• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you think the "scientific method" is and why?

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My question is pretty simple: we've all heard about the scientific method, peer-review, falsification, etc. But few of us possess either the requisite knowledge or experience to speak to what scientific practice involves. So I'm curious what members think of the scientific method: what it is (if it is anything), what it can show and what it can't, what scientists think of it, or any other informative comments. Thanks!
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
So far as I've been able to figure out as a non-scientist, there is no one, single scientific method. There are instead many methods employed in the sciences and the basic rule, so to speak, seems to be that any method is legitimate if it can gain the respect, so to speak, of scientists working in the field.

So, if someone were to propose method x, and method x was deemed flawed by his or her fellow scientists, method x would be ruled out. But if someone else were to proposed method y, and method y stood the test of being accepted as legitimate by his or her fellow scientists, then method y would become another one of many scientific methods.

Put differently, methods are subject to skeptical appraisal and must withstand that test before being accepted as legitimate.

That's a simplified gloss of what I actually think of the matter, but I hope it will do for now.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
In the simplest terms, it’s working though the steps of observation, hypothesis, evidence and conclusion. We all sort of practice it every day without even noticing. For example, you observe a car when you’re crossing the road, hypothesise that you can’t cross if it will reach you before you get to the other side, estimate it’s speed and distance from you and conclude whether you have time to cross or should wait. The only difference with formal scientific experiments is the level of detail and accuracy involved in the process because of the level of detail and accuracy required or desired from the outcome. Pretty much everything else involved in formal scientific process is about supporting that detail and accuracy within the scope of that underlying four-step process.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The scientific method is all about avoiding presumption and self-delusion. Taking the best possible care to create objective situations that may test the accuracy of predictions and finding out whether the facts support them.

It is not really used quite as often as it should, but it is the only way to have reliable knowledge in matters that are not strictly personal.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
My question is pretty simple: we've all heard about the scientific method, peer-review, falsification, etc. But few of us possess either the requisite knowledge or experience to speak to what scientific practice involves. So I'm curious what members think of the scientific method: what it is (if it is anything), what it can show and what it can't, what scientists think of it, or any other informative comments. Thanks!
I think the scientific method is a tool of educators to teach children the philosophy of science and give them a sound foundation in empirical investigation.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I like this simple diagram from the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Method".
450px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png

I can also see arrows being re-routed to suit one's inspirations.

But I'll some add other aspects to the scientific method......
- Vainly trying to disprove the God they hate.
- Cadging for government funding.
- Seeking respect & authority by wearing lab coats & flaunting academic titles.
- Worshiping Darwin.

But there are dissenting opinions....
57565-simpsons-professor-frink-quotes.jpg
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
If I had to simplify, I would say the sciences are about recognizing that individual humans have biases, and striving to overcome those to approach an impartial and objective understanding of observable levels of what we call "reality." This is done through a mix of things like peer review, application of critical thinking, statistical analyses, etc.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
It's whatever method one employs to arrive at a scientifically supported explanation of a phenomenon. A whole host and range of analytical tools, methods, and practices are employed in a variety of ways to arrive at these explanations. The "Scientific Method," as presented to schoolchildren, is merely an overview of various aspects involved in scientific inquiry, presented in a simplified way, in order to provide an understandable introduction to young minds.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
My question is pretty simple: we've all heard about the scientific method, peer-review, falsification, etc. But few of us possess either the requisite knowledge or experience to speak to what scientific practice involves. So I'm curious what members think of the scientific method: what it is (if it is anything), what it can show and what it can't, what scientists think of it, or any other informative comments. Thanks!
If I had to describe all the different scientific methods in one description, it would be something like "making conclusions about reality via logically valid inferences from evidence."
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I once read in a textbook discussion of "the scientific method" that about ninety years ago, there was an area of investigation focused on the study of just one branch of the beetle family. If I recall now, the beetles themselves were almost entirely confined to inhabiting a single region of South America. There were only two or three scientists in the world who were actively studying the beetles, and the scientists were rivals from different universities. But between themselves, they managed to somehow publish an annual journal, wholly dedicated to that one sub-branch of beetles, which had a total subscriber base of about six individuals and libraries. Despite the limited audience, I distinctly remember that the journal was described as "lively" due to an always earnest, sometimes witty, decades-long debate-without-quarter between two of the scientists over the proper classification of just one particular species.

I bring that up because I think that it in some way illustrates just how much the sciences are a communal activity.

So far as I've heard, scientists overwhelmingly work "cooperatively" to arrive at reliable fact and predictive theory. And that in a nutshell is to my mind one of the key -- if not actually in some ways the single most important key -- characteristics that differentiates the sciences from most other forms of inquiry. Scientists I've known have sometimes joked to me about being priests and prophets who get to hand down their notions from on high, but in reality there are no priests nor prophets in the sciences: There are no people who get to claim infallible authority. Everyone is subject to peer review.

Thus perhaps the very essence of the sciences is inter-subjective verification. That seems to me the foundation on which all else is built, very much including the various and many scientific methods.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I once read in a textbook discussion of "the scientific method" that about ninety years ago, there was an area of investigation focused on the study of just one branch of the beetle family. If I recall now, the beetles themselves were almost entirely confined to inhabiting a single region of South America. There were only two or three scientists in the world who were actively studying the beetles, and the scientists were rivals from different universities. But between themselves, they managed to somehow publish an annual journal, wholly dedicated to that one sub-branch of beetles, which had a total subscriber base of about six individuals and libraries. Despite the limited audience, I distinctly remember that the journal was described as "lively" due to an always earnest, sometimes witty, decades-long debate-without-quarter between two of the scientists over the proper classification of just one particular species.

I bring that up because I think that it in some way illustrates just how much the sciences are a communal activity.

So far as I've heard, scientists overwhelmingly work "cooperatively" to arrive at reliable fact and predictive theory. And that in a nutshell is to my mind one of the key -- if not actually in some ways the single most important key -- characteristics that differentiates the sciences from most other forms of inquiry. Scientists I've known have sometimes joked to me about being priests and prophets who get to hand down their notions from on high, but in reality there are no priests nor prophets in the sciences: There are no people who get to claim infallible authority. Everyone is subject to peer review.

Thus perhaps the very essence of the sciences is inter-subjective verification. That seems to me the foundation on which all else is built, very much including the various and many scientific methods.

Good post. Additionally, I think people often underestimate the role of intuitive insights and leaps, as well as hunches and feelings as often significant and relevant aspects involved in scientific inquiry and exploration.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
My question is pretty simple: we've all heard about the scientific method, peer-review, falsification, etc. But few of us possess either the requisite knowledge or experience to speak to what scientific practice involves. So I'm curious what members think of the scientific method: what it is (if it is anything), what it can show and what it can't, what scientists think of it, or any other informative comments. Thanks!

I don't fully get why it is assumed few of us possess the requisite knowledge to speak to what the scientific practice involves? That type of thinking has always boggled my mind. Can't anyone do science if they so choose? Once doing a scientific experiment, do they not have experience? Furthermore, is science something that is done in secret or intended as such? I would think science, as I understand it, is very much an open book proposition for anyone that cares to read up on what is occurring in its practice(s). The stuff that makes for 'esteemed' science and/or 'appropriate' practice is really subjective. It continues to strike me as the human ego inserting itself into the open book endeavor and attempting to form cliques and what have you, which are not truly a part of what science actually is. Instead it is plausibly what science has become.

Anyway, with regard to your inquiry, the scientific method is fundamentally a mental construct for how to investigate and understand phenomenon. I hesitate on the 'understand' portion, but given how consensus visibly works in the scientific community (and therefore much of the intellectual world), I don't see how it is avoidable. How the majority interpret results is plausibly much better for the career of a scientist than going off on one's own and relying on own understandings. That could possibly result in significant breakthroughs, but given the way politics is now married to the scientific community, it would be challenging to advocate that type of path to anyone. It appears far better to share in common understandings, even if they don't hold up well to philosophical considerations.

I see the scientific method as a set of philosophical statements. All that is taken for granted. Now, the scientific method is a guideline for how all scientific practice ought to be conducting its investigations. And because science is an open book endeavor, part of the practice, based on the guideline is being prepared to share findings that show that the method was followed and what were the specifics or parameters of the particular application of the scientific method.

From my understanding, and appreciation of science, that is (by far) the most important part of the method, the portion that leads all the way up to being ready to publish findings. My perception is that it is treated as secondary to peer review and scientific consensus. If the peers reviewing published results are esteemed, all the better for that scientist to move forward with a career that will lead to greater funding, bigger and better experiments. Conversely, if the peers reviewing it are not esteemed and/or esteemed ones are ignoring the published findings, then it is a crapshoot as to whether it even to be deemed a valued finding. Thus, scientific practice (not by the guideline, but by culture) is a game that is being played and winning is important. Being popular and aligned with popular ideas, fairly darn important. Deviation, in principle, is arguably a wonderful thing. Significant deviation from the clique and popular understandings, not such a good thing. In fact, it might be career ending. No longer able to get the wonderful endless flow of funding to do bigger and better experiments. Sorry. But, you can still practice science! Just don't publish any findings, because the popular people feel your credibility has been destroyed and that's all they ever actually cared about in the first place. Though, ask them directly, and they'll swear up and down that is not the case.

I struggle to find quotes (online) what 'scientists' think about the scientific method. Again, I operate under the notion that everyone can be a scientist, so I'm sure by that rationale, I could find quotes. But given what I feel you are asking, I did a couple searches that made sense to me, and either came up with nothing or things that I feel are reaching. They are quotes about the scientific endeavor and are essentially describing it as a wondrous endeavor or comparing it to alternative endeavors with the assumption that science is best. I've had discussions myself with practicing scientists on the scientific method. I don't have any direct quotes off hand. My feeling is that the method is taken for granted and is somewhat trivial in how a scientist views it in relation to current topics of research they are interested in, or findings by others that they are keenly interested in.

I see the method as propped up when it suits a particular aspect of a discussion or debate. Usually moved away from rather quickly and/or added to with a whole lot of other assertions none of which are found in the actual method in its basic form. Like methodological naturalism is prime example. It is deemed the only way to approach science, and thus the method is filtered through that paradigm. Attempt to deviate from that, and you've committed the equivalency of a cardinal sin. Thus, the method is, in reality secondary to the aims of MN. Though an MN proponent may boldly claim that SM is squarely in their domain and belongs nowhere else.

As if philosophy never conceived of all that SM entails hundreds, if not thousands, of years earlier.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Good post. Additionally, I think people often underestimate the role of intuitive insights and leaps, as well as hunches and feelings as often significant and relevant aspects involved in scientific inquiry and exploration.

Yeah, outsiders do. Those who work the field, not so much. I suspect the reason for this is that even up through the undergraduate level, sciences are often taught as a body of knowledge, rather than a process or active field. Or rather, it isn't really possible to grasp the process through armchair learning - one has to do science to really get what it is about. IMHO, undergraduate research should be required of science majors because of this, though I understand why this isn't a requirement.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
So I'm curious what members think of the scientific method: what it is (if it is anything), what it can show and what it can't, what scientists think of it, or any other informative comments.
As someone who has performed and will perform more research, the 'scientific method' is not a strict method but, in the simplest of terms, an epistemological philosophy of approaching the acquisition of knowledge through process oriented, and thus repeatable, rigorous testing of hypotheses(structured as an attempt to disprove the hypothesis).

As far as 'method' in my field of psychology alone, I could probably approach three digits of differing methodology off the top of my head.

I don't fully get why it is assumed few of us possess the requisite knowledge to speak to what the scientific practice involves?
Most people are unaware of even the simplest cognitive biases they fall prey to, the biases that scientific inquiry is intended to ameliorate.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't fully get why it is assumed few of us possess the requisite knowledge to speak to what the scientific practice involves?
I'm not assuming it. I have repeatedly found it to be the case; it has been identified as a serious issue by organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publishers of the journal Science), the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Societies, etc., empirical research into the understanding of the nature of science (NoS) that even those who TEACH science at the pre-college level has repeatedly shown a substantial and serious divergence between how scientists actually practice and how e.g., high school chemistry or physics teachers think they do; study after study has shown that even college textbooks seriously distort, misrepresent, or mislead the reader as to the nature of "The Scientific Method" and the scientific process more generally; the largely ignored literature written by professional scientists attempting to correct serious distortions began shortly after the scientific method (a conception developed by a single individual for educational purposes) and has continued ever since; etc.

One can't really understand how scientists practice unless you have some kind of experience in that field or a similar behind-the-scenes look (this is true even of scientists; it's actually a serious problem in particle physics and climate science, for example, because e.g., experiments in particle physics not only can't be replicated in the standard sense, nobody actually understands them well-enough to enable adequate review of a single experiment, while in climate science the diversity of the relevant systems makes it impossible to become an expert in more than a few). That said, it is certainly possible for anybody to gain a reasonable understanding of scientific practice by reading graduate level textbooks, scientific literature, conference proceedings, etc., and these days even by going to youtube and watching actual sciences talk about their work to other scientists in various panels, sessions, conferences, etc.

The problem is that almost nobody does this except scientists, and the presentation of the nature of science (in particular the scientific method, which strictly speaking is purely a myth and widely recognized as such) is woefully inadequate.

Once doing a scientific experiment, do they not have experience?
They don't. Doing experiments is actually rather misleading, as it hides the inevitable theory-laden nature of real scientific research, the complex relationships between the ways in which theory drives research questions, determines how such questions will be investigated, and how the results are interpreted. People make observations naturally- empirical inquiry requires first and foremost a logical framework and secondly a theoretical framework within which one works.

I struggle to find quotes (online) what 'scientists' think about the scientific method.
I can give you a bunch if you wish:

"[t]here is no such thing as the scientific method. If there were, surely an examination of the history of physics, chemistry and biology would reveal it."
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and Common Sense. Yale University Press.

“Nothing could be more stultifying, and, perhaps more important, nothing is further from the procedure of the scientist “than a rigorous tabular progression through the supposed ‘steps’ of the scientific method, with perhaps the further requirement that the student not only memorize but follow this sequence in his attempt to understand natural phenomena"
Harvard Committee. (1945). General education in a free society: Report of the Harvard Committee. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

“Around the middle of the 20th century, the Scientific Method was offered as a template for teachers to emulate for the activity of scientists (National Society for the Study of Education, 1947). It was composed of anywhere from five to seven steps (e.g., making observations, defining the problem, constructing hypotheses, experimenting, compiling results, drawing conclusions). Despite criticism beginning as early as the 1960s, this oversimplified view of science has proven disconcertingly durable and continues to be used in classroom today”
Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry:” How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481-512.


“One of the most widely held misconceptions about science is the existence of the scientific method...
The myth of the scientific method is regularly manifested in the belief that there is a recipelike stepwise procedure that all scientists follow when they do science. This notion was explicitly debunked..."
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521

“a focus on practices (in the plural) avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”—or that uncertainty is a universal attribute of science. In reality, practicing scientists employ a broad spectrum of methods, and although science involves many areas of uncertainty as knowledge is developed, there are now many aspects of scientific knowledge that are so well established as to be unquestioned foundations of the culture and its technologies.”
Schweingruber, H., Keller, T., & Quinn, H. (Eds.). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education:: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.

"We recognize that critiques of TSM are not new. Rudolph (2005), for example, chronicled the spread of TSM [the scientific method] as a movement that began with a simple five-step heuristic for “logical thinking” developed by John Dewey (1910).During the 20th century, this idea swept through the educational community despite regular admonitions from notable scientists (and Dewey himself) that there was no such thing as “a” scientific method. From a methodological perspective, Bauer (1992) picked apart the notion of a universal method, citing the varied ways in which members of different subdisciplines in science pose questions, acquire data, deal with theory, and argue with evidence. From a curricular perspective, Hodson (1996) traced the changing nature of science inquiry in schools from the 1960s to the present, arguing that movements such as discovery learning, process approaches, and particular forms of constructivist pedagogy have all misrepresented the nature of investigative science.”
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science education, 92(5), 941-967.

“The “myths of science” discussed here are commonly included in science textbooks, in classroom discourse and in the minds of adult Americans. Misconceptions about science are most likely due to the lack of philosophy of science content in teacher education programs and the failure of such programs to provide real science research experiences for preservice teachers while another source of the problem may be the generally shallow treatment of the nature of science in the textbooks to which teachers might turn for guidance. Some of these myths, such as the idea that there is a scientific method, are most likely caused by the explicit inclusion of faulty ideas in textbooks while others, such as lack of knowledge of the social construction of scientific knowledge, are the result of omissions in texts.”
McComas, W. F. (2002). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education (Science & Technology Education Library) (pp. 53-70). Springer.

"The model of ‘scientific method’ that probably reflects many people’s understanding is one of scientific knowledge being ‘proved’ through experiments...That is, the ‘experimental method’ offers a way of uncovering true knowledge of the world, providing that we plan our experiments logically, and carefully collect sufficient data. In this way, our rational faculty is applied to empirical evidence to prove (or otherwise) scientific hypotheses. This is a gross simplification, and misrepresentation, of how science actually occurs, but unfortunately it has probably been encouraged by the impoverished image of the nature of science commonly reflected in school science." (emphasis added)
Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the Scientific Research Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science (Science & Technology Education Library Vol. 37). Springer.

"there is no one way to ‘do’ science. Methods and practices vary widely across fields, institutions, and individuals. Even the U.S. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) asserts, contrary to decades-old school lore, that 'no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science' (National Science Teachers Association, 2000). Amidst this array of approaches to doing science, there exists considerable debate amongst the general public and academics from a range of disciplines about how to characterize scientific inquiry."
Grotzer, T. A., Miller, R. B., & Lincoln, R. A. (2012). Perceptual, Attentional, and Cognitive Heuristics That Interact with the Nature of Science to Complicate Public Understanding of Science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.). Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies (pp. 27-49). Springer.


“Pre-college students, and the general public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” (emphasis added)
Lederman, N. G. (1999). EJSE Editorial: The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2).

“A key myth...is a belief in a universal scientific method. As with many myths, those who hold to it are startled when they discover its inaccuracy; those who know it is a myth are surprised by its persistence in textbooks, curricula, and lesson plans. I've seen teachers become visibly shaken when they learn the scientific method is a myth. I’ve also heard aspirants to a teacher education program say they studied the scientific method in preparation for their application interviews. Somehow the myth of the scientific method lives on and not only within the realm of the science classroom. The persisting mythology of a scientific method is viewed as a problem within educational research (Rowbottom & Aiston, 2006) as well as for those who teach science.”
Settlage, J. (2007). Demythologizing science teacher education: Conquering the false ideal of open inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 461-467.

“It became fashionable early in the present century to speak of the "scientific method." as though there was a set procedure for doing science which, if followed, was guaranteed to produce results...We have here an apparently simple methodology...that seemingly lends itself well to science education. But the problem with it is that, except for the most straightforward situations offering clear cause-and-effect relationships, the notion that here is a routine for automatically solving any scientific problem is patently false.”
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy. Rutgers University Press.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My original intent was not to comment at all in this thread, lest I bias results. Now I have, so I wanted to give an explanation as to why I started this thread. Quite simply, it was to get an idea about how other people understand the scientific method/process. But at a deeper level, it was to see how others' explanations/interpretations/understandings did or did not reflect my own conceptions at various stages of my career. I started out with the intent to become a clinical psychologist, and began with an additional major in Ancient Greek & Latin because I hate reading things in translation (which is why I also studied German, French, and other languages relevant to fields I was and remain interested in). However, an undergraduate project got me interested in cognitive linguistics, which got me interested in cognitive science, which led to an interest in neuroscience, which led to graduate work at a fairly prestigious institution in neuroscience and my would-be doctoral project demonstrating the irrelevancy of quantum physics to neuronal dynamics. The institution in which I did my research was "old school", because much of the foundational work in cognitive science, neuroscience, information theory, neural networks, neurobiology, modern linguistics, evolutionary psychology, not to mention physics was done there or just down the street. Unlike the Santa Fe Institute or other, newer centers of brain research, many of the labs at the university I worked at relied on a model developed in the 50s and were openly hostile to research challenging notions about the nature of cognition, philosophy of mind, the nature of information and application of computability, biophysics, and so on. I vividly recall my "first" lesson in the "real" scientific method: after critiquing a dozen or so peer-reviewed studies that supported an alternative model of cognition, the head of the lab admitted that the "opposition" had made progress and it was conceivable that, eventually, all the problems he saw in the research supporting embodied cognition and similar models would be addressed, in which case (he asserted), we would have to abandon the methodology everybody used. I asked how we could determine when it was our theory that should be abandoned vs. our methodology, and his answer was "well, if you have really good reasons for thinking that you should find certain results, and you don't, then your methods are inadequate." True. But it is generally impossible to determine when "really good reasons" are actually good enough.
But this is largely neither here nor there. My graduate research increasingly distanced me not only from those I worked with, but from my field. Eventually, I left my program and had to use my experience in a variety of fields and research methods in order to be an independent research consultant- not only to remain in academia (or at least connected to it) but also just to feed myself. I have not yet returned to any official university position and currently, despite the fact that my field is neuroscience, spend almost all of my time teaching, consulting, and/or working on issues in mathematics and physics.
I began my education with the understanding of the scientific method that, I believe, most have. I also had no intention to be a researcher in any field, believed I hated math, had next to know knowledge of physics or most natural sciences, and wasn't even aware that the fields which I would eventually find so intriguing even existed.
I suspect that every scientist begins her or his career with an understanding of what "science" is that is inevitably rejected upon reflection of her or his experience after some years of practice. I also suspect that certain fields require such introspection more than others, and that the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of the sciences. I have come to see, from conversations, texts, talks, and my own work that a number of new fields or newer approaches within the oldest sciences have resulted either in a rejection of a lot of assumptions about the nature of science in popular depictions (reductionism, materialism, even realism!) or a sort of religious-like dogma in particular ideological approaches leading quite literally to scientific theories that are not only untestable, but which aren't even in principle capable of being tested or of making predictions. It seems as if sometimes even our most fundamental sciences progress by increasingly venturing into the fantastical. And as I am in a point in my career where I am pulled in multiple directions (not only which field to pursue of those I have dedicated years of study to, but even whether to return to "pure" academia or continue to focus more in the private sector), questions about the goals, nature, sociology, methods, and so forth of the sciences have become to me ever more prevalent and ever more important.
So I asked what I did to help me with my own ponderings, and I thank everybody who has responded.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As an engineer, I've learned that the scientific method is basically whatever my boss has to say. But more often than not, whatever his boss has to say.
In engineering, the "scientific method" never came up for me.
(I designed things, rather than researched stuff.)
I never even gave much thought to a formal process.
But some useful practices became obvious....
- Think of all the possible ways to do something.
- Don't become committed to one approach initially.
- Anticipate failed approaches. Have options.
- Keep management apprised of things, especially anticipated failure.
If you warn them of failure beforehand, they like that. If they discover failure afterwards, they hate that.
- Have someone motivated to find flaws in my work.
- Keep a checklist of goals & other important things....& check it regularly.
- Get help when it's useful.
- An attractive product inspires people. If something looks wrong, then it is wrong.
- Daydream about the project....ruminate on all aspects of it. This might sometimes cause enmity in those who think you're only goofing off, but this helps ensure that one isn't heading down a fruitless path.

Anyway, thanx to Legion for his perspective.
I hope my stolen graphic, supplemented with rearrangable arrows works for him.
It's a very flexible method which serves the goal of being useful.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I don't fully get why it is assumed few of us possess the requisite knowledge to speak to what the scientific practice involves? That type of thinking has always boggled my mind. Can't anyone do science if they so choose? Once doing a scientific experiment, do they not have experience? Furthermore, is science something that is done in secret or intended as such? I would think science, as I understand it, is very much an open book proposition for anyone that cares to read up on what is occurring in its practice(s). The stuff that makes for 'esteemed' science and/or 'appropriate' practice is really subjective. It continues to strike me as the human ego inserting itself into the open book endeavor and attempting to form cliques and what have you, which are not truly a part of what science actually is. Instead it is plausibly what science has become.

Anyway, with regard to your inquiry, the scientific method is fundamentally a mental construct for how to investigate and understand phenomenon. I hesitate on the 'understand' portion, but given how consensus visibly works in the scientific community (and therefore much of the intellectual world), I don't see how it is avoidable. How the majority interpret results is plausibly much better for the career of a scientist than going off on one's own and relying on own understandings. That could possibly result in significant breakthroughs, but given the way politics is now married to the scientific community, it would be challenging to advocate that type of path to anyone. It appears far better to share in common understandings, even if they don't hold up well to philosophical considerations.

I see the scientific method as a set of philosophical statements. All that is taken for granted. Now, the scientific method is a guideline for how all scientific practice ought to be conducting its investigations. And because science is an open book endeavor, part of the practice, based on the guideline is being prepared to share findings that show that the method was followed and what were the specifics or parameters of the particular application of the scientific method.

From my understanding, and appreciation of science, that is (by far) the most important part of the method, the portion that leads all the way up to being ready to publish findings. My perception is that it is treated as secondary to peer review and scientific consensus. If the peers reviewing published results are esteemed, all the better for that scientist to move forward with a career that will lead to greater funding, bigger and better experiments. Conversely, if the peers reviewing it are not esteemed and/or esteemed ones are ignoring the published findings, then it is a crapshoot as to whether it even to be deemed a valued finding. Thus, scientific practice (not by the guideline, but by culture) is a game that is being played and winning is important. Being popular and aligned with popular ideas, fairly darn important. Deviation, in principle, is arguably a wonderful thing. Significant deviation from the clique and popular understandings, not such a good thing. In fact, it might be career ending. No longer able to get the wonderful endless flow of funding to do bigger and better experiments. Sorry. But, you can still practice science! Just don't publish any findings, because the popular people feel your credibility has been destroyed and that's all they ever actually cared about in the first place. Though, ask them directly, and they'll swear up and down that is not the case.

I struggle to find quotes (online) what 'scientists' think about the scientific method. Again, I operate under the notion that everyone can be a scientist, so I'm sure by that rationale, I could find quotes. But given what I feel you are asking, I did a couple searches that made sense to me, and either came up with nothing or things that I feel are reaching. They are quotes about the scientific endeavor and are essentially describing it as a wondrous endeavor or comparing it to alternative endeavors with the assumption that science is best. I've had discussions myself with practicing scientists on the scientific method. I don't have any direct quotes off hand. My feeling is that the method is taken for granted and is somewhat trivial in how a scientist views it in relation to current topics of research they are interested in, or findings by others that they are keenly interested in.

I see the method as propped up when it suits a particular aspect of a discussion or debate. Usually moved away from rather quickly and/or added to with a whole lot of other assertions none of which are found in the actual method in its basic form. Like methodological naturalism is prime example. It is deemed the only way to approach science, and thus the method is filtered through that paradigm. Attempt to deviate from that, and you've committed the equivalency of a cardinal sin. Thus, the method is, in reality secondary to the aims of MN. Though an MN proponent may boldly claim that SM is squarely in their domain and belongs nowhere else.

As if philosophy never conceived of all that SM entails hundreds, if not thousands, of years earlier.

I'd agree with much of that, science the method, and science the institutionalized academic opinion, are two distinct, often diametrically opposed entities.

If there is single core principle, I think the whole point of science is NOT having to take somebody's word for something. But in practical reality, and in popular culture, this is often how the word 'science' is applied, a label meaning 'not to be questioned'- In this topsy turvy world, anybody using the method to scrutinize the opinion, is 'anti-science'
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I'm not assuming it. I have repeatedly found it to be the case; it has been identified as a serious issue by organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publishers of the journal Science), the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Societies, etc., empirical research into the understanding of the nature of science (NoS) that even those who TEACH science at the pre-college level has repeatedly shown a substantial and serious divergence between how scientists actually practice and how e.g., high school chemistry or physics teachers think they do; study after study has shown that even college textbooks seriously distort, misrepresent, or mislead the reader as to the nature of "The Scientific Method" and the scientific process more generally; the largely ignored literature written by professional scientists attempting to correct serious distortions began shortly after the scientific method (a conception developed by a single individual for educational purposes) and has continued ever since; etc.

I don't see how this helps the case for science, or more specifically teaching science to people between age say 5 and 15. This is acknowledging (with very strong conviction, and using your words) "a serious divergence between how scientists actually practice and science teachers teach the subject at the undergrad level." IMO, every endeavor I'm familiar with (perhaps math being an exception) could make such claims, and yes I am thinking about religion in this assertion. But this assertion is really stating that we have plausibly taught generations of people about science in a highly impractical and for sure misleading way about what actual scientific practice entails.

I have lots more I could say, and really kind of wish to say on this, but as you said more, I'll move on.

One can't really understand how scientists practice unless you have some kind of experience in that field or a similar behind-the-scenes look (this is true even of scientists; it's actually a serious problem in particle physics and climate science, for example, because e.g., experiments in particle physics not only can't be replicated in the standard sense, nobody actually understands them well-enough to enable adequate review of a single experiment, while in climate science the diversity of the relevant systems makes it impossible to become an expert in more than a few). That said, it is certainly possible for anybody to gain a reasonable understanding of scientific practice by reading graduate level textbooks, scientific literature, conference proceedings, etc., and these days even by going to youtube and watching actual sciences talk about their work to other scientists in various panels, sessions, conferences, etc.

I find it fascinating to state: one can't really understand how scientists practice unless you have experience in that field. It would seem there is no way to enter that field then, or perhaps more accurate to say there are no guidelines to be given, that you would understand (as a non-scientist) by which to make a reasonable decision on whether or not to enter the field. Cults come to mind as something that strikes me as very similar to such an approach to 'greater understanding.'

I realize you do say there is a possibility for gaining 'a reasonable understanding of scientific practice' by observing / reading texts by scientists and conferences. Yet, this would then go back, for me, to the whole consensus/popularity contest that is visibly at work. Cause if the possibility of gaining understanding exists, and one is studying what say you (and others) might call pseudo science (texts and conferences), then how would the interested student know, other than to listen to OPINIONS that say 'that's not really science, what we do is really science.' So again, no guidelines for the newly initiated, just an invitation to choose which group (or cult) is aligning with one's interest.

I realize cult (type language) is going to be an affront scientific types. I find it is accurate. Partially based on all the admissions that you are making here and partially because I am a person who has observed / read lots of literature and scientific conferences in a popular field of study (namely public health, and specifically as it relates to smoking/vaping). I feel comfortable talking about that field, from the scientific perspective with acknowledgment that I am closer to layperson than practicing scientist. But the amount of propaganda being waged by the 'popular position' in that field is something I feel fairly well equipped to say one must be of a cult-like mentality to accept. I'm quite happy there are practicing scientists and former practitioners who have also made the same claims.

But that's just perhaps my pet cause. I observe similar disagreements occurring in many branches of science. Arguably all of them. And it would make even more sense as to why that is happening if we are to (rightfully) assume that all people learning about science in the last 50 to 80 years have been mislead to some degree by grade school and high school science teachers.

The problem is that almost nobody does this except scientists, and the presentation of the nature of science (in particular the scientific method, which strictly speaking is purely a myth and widely recognized as such) is woefully inadequate.

I do this. I believe many others who aren't 'scientists' do this investigative type work to gain in understandings of what current scientists are up to. What I sometimes run up against is if I inquire (honest inquiries) or confront (challenging inquiries) scientific types who are established in their field, it is met with a battle of egos, or what routinely strikes me as scientist(s) are reactionary and perceive a threat of some sort if they detect you as not aligning with their worldview. IMO, that's normal for life on this planet, but extremely odd that science would allow for that. Instead, I see it as pervasive in the scientific community. I find it wonderful when I come across a scientific professional or experienced practitioner that isn't prone to defensiveness and instead is patient, willing to tolerate my non-jargon inquiries, helping me to gain a better understanding of the field. Especially if it isn't reinforcing a bias that I fundamentally question or disagree with.

They don't. Doing experiments is actually rather misleading, as it hides the inevitable theory-laden nature of real scientific research, the complex relationships between the ways in which theory drives research questions, determines how such questions will be investigated, and how the results are interpreted. People make observations naturally- empirical inquiry requires first and foremost a logical framework and secondly a theoretical framework within which one works.

The 'theory-laden nature of real scientific research' reads as self justification in the bias that governs all investigative work in a particular branch of scientific study. Because it is clearly not individual selves doing this, then the cult-like assertion I find applies. A top-down approach to what makes for 'valid research' (from the onset) and acute discipline to ensure all those being well funded fall in line with what results must contain. If they deviate, well in reality that's fine. The naive people who don't think of scientific method as a myth will see that as a really great thing about science, that it can handle disagreements. The reality of scientific practice if anyone studies it, and its politics, will learn that deviation can be a really really bad thing. Career ending. Not: if you find evidence against the theory that substantiates a valid claim against, or in contrast to the theory, then we'll of course be willing to accept it, given the nature of science. Nope, can't have any of that. That's heresy. Instead: find evidence that follows from this top-down approach to the research you are paid to do, and be thorough in your investigation, so that we can say we covered our behinds in determining the extent and implications of the findings. The implications we'll perhaps keep to ourselves as that may be valuable information (even to our detractors). The extent of the thorough research we will pride ourselves on and call ourselves smart and better than any other approach to understanding things. We're so cool.

I can give you a bunch if you wish:

a) I found some of these previously
b) I wasn't sure when I found them that they were from 'practicing scientists.' Even with your list, I'm not sure.
c) some quotes present SM as a viable guideline, others present it as a myth. IMO, that doesn't bold well for science. Any other endeavor does this and they get scrutinized or downgraded as viable approach to understanding (i.e. religion says it has solid guidelines to help people, others in religion concede those guidelines are a myth, does this make religion look good or not so good?).
d) pretty much all of these are subjective assertions, closer to opinions, and likely disputed by other (practicing) scientists
e) if SM is a myth, then there are plausibly no guidelines for the uninitiated student. So, understanding how it actually operates might be best to first understand how a cult operates. Though, of course, no proponent of science will ever, ever agree to that assertion.
 
Top