by which science is carried out
- it is unique to science

> And then there are all the various claims about what the method(s) may entail. And they are numerous. I think it is possible to find agreement on 'what is the scientific method.' But in my experience (and I've been on a few scientific type forums), it is very rare to find two people that will share exact same understanding of what the method is. Thus, it truly does lack consistency.

Plus as noted above, there is definitely the notion, among scientific types, that 'the' method is mythological. It doesn't exist other than as a way to introduce scientific concepts (or particular branches of science) to people first learning about science. The idea that the 'scientific method' (as if there is one, universally accepted method) is myth is, IMO, a very obscure notion. I think some people are tuned into that notion as fact (that the method is not singular, and to think it is, is to adhere to a myth). I think around 80% to 95% of the population (including some scientific types) do think there is a single scientific method.

And that this single method is the best we, as humanity can (or so far have) come up with to investigate the nature of shared reality, namely the physical realm.

I (obviously) see all such claims as disputable. Like how can the best method for investigating nature be (fairly well) known among its practitioners to be mythological? Or how can it be said to be unique to science, when almost every aspect about the mythological method and the existing techniques (other methodologies, more likely being employed by practitioners) are inherently philosophical?

I'm perhaps biting off a bunch in this thread, but I do think such explorations are all viable for what I as OP wish to explore. Yet, the fundamental thing that this thread is about is how does science explain the existence of the scientific method? I don't think - there's no way to answer that. Instead, I think there is no way to consistently answer that. I further think there is plausibly no scientific way to answer that.

Like, I'm aware that it is around the 17th century that the hypothetical method came about as basis for all scientific inquiry (from that point) and that this stems from essentially previous work in natural philosophy, which dates back to Aristotle if not earlier. But my awareness of this and all the many (great many) details not being included in this history are for me not founded by science. More like, historical revisionism, and in a sense wishful thinking. Not trying to convey that in a willy nilly way, but am saying that we currently aren't really using even the mythological scientific method to establish the existence of the (mythological) scientific method. More like a claim that is taken as fact and when asking someone to back this up, well... I predict some will pretend to speak with authority as if their version of scientific history is not willy nilly and is 'very well understood.' Yet, will they actually be using science to back up the claim or an argument from authority?

Anyway, in the off chance that someone reading this thread truly thinks they can use the 'greatest method ever' to explain the (alleged) existence of 'greatest method ever,' I've created this thread to go ahead and give it your best shot. Maybe we can also use that method to understand why it is the greatest, and what all other methods are being considered in that pool, and how it is being determined as 'greatest.'

 

[Augustus]

Yet, the fundamental thing that this thread is about is how does science explain the existence of the scientific method? I don't think - there's no way to answer that. Instead, I think there is no way to consistently answer that. I further think there is plausibly no scientific way to answer that.

There is no 'scientific' way to answer that because "What is science?" is a philosophical question. Science doesn't define what science is, philosophy does.

'Science' cannot be abstracted from philosophy as it moves beyond mere collection of data into a tool for understanding the world we live in.

What it can tell us, what it can't tell us, the limitations of scientific knowledge and methodologies, the degree of trust that should be put in any given scientific finding, etc., etc. are philosophical questions.

This isn't really a problem for the sciences and doesn't diminish their value in any way. It's a non-issue except for those who think philosophy is a bunch of french guys drinking coffee and smoking Gauloises and subjectively pontificating on the world. There are those advocates of scientism who seem to think 'science good; every other source of knowledge bad', but they are just a bit ignorant.

We need the sciences and we need philosophy, it's not a competition.

 

[Acim]

There is no 'scientific' way to answer that because "What is science?" is a philosophical question. Science doesn't define what science is, philosophy does.

So, then what science is would be 'beyond scientific understanding,' right?
IMO, you changed the goal posts, but I chose to speak to what you wrote anyway. I'm saying let's simply use 'the' scientific method to explain the existence of the scientific method. I actually believe this can be done. But I don't think it can be done in one way that all would agree to, and that it would be (instead) 'continually updated.' That's a good thing in general, but a bit of an intellectual cop out, for any other method that wishes to be viewed as 'on par with scientific method' is probably not going to get a free pass if it is to be understood as needing continual updating. Instead, I think it will be viewed as inherently inconsistent.

'Science' cannot be abstracted from philosophy as it moves beyond mere collection of data into a tool for understanding the world we live in.

What it can tell us, what it can't tell us, the limitations of scientific knowledge and methodologies, the degree of trust that should be put in any given scientific finding, etc., etc. are philosophical questions.

This isn't really a problem for the sciences and doesn't diminish their value in any way. It's a non-issue except for those who think philosophy is a bunch of french guys drinking coffee and smoking Gauloises and subjectively pontificating on the world. There are those advocates of scientism who seem to think 'science good; every other source of knowledge bad', but they are just a bit ignorant.

We need the sciences and we need philosophy, it's not a competition.

I'm indirectly making the argument that it does diminish from the value of the sciences to not have consistency around methodology. Why anyone might dispute this, I find fascinating, but am offering a platform to provide a consistent explanation using that method to establish its own existence, since it is presumably the 'best method we have for investigating and understanding' things.

Though, admittedly I truly do think (intellectually) that scientific method is currently beyond scientific understanding. I look forward to that type of thought being updated, but will be keen to see if it is updated via argument(s) from authority or from actually employing scientific method(s).

 

[Augustus]

So, then what science is would be 'beyond scientific understanding,' right?
IMO, you changed the goal posts, but I chose to speak to what you wrote anyway. I'm saying let's simply use 'the' scientific method to explain the existence of the scientific method. I actually believe this can be done. But I don't think it can be done in one way that all would agree to, and that it would be (instead) 'continually updated.' That's a good thing in general, but a bit of an intellectual cop out, for any other method that wishes to be viewed as 'on par with scientific method' is probably not going to get a free pass if it is to be understood as needing continual updating. Instead, I think it will be viewed as inherently inconsistent.

I don't really get the point in trying to compartmentalise knowledge with reified boundaries that must be acknowledged at all times. Either by those who fetishise 'science' as the be all and end all of knowledge, or by those who try to discredit 'science' by pointing out that it isn't a self-sufficient, all encompassing system of perfection in regard to establishing absolute truth.

As long as 'what science is' is not above understanding, then it doesn't matter whether or not 'science' is above 'scientific understanding'.

I'm indirectly making the argument that it does diminish from the value of the sciences to not have consistency around methodology.

Why would it matter that a very broad and diverse discipline utilised a variety of methodologies?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scientific Method

 

[Acim]

I don't really get the point in trying to compartmentalise knowledge with reified boundaries that must be acknowledged at all times.

Do you mean like taxonomies or branches of science? You don't get the point in trying that?

Either by those who fetishise 'science' as the be all and end all of knowledge, or by those who try to discredit 'science' by pointing out that it isn't a self-sufficient, all encompassing system of perfection in regard to establishing absolute truth.

As long as 'what science is' is not above understanding, then it doesn't matter whether or not 'science' is above 'scientific understanding'.

Must be nice to move the goal posts, address an inquiry in way that seems sensible, and then move it so far to make a dodge seem reasonable.

I think it matters what science is if the scope of science can't readily provide explanation on existence of its own methodology. Such that the understanding itself, could think it is dealing with naturalism, but the same scope that would suggest other things (i.e. nature of God) are automatically supernatural considerations. Would be nice to realize that existence of scientific methodology is (arguably) a supernatural consideration.

It's not like 'nature of God' is beyond understanding. And quite plausible it is within range of scientific understanding. But that then comes back to scope. Yet if same scope can't establish basis (methodology) of science, then arguably there's an inherent problem with the scope, and not necessarily the 'way in which we might go about understanding God.'

Since that last assertion is really the crux of ongoing debate (on this site, and in many other areas of life), then arguably fair to say there is a problem in the way in which we might go about understanding the scientific method. Such that, it is entirely plausible, this is based on wishful thinking, and making stuff up. Or is, at the very least, NOT based on a consistent method, nor consistent understanding of how that method (or any scientific method) actually came about.

Why would it matter that a very broad and diverse discipline utilised a variety of methodologies?

It would make clear that the discipline is actually very inconsistent with its foundational assumptions, and open it up to all the criticisms that other 'wishful thinking' and 'subjective' disciplines are opened up to.
IOW, it would become clear that science itself is making up 'knowledge' as it goes along, based on man-made understandings rather than anything remotely resembling 'objective knowledge' or the fanciful imaginings that a physical realist may pride themselves on.

 

[Acim]

Scientific Method

Care to show from this piece where the scientific method is being used to provide explanation on the existence of the scientific method? Good luck!

 

[Augustus]

Must be nice to move the goal posts, address an inquiry in way that seems sensible, and then move it so far to make a dodge seem reasonable.

If you think I am 'moving the goalposts' then you don't really get my point. I was saying your 'goalposts' are specious, artificial and flawed.

If you think this is a 'dodge' then I'll leave your illusions, as you are so far from addressing my argument that it is pointless to continue.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scientific Method

Care to show from this piece where the scientific method is being used to provide explanation on the existence of the scientific method? Good luck!

The reference wasn't intended for you. In fact, it would have never occurred to me that you might be interested in or informed by such a reference.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm saying let's simply use 'the' scientific method to explain the existence of the scientific method. I actually believe this can be done.

I don't have much to add with respect to your original question beyond what @Augustus already pointed out, but I am curious: since you appear to be convinced that "the" scientific method can explain the existence of itself, how would you go about doing that? What does that look like?

 

[Acim]

The reference wasn't intended for you. In fact, it would have never occurred to me that you might be interested in or informed by such a reference.

Then does it belong in this thread? Shall we report it, as not applicable and instead worthy of deletion?

 

[jeager106]

Then does it belong in this thread? Shall we report it, as not applicable and instead worthy of deletion?

It's only electrons on a 'puter screen.
Suck it up and move on.
Thank you.
I love and respect all here.
I have a thick skin.
Significant other says I have a thick skull.

 

[leibowde84]

Really thought of putting this somewhere like "science and religion" sub forum, but since I'm fairly sure science cannot explain SM's existence, I do think of it as philosophical inquiry.

Anyway, here are several things about the scientific method that I've heard, some on this site:
- there is no single method
- (therefore) "the" scientific method is actually a myth
- it is the best method we have for explaining and/or investigating phenomenon
- it is the process by which science is carried out
- it is unique to science

> And then there are all the various claims about what the method(s) may entail. And they are numerous. I think it is possible to find agreement on 'what is the scientific method.' But in my experience (and I've been on a few scientific type forums), it is very rare to find two people that will share exact same understanding of what the method is. Thus, it truly does lack consistency.

Plus as noted above, there is definitely the notion, among scientific types, that 'the' method is mythological. It doesn't exist other than as a way to introduce scientific concepts (or particular branches of science) to people first learning about science. The idea that the 'scientific method' (as if there is one, universally accepted method) is myth is, IMO, a very obscure notion. I think some people are tuned into that notion as fact (that the method is not singular, and to think it is, is to adhere to a myth). I think around 80% to 95% of the population (including some scientific types) do think there is a single scientific method.

And that this single method is the best we, as humanity can (or so far have) come up with to investigate the nature of shared reality, namely the physical realm.

I (obviously) see all such claims as disputable. Like how can the best method for investigating nature be (fairly well) known among its practitioners to be mythological? Or how can it be said to be unique to science, when almost every aspect about the mythological method and the existing techniques (other methodologies, more likely being employed by practitioners) are inherently philosophical?

I'm perhaps biting off a bunch in this thread, but I do think such explorations are all viable for what I as OP wish to explore. Yet, the fundamental thing that this thread is about is how does science explain the existence of the scientific method? I don't think - there's no way to answer that. Instead, I think there is no way to consistently answer that. I further think there is plausibly no scientific way to answer that.

Like, I'm aware that it is around the 17th century that the hypothetical method came about as basis for all scientific inquiry (from that point) and that this stems from essentially previous work in natural philosophy, which dates back to Aristotle if not earlier. But my awareness of this and all the many (great many) details not being included in this history are for me not founded by science. More like, historical revisionism, and in a sense wishful thinking. Not trying to convey that in a willy nilly way, but am saying that we currently aren't really using even the mythological scientific method to establish the existence of the (mythological) scientific method. More like a claim that is taken as fact and when asking someone to back this up, well... I predict some will pretend to speak with authority as if their version of scientific history is not willy nilly and is 'very well understood.' Yet, will they actually be using science to back up the claim or an argument from authority?

Anyway, in the off chance that someone reading this thread truly thinks they can use the 'greatest method ever' to explain the (alleged) existence of 'greatest method ever,' I've created this thread to go ahead and give it your best shot. Maybe we can also use that method to understand why it is the greatest, and what all other methods are being considered in that pool, and how it is being determined as 'greatest.'

Although I completely agree that there are many opinions about the scientific method out there, especially on forums such as this, I think that the method itself is a pretty simple concept. The following explains what the method of procedure actually is.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Once a hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation, it can graduate to a "scientific theory", which is very different than a mere "theory" (hypothesis) or a "theory (hypothesis) that is scientific in nature".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

[Acim]

I don't have much to add with respect to your original question beyond what @Augustus already pointed out, but I am curious: since you appear to be convinced that "the" scientific method can explain the existence of itself, how would you go about doing that? What does that look like?

I'm not sure where the impression exists in this thread that says I am convinced the method can explain the existence of method, but am willing to give science benefit of doubts when I said (or say now) that I think it can be done (as I said in post #6). But let's pretend like I said I was convinced it can explain itself. Here's how I'd do go about that.

Well, knowing that the method can be made up as we go along, I'd start with trying to gather some data on 'history of the method.' I'd base that on the assumption that the mythological method is the one to run with in early research, to at least tackle it from that angle. I'd be doing my best to remove my bias that it is mythological and my own knowledgable opinion that it is actually philosophical methodology repurposed for science. I'd forego all that for early research.

At some point, I'd be looking for (historical) consensus around what makes for 'scientific methodology.' I'd fully expect to not obtain unanimous views on that method, because I do think it is inherently unreasonable to think it does exist. I'd probably go with combination of what I and what I think others identify as primary points of the methodology, but also based on gut instinct as to what I think would pass for the research. I realize I probably ought not to be so forthright about that last point, but I really think it would be, partially, how I (or anyone) would limit the scope of the research. Otherwise, I imagine during analysis of research and findings that the scope would likely go beyond science an into (natural) philosophy, possibly other domains.

And at some point, I'd publish my findings in some fashion so others could do more research. Taking into account that my research would actually be part of history that sought consensus around scientific method(s). Which is partially why I think such research would continually be updating itself, and partially cause I imagine there would be a whole lot of (scientific) opinion around the idea that the mythological methodology is not what some, or any, scientist actually uses, and so to find out what methods a particular branch actually uses, determining when that came into existence would plausibly be motivated by research that deals with the mythological method. Such that actual methods are on record (published) as to having established dates of existence and how they came about.

My current hypothesis is that the mythological one doesn't actually have a known origin, nor is it actually used by practicing scientists, other than loosely. Kinda like how they loosely use gut instinct. Or how they surely use faith in physical existence.

 

[Acim]

Although I completely agree that there are many opinions about the scientific method out there, especially on forums such as this, I think that the method itself is a pretty simple concept. The following explains what the method of procedure actually is.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Once a hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation, it can graduate to a "scientific theory", which is very different than a mere "theory" (hypothesis) or a "theory (hypothesis) that is scientific in nature".

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

It'd be nice to have a reliable account of the existence of the scientific method. Perhaps, as others have said, that isn't something science alone can come up with.
Would be both interesting and I think helpful to understand if actual, practicing scientists are using that exact method or treating it as mythological, along lines of theoretical guideline rather than specific, repeatedly confirmed methodology (for all practitioners).

 

[Skwim]

It'd be nice to have a reliable account of the existence of the scientific method. Perhaps, as others have said, that isn't something science alone can come up with.
Would be both interesting and I think helpful to understand if actual, practicing scientists are using that exact method or treating it as mythological, along lines of theoretical guideline rather than specific, repeatedly confirmed methodology (for all practitioners).

.​

 

[Acim]

.​

Thank you for helping make OP point about there not really really existing a single scientific method, but a mythological one that we teach kids, and which they'll likely stop using once they actually enter any number of fields of scientific practice, where they'll learn to adapt existing methodologies, while making up their own approaches to reach (bought and paid for) conclusions.

Unless, you think your picture says something else. Then feel free to explain that as it relates to OP.

 

[Skwim]

Thank you for helping make OP point about there not really really existing a single scientific method, but a mythological one that we teach kids, and which they'll likely stop using once they actually enter any number of fields of scientific practice, where they'll learn to adapt existing methodologies, while making up their own approaches to reach (bought and paid for) conclusions.

Unless, you think your picture says something else. Then feel free to explain that as it relates to OP.

.

 

[Acim]

.

Again, thank you for bringing the mythological scientific method to the discussion. I really do appreciate that as a contribution. Even nicer that the images include kids to help make the point more palpable

 

[idav]

Really thought of putting this somewhere like "science and religion" sub forum, but since I'm fairly sure science cannot explain SM's existence, I do think of it as philosophical inquiry.

Anyway, here are several things about the scientific method that I've heard, some on this site:
- there is no single method
- (therefore) "the" scientific method is actually a myth
- it is the best method we have for explaining and/or investigating phenomenon
- it is the process by which science is carried out
- it is unique to science

> And then there are all the various claims about what the method(s) may entail. And they are numerous. I think it is possible to find agreement on 'what is the scientific method.' But in my experience (and I've been on a few scientific type forums), it is very rare to find two people that will share exact same understanding of what the method is. Thus, it truly does lack consistency.

Plus as noted above, there is definitely the notion, among scientific types, that 'the' method is mythological. It doesn't exist other than as a way to introduce scientific concepts (or particular branches of science) to people first learning about science. The idea that the 'scientific method' (as if there is one, universally accepted method) is myth is, IMO, a very obscure notion. I think some people are tuned into that notion as fact (that the method is not singular, and to think it is, is to adhere to a myth). I think around 80% to 95% of the population (including some scientific types) do think there is a single scientific method.

And that this single method is the best we, as humanity can (or so far have) come up with to investigate the nature of shared reality, namely the physical realm.

I (obviously) see all such claims as disputable. Like how can the best method for investigating nature be (fairly well) known among its practitioners to be mythological? Or how can it be said to be unique to science, when almost every aspect about the mythological method and the existing techniques (other methodologies, more likely being employed by practitioners) are inherently philosophical?

I'm perhaps biting off a bunch in this thread, but I do think such explorations are all viable for what I as OP wish to explore. Yet, the fundamental thing that this thread is about is how does science explain the existence of the scientific method? I don't think - there's no way to answer that. Instead, I think there is no way to consistently answer that. I further think there is plausibly no scientific way to answer that.

Like, I'm aware that it is around the 17th century that the hypothetical method came about as basis for all scientific inquiry (from that point) and that this stems from essentially previous work in natural philosophy, which dates back to Aristotle if not earlier. But my awareness of this and all the many (great many) details not being included in this history are for me not founded by science. More like, historical revisionism, and in a sense wishful thinking. Not trying to convey that in a willy nilly way, but am saying that we currently aren't really using even the mythological scientific method to establish the existence of the (mythological) scientific method. More like a claim that is taken as fact and when asking someone to back this up, well... I predict some will pretend to speak with authority as if their version of scientific history is not willy nilly and is 'very well understood.' Yet, will they actually be using science to back up the claim or an argument from authority?

Anyway, in the off chance that someone reading this thread truly thinks they can use the 'greatest method ever' to explain the (alleged) existence of 'greatest method ever,' I've created this thread to go ahead and give it your best shot. Maybe we can also use that method to understand why it is the greatest, and what all other methods are being considered in that pool, and how it is being determined as 'greatest.'

Science is a word which means knowledge.

Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’

So essentially people found a clever way to gain knowledge in a sincere logical manner.

I wonder about this question though, I'm not against the scientific method being philosophical. Of course I'm sure you realize that using knowledge to explain knowledge seems redundant. The method happens to be self validating as well as self refuting when it has to do with facts and such.