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

[Revoltingest]

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

This is utterly wrong!
They're all one big diverse family, who have much in common....but also lots of differences, drama & fighting.

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'

The worst abusers (by making it sacred) of science are the non-scientists who invoke it in discussions & politics (IM0).
Just look at us here.
Ever seen such vapid & overly certain pontificating?
(Of course, some scientists are be jerks too.)

 

[Quintessence]

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.

So what you're saying is that the real problem is that being a true nerd isn't a national pastime?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I like this simple diagram from the Wikipedia article on the "Scientific Method".

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

I think that an argument can be made that all of these steps occur in various branches of the sciences at various times and using various techniques. To order them in a cycle is a great oversimplification; to only have one small feedback loop (develop testable predictions > Gather data to test those predictions > Refine, alter, etc. > Develop testable predictions) is absurd: as soon as data is collected and analyzed (and sometimes even in the data-collection process), one starts looking back to the initial observations, the interesting questions, and the formulation of hypotheses--because it sometimes becomes apparent once data collection starts that one's initial observations, questions and hypotheses were screwed up to begin with, and therefore you are getting screwy results. Hypotheses themselves must fit into some general theory to begin with, which directs attention to what one observes (and at the same time, what one does not observe--what one ignores), what one will ask questions about, what and how they will hypothesize about it, how they will try to observe, measure and analyze it, and so on.

My experience in the social sciences (policy and management) is that in order to become a scientist in this field, one must do ALL of these steps simultaneously, immersing one's self into the thought and methodology of the particular field, including the general theories that were historically and are currently in use, what others are observing in addition to what you yourself observe (and in order to observe anything, you have to have data, even if its something like, "Hmmm. I noticed in this situation that my boss did X when I thought she should have done Y.)--that is, you have to be familiar with the literature of the field...that is, you have to know what have others observed and hypothesized and theorized about my observations before I came along. You have to become familiar with the observational methods that are used and accepted in your field, and ones that might be useful from other fields...but you'll have to make a good case of using those other methods...You'll have to figure out how you might actually test a hypothesis, compare it to what others have done already, and figure out how you might do it better...and then you have to do it better, and apply some good analytic methods to that data...and you might never come up with anything to challenge or change the big general theories of the field.

I think that is what you have to do to understand the "scientific method."

There are always people trying to span two or more fields, and because they come from one field into another, they often have new and unique insights into both fields. In my field, we have people from political science, sociology, social psychology, psychology, social work, education, management, business, economics, law, philosophy, history and probably a dozen other backgrounds (at least) coming together to study public policy and management of public organizations.

Consider the question: what causes crime? There are theories rooted in economics, in the psychology of individuals, in social psychology, in sociology, in politics...all of them have some observational support, meaning that we can find correlations, and sometimes, causation, between variables to explain why crime exists, and when and where it will occur, who is most likely to be its victims, who is most likely to become a perpetrator, and so on. Most of the theories are not exclusive, and many of them cannot be easily tested against each other even when they make divergent predictions--and most are of limited value in making predictions, anyway. The problem: there are too many variables happening in the real world: individual variation, community variation, family variation, economic variation, political variation, legal variation, enforcement variation, data-collection variation...hundreds of variables and thousands of ways of measuring (and mostly, of estimating) the data needed to understand the problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that an argument can be made that all of these steps occur in various branches of the sciences at various times and using various techniques. To order them in a cycle is a great oversimplification; to only have one small feedback loop (develop testable predictions > Gather data to test those predictions > Refine, alter, etc. > Develop testable predictions) is absurd: as soon as data is collected and analyzed (and sometimes even in the data-collection process), one starts looking back to the initial observations, the interesting questions, and the formulation of hypotheses--because it sometimes becomes apparent once data collection starts that one's initial observations, questions and hypotheses were screwed up to begin with, and therefore you are getting screwy results. Hypotheses themselves must fit into some general theory to begin with, which directs attention to what one observes (and at the same time, what one does not observe--what one ignores), what one will ask questions about, what and how they will hypothesize about it, how they will try to observe, measure and analyze it, and so on.

My experience in the social sciences (policy and management) is that in order to become a scientist in this field, one must do ALL of these steps simultaneously, immersing one's self into the thought and methodology of the particular field, including the general theories that were historically and are currently in use, what others are observing in addition to what you yourself observe (and in order to observe anything, you have to have data, even if its something like, "Hmmm. I noticed in this situation that my boss did X when I thought she should have done Y.)--that is, you have to be familiar with the literature of the field...that is, you have to know what have others observed and hypothesized and theorized about my observations before I came along. You have to become familiar with the observational methods that are used and accepted in your field, and ones that might be useful from other fields...but you'll have to make a good case of using those other methods...You'll have to figure out how you might actually test a hypothesis, compare it to what others have done already, and figure out how you might do it better...and then you have to do it better, and apply some good analytic methods to that data...and you might never come up with anything to challenge or change the big general theories of the field.

I think that is what you have to do to understand the "scientific method."

There are always people trying to span two or more fields, and because they come from one field into another, they often have new and unique insights into both fields. In my field, we have people from political science, sociology, social psychology, psychology, social work, education, management, business, economics, law, philosophy, history and probably a dozen other backgrounds (at least) coming together to study public policy and management of public organizations.

Consider the question: what causes crime? There are theories rooted in economics, in the psychology of individuals, in social psychology, in sociology, in politics...all of them have some observational support, meaning that we can find correlations, and sometimes, causation, between variables to explain why crime exists, and when and where it will occur, who is most likely to be its victims, who is most likely to become a perpetrator, and so on. Most of the theories are not exclusive, and many of them cannot be easily tested against each other even when they make divergent predictions--and most are of limited value in making predictions, anyway. The problem: there are too many variables happening in the real world: individual variation, community variation, family variation, economic variation, political variation, legal variation, enforcement variation, data-collection variation...hundreds of variables and thousands of ways of measuring (and mostly, of estimating) the data needed to understand the problem.

I think we're agreeing that there's much flexibility in the scientific method.

 

[Nous]

“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.

Do you believe that there has been some social (or other) harm as a result of people believing in the myth that there exists a single scientific method?

Should a jury be skeptical and maintain their doubt when tests on multiple blood samples from the crime scene all come back from the lab showing a Probability = 99.9999999960713% of a match to the defendant?

Should we (and the FDA) disregard the results of efficacy trials that show that placebo basically duplicates the improvement in symptoms found with the study drug?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think we're agreeing that there's much flexibility in the scientific method.

Yeah, that's a good, short summary. It's the details that are what causes the problem--people who haven't done it don't realize just how much the detail affects what is done and how it is accomplished.

Maybe a good metaphor would be carpentry: any idiot like me can use a saw, drill, and hammer on wood, but only a true craftsman familiar with the materials, methods and equipment can make good, solid, attractive furniture, etc.

 

[Quintessence]

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 think it can happen earlier than that, and it can happen in non-scientists too. The facade of what science was started cracking for me in high school - when the adults decided I was allowed to take more sophisticated science courses in the curriculum. As I routinely ran into new information that basically made what I had learned before a lie, I was forced to recognize early that sciences were not the simple body of facts I had been told they were.

To give an example, students are taught a definition of what a "species" is in biology, but are given a simplified presentation of that information. Then, if you take more biology, you learn that defining what a "species" is, is hardly as straightforward as you were led to believe before. In other words, what you are taught is something of a lie.

As lie after lie got shattered, I had to conclude "okay, so this science stuff is not anywhere near as simple as I was told, and it's actually really, really complicated." Fortunately for me, instead of being disillusioned by that, I simply wanted to know more. I wanted to know all that complexity instead of this simplistic crap I'd been fed before.

That notion of "dang, this stuff is really complicated" got reinforced as I went through undergrad and grad school studying sciences. I think if people are expecting sciences to be some dogmatic answer book or some sort of full-service buffet, they've got entirely the wrong idea about it. It's more like a landfill where you've got to dive into the trash heap and dig around a lot for the pieces of the thing you're trying to reconstruct... and you'll always miss pieces.

Wait. That sounded better in my head.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think it can happen earlier than that, and it can happen in non-scientists too. The facade of what science was started cracking for me in high school - when the adults decided I was allowed to take more sophisticated science courses in the curriculum. As I routinely ran into new information that basically made what I had learned before a lie, I was forced to recognize early that sciences were not the simple body of facts I had been told they were.

To give an example, students are taught a definition of what a "species" is in biology, but are given a simplified presentation of that information. Then, if you take more biology, you learn that defining what a "species" is, is hardly as straightforward as you were led to believe before. In other words, what you are taught is something of a lie.

As lie after lie got shattered, I had to conclude "okay, so this science stuff is not anywhere near as simple as I was told, and it's actually really, really complicated." Fortunately for me, instead of being disillusioned by that, I simply wanted to know more. I wanted to know all that complexity instead of this simplistic crap I'd been fed before.

That notion of "dang, this stuff is really complicated" got reinforced as I went through undergrad and grad school studying sciences. I think if people are expecting sciences to be some dogmatic answer book or some sort of full-service buffet, they've got entirely the wrong idea about it. It's more like a landfill where you've got to dive into the trash heap and dig around a lot for the pieces of the thing you're trying to reconstruct... and you'll always miss pieces.

Wait. That sounded better in my head.

No, I think that's a very good metaphor!

 

[Skwim]

.

.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In engineering, the "scientific method" never came up for me.
(I designed things, rather than researched stuff.)

I've always envied engineers and more than once I've thought about how much more satisfying a lot of my work would be if, instead of evaluating the success of my research via its coherence with past and future experimental findings (not to mention the success of the theoretical framework), I could simply say I succeeded (or didn't) because what I constructed/built/designed worked (or didn't). Sometimes I've been able to participate in work developing hardware and/or software in HCI (human-computer interaction) and more often in projects involving machine learning, and there is nothing like the feeling of knowing you did it right because the system does what it was supposed too

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't see how this helps the case for science

It doesn't. It's a problem.

I find it fascinating to state: one can't really understand how scientists practice unless you have experience in that field.

There is no textbook or even literature out there that's going to tell you how to e.g., write the MATLAB code for the presentation of stimuli in an fMRI experiment in a manner compatible with which of the variety of instruments which can record participant responses and which will not only create a real-time record of these responses but simultaneously allow the data to be contrasted/compared with the particular signal processing system used to encode the information generated from the quantum mechanical spin alignment changes that result in differences in blood-oxygenation levels due to the hemodynamics of cognitive processes. You can read the SPM8 manual, read advanced texts on NMR technology and fMRI methodologies, all the statistical research and experimental design literature, and on and on but none of that will prepare you to do anything when it comes time to perform and experiment and get any results.
The hands-on, real experience matters, whether it is learning how to fiddle around with a behavioral experiment to e.g., ensure the task is sufficiently simple, field-test a survey and then analyze the results to ensure the various forms of validity, make sure that you and the technicians (often computer scientists or engineers) responsible for actually writing the code or dealing with the technical operations of e.g., the transcription of a quantum-mechanical system's density matrix or wave-function in a way that ensures the manner of preparation and measurements will match the actual specifications of the system as it is described operationally.

In this way it's a lot like learning to play a sport or to play chess or to write code. You can read all you want about krav maga or cooking, but until you actually practice and experience it and learn from doing, you won't really know what is involved.

It would seem there is no way to enter that field then

Of course there is. You work as a research assistant or join a lab in graduate school. It's like a lot of jobs: you get the nuts and bolts from doing.

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.

The guideline is easy: does the field interest you? Many people go to college to major in one thing and find they don't actually like it and/or that they like something else more. Sometimes they like it so much they go on to graduate school, where they not only have to attend classes but must actually participate in research. Of course, it could be there are other guidelines and/or obstacles. Many scientific fields require knowledge of college-level mathematics (linear algebra, differential equations, multivariate statistics, etc.; some require graduate level mathematics just to understand the basics). I've known several students who had intended to go into a particular field but couldn't pass calculus or some more advanced required mathematics course.

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.

It has nothing to do with consensus. A lot of the time the conferences are debates, and in some cases the conference proceedings contain not just the typed-up versions of presentations but the dialogue afterwards, where we can find criticisms and dissenting views. That's in addition to the sometimes vehement disagreements among presenters/participants in the conference/symposium/etc. The following are all presentations by scientists in front of other scientists (or soon-to-be-scientists, i.e., graduate students) on issues relating to their fields.
Here, for example, is a climate scientist presenting a highly contested theory concerning the dynamics of cosmic rays and cloud seeding:

Here's a critique given in front of the Society for the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior which slams the most used statistical experimental method across the sciences:

Here's a physicist actively rejecting not only the whole of the standard model of particle physics but the experimental framework currently employed in high energy/particle physics:

Here's a talk on the status of (and challenges to) the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

and finally a review on the current status of the foundations for the foundations of reality: quantum field theory:

We have hear a number of experts speaking to other experts on topics that range from more-or-less reviews of the states of a particular field to scathing criticisms of widely accepted practices and/or theories/models.

Cause if the possibility of gaining understanding exists, and one is studying what say you (and others) might call pseudo science (texts and conferences)

I didn't mention pseudoscience, nor do I understand how anything I said involves pseudoscience in anyway. Texts and conferences aren't "pseudoscience" but a primary means of disseminating scientific knowledge.

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.'

What's not really science? I'm haven't anywhere claimed that certain fields that claim to be scientific aren't, or that many who claim to be doing scientific research or who claim to be scientists actually aren't. I'm claiming that the popular conception of what scientists do and the processes of scientific inquiry are misunderstood by the public thanks to poor representations of the nature of science both in pre-college (and sometimes college) education as well as popular science literature. This isn't about separating pseudoscience from "real" science, but about how "real" science is misrepresented in most accounts that the layperson is given or accesses.

I do this.

Most scientific research would be inaccessible to you because it would require a level of mathematical competency you do not have. In some fields, you could learn the technical aspects of the field without needing to know at the very least multivariate statistics and some calculus, but you would still need to learn the technical aspects in order to read the research. Also, if you don't have access to databases like ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Nature Journals Online, Wiley Online Library, Academic Search Complete, IEEE, Proquest, JSTOR, etc., it can be quite difficult to even access the necessary literature, let alone possess the necessary familiarity with the subject matter to understand it.
But as an example of some non-technical literature that addresses in part your question AND the move towards open access:
How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities


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.

The 'theory-laden nature of real scientific research' reads as self justification

It's not justification at all. It's a serious problem that we seriously misunderstood until the oldest and most successful science was fundamentally altered having "proved" incompatible claims that turned out to result from an unknown and incorrect assumption guiding physics research for centuries.

IMO, that doesn't bold well for science.

Science works just fine. It just doesn't work according to the mythical The Scientific Method idealization of 18th &19th century experiments in physics and chemistry that underlies to popular model of scientific inquiry in pre-college/early undergraduate education AND popular literature.

 

[psychoslice]

All I can add, is that the scientific method, is a relievable method compared to the method of religious beliefs, for these beliefs are childish and have no substance behind them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what you're saying is that the real problem is that being a true nerd isn't a national pastime?

Nah. Just trying to make my own uber-nerdism appear to be more than just pathetic. You're ruining my excuses for why I waste my time the way I do!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you believe that there has been some social (or other) harm as a result of people believing in the myth that there exists a single scientific method?

Take a look at debates on the theory of evolution on this site. You'll find many a discussion dichotomized between those arguing that "theory" in science is something like a proven hypothesis and thus the theory of evolution is more like a proven fact and those arguing about some nonsense regarding how evolution can't be science because we can't reproduce past evolutions and/or that it is only a theory or even (quite recently) that there are a plethora of theories of evolution and you should have to pick one. In truth, evolution is "just a theory" because theories can be anything from barely substantiated and arguably not even scientific models/frameworks to methodological and explanatory frameworks that are so fundamental and so supported they are integral to multiple fields the way that evolutionary theory is, and furthermore to treat the theory of evolution as some "fixed" statement or proposition which is either supported or falsified or confirmed or whatever by empirical tests is nonsense. Evolutionary theory has at its core components which are as close to fact as one can get, and numerous open questions and fringe positions about certain details.

The misrepresentation over the current status of theoretical and particle physics (i.e., the presentation of the standard model and of extensions of it such as string theories) is unbelievable. The divide between what the public (and probably most scientists) think about not only the nature of research in particle physics and similar fields but about the language used to describe it and how physicists actually go about research and what entities they refer to when they say things like "wave-particle duality", "particles", or even "observables" is tremendous. No scientific experiments have EVER come close to those which have lately been and which currently are employed to further high energy physics (particle physics), yet it is widely realized that none of the fundamental problems which the field faced in the 70s (and in some cases the 30s) has been resolved. Most of the bedrock of the standard model is an ad hoc derivation of supposedly "physical" "laws" that, according to the standard/orthodox interpretation, don't relate to any physical things but to statistical properties that can be teased out by experiments. Excitement over string theory, quantum gravity, etc., has fueled the expenditure of untold sums of money without any real progress because the progress made is couched in terminology that is fundamentally misleading but which is consistent with the picture painted by e.g., high school physics.

Psychiatry is currently, like medicine generally, dominated by a biomedical paradigm: for every mental illness listed in the DSM or ICD, there exists a biological abnormality or pathology unique to that disorder. That this model was willed into existence by a combination of sociological and economic factors in the 70s and early 80s is not well-known, and neither is the fact that basically all research on mental illness either contradicts it or is inconsistent with it. Yet it remains the dominant paradigm for exactly the reason it was created in the first place: psychiatrists are medical doctors, and by making mental illness fundamentally biomedical they have been able to continue dominating the field while those who actually study mental illness more (in particular, clinical psychologists) are regarded as lesser because they don't have a medical degree. The fact that psychiatrists don't have a supportable medical model and the only way to diagnose any mental illness is via the consistency with the menu-like description of symptoms defined a priori into existence and therefore needs no medical expertise remains largely unchallenged. Why? Because psychiatrists are doctors, after all, and psychologists practice "soft" science, so even though they both wear labcoats we should trust the guys who also tout stethoscopes. Ignorance as to how any scientific method has or hasn't established fundamental claims about the medical nature of any mental illness since the DSM-III is in part due to the fact that it is simply assumed that the scientists who support the mainstream view must have confirmed their theories the way required by The Scientific Method.

Evolutionary psychology is filled with "just so" stories that are due to an otherwise spurious criticism of evolutionary theory (the inability to actually develop controlled experiments for processes which happened thousands of years ago or more). Because it concerns behavioral patterns and the like, empirical inquiry that follow the idealized step-wise scientific method can easily lead to garbage, as the tests of behaviors are conducted now and related anachronistically to some posited state of affairs tens of thousands of years ago (evolutionary biologists do not suffer from this issue because testing the processes involved in cellular reproduction, mutation, etc., doesn't involve explaining mental states).

The general lack of understanding of scientific inquiry has, if anything, increased whilst the amount of public founds and resources towards particular scientific endeavors has grown "exponentially". We live in a world in which vast sums of money go to funding research (and rightly so! If this weren't true, I wouldn't have a job). But the general misconceptions concerning the nature of science by the public and by policymakers make it difficult to provide the proper resources to the right scientific programs AND to evaluate their success. Misconceptions over scientific research or questions which aren't adequately understood because the scientific process itself is so widely misunderstood inform socio-cultural debates, social policy, media, educational systems, ethics, and more

Of course, I'm not saying that better, more accurate accounts of the nature of science would somehow solve all of this, as practicing scientists disagree about such matters. But it would fundamentally change the way society uses and is informed by the sciences, and how the sciences are rightfully or wrongly supported by society.

Should we (and the FDA) disregard the results of efficacy trials that show that placebo basically duplicates the improvement in symptoms found with the study drug?

Good example. These trials use NHST (null hypothesis significance testing), which can at best show that (in this case) a control group was statistically significantly different from a treatment group under the assumption that the two groups are identical. This means that it CANNOT actually determine whether they difference is due to the efficacy of the treatment/medication, and this has proved EXTREMELY problematic for many therapies/drugs/treatments which in some cases were later shown to not meet the arbitrary levels of statistical significance, were or were not shown based upon the application of statistical tests which assume properties such as normal distribution or linearity that are in fact violated, and/or were eventually shown to be effective (or ineffective) because the combinatorics of experimental design along placebo effects generally (as well as choices for which statistical test is used and the ability to repeatedly try different tests until one yields a result meeting the arbitrary alpha level) mean that practically any treatment can "prove" to be effective (or not effective).

 

[Acim]

It doesn't. It's a problem.

That's a refreshing acknowledgement from a proponent. Especially on a debate oriented forum where science is pitted in some sort of (holy) war against religion/spirituality.

There is no textbook or even literature out there that's going to tell you how to e.g., write the MATLAB code for the presentation of stimuli in an fMRI experiment in a manner compatible with which of the variety of instruments which can record participant responses and which will not only create a real-time record of these responses but simultaneously allow the data to be contrasted/compared with the particular signal processing system used to encode the information generated from the quantum mechanical spin alignment changes that result in differences in blood-oxygenation levels due to the hemodynamics of cognitive processes. You can read the SPM8 manual, read advanced texts on NMR technology and fMRI methodologies, all the statistical research and experimental design literature, and on and on but none of that will prepare you to do anything when it comes time to perform and experiment and get any results.

It is interesting that there is an inherent need (or perhaps desire) to be prepared for experiments, especially at a level with such specificity.

The hands-on, real experience matters, whether it is learning how to fiddle around with a behavioral experiment to e.g., ensure the task is sufficiently simple, field-test a survey and then analyze the results to ensure the various forms of validity, make sure that you and the technicians (often computer scientists or engineers) responsible for actually writing the code or dealing with the technical operations of e.g., the transcription of a quantum-mechanical system's density matrix or wave-function in a way that ensures the manner of preparation and measurements will match the actual specifications of the system as it is described operationally.

In this way it's a lot like learning to play a sport or to play chess or to write code. You can read all you want about krav maga or cooking, but until you actually practice and experience it and learn from doing, you won't really know what is involved.

Acknowledged, and mostly agreed. With a sport or game, I find reading up on strategy and rules helps with learning to play. But all of those presuppose a valid outcome.

There is the discussion side of science and what science is up to or has (historically) been up to. In essence, what is it for? Much of the time (in my experience) it is presented as open ended philosophical paradigm toward greater understanding. More and more, I see it as political, or even along the lines of understanding that a game is being played and winning matters, big time. IMO, the political version either has nuances or in and of itself takes away from the philosophical aspect.

Of course there is. You work as a research assistant or join a lab in graduate school. It's like a lot of jobs: you get the nuts and bolts from doing.

What you state as "of course," I see as self evident. But to be ready for a research assistant position, one might think there is way to intellectually prepare for that. And that such preparation could be taught in undergraduate courses. Because I think there is, and I believe most people do, then I'm not sure if there is a debate on this. But it is unusual to acknowledge in the larger debate, that some (arguably a lot) of that preparation may be misleading. Learning, at times, as it relates to teaching young people comes across as indoctrinating. For what you are conveying scientific practice actually entails, indoctrination would actually be helpful, rather than teaching open ended ways that allow for a diverse perspectives and models that may be shaped by the student, which are later learned by that student as "nothing like actual scientific practice."

I feel I am addressing the problem you started this post off with, but coming at it from another angle. And one I don't think is unique, but is hard to speak to when the whole political nonsense is at work with what science must be (for professionals) and how it ought to be understood for the newly initiated, read as people between 5 and 15.

The guideline is easy: does the field interest you?

That's not a guideline though that is unique to science.

Many people go to college to major in one thing and find they don't actually like it and/or that they like something else more.

Given the guideline you provided and what is stated above, it seems like the problem is somewhat obvious. And it deals with a top down approach toward learning, that is visibly misleading students to consider science (learning the foundation) as open ended, when in reality the path to get to where a student potentially interested in scientific practice as done today, would benefit greatly from willingness to be indoctrinated.

If a student wishes to consolidate what they have learned as the fundamental principles for science with say fundamental principle of religion, one would (rightfully) think that is permissible. Until the student is confronted with the reality that as a career later in life, that would be between useless and perverting what actual scientific practice is up to today.

 

[Acim]

It has nothing to do with consensus.

I have seen video of scientific conferences before. I would say, without looking at video links you've provided that it might matter (greatly) what field of science is the topic for the conference. To me, the consensus part comes before, in that all participants are hopefully going to have fundamental agreement on certain (set of) beliefs. As the whole body of science is so huge, I'm not sure our discussion (or really any amount of discussion) is going to address what I'm getting at, without it being considered too broad and not precisely true in a particular branch of science. As I noted before, when it comes to public health and particularly the science as it relates to smoking/vaping (health), I feel able to follow along with the science. The conferences that I've seen have agendas that are visibly set up to reinforce an agenda. How do I know this, because I am aware of who gets invited and who asked to attend and was denied. That's not as lopsided as one may infer from what I'm stating, but it is lopsided or not providing a visibly balanced approach. In the conferences I've seen the minority view was seemingly ignored at the conference, or not visibly debated during the conference. I've seen a few instances from actual practitioners where they spoke to what occurred afterwards, and at least one case where the majority position had its eyes opened via post conference dialogue, enough to blog about it (in extensive detail) to consider the other side, which appeared to me, a lot like moving away from the majority view, or consensus. I don't think I have ever seen a video of a conference, on this particular branch of scientific research, where participants engaged in the debate during the conference. I think it could happen, so am not saying it can't or won't. But am saying that given the consensus approach / majority position, and the way politics works to influence scientific understandings and research, I see it as a game being played to just say "we had a conference on this." And then manipulation of that to later say, "the minority position was presented, but the majority view was..." thus and so, or really what was already set up by the agenda to be how the conference would go.

Which makes scientific conferences, at least in the field I'm alluding to, show up as entirely superficial, and highly political.

So, I strongly disagree with the "it has nothing to do with consensus" assertion and welcome further debate on that.

I didn't mention pseudoscience, nor do I understand how anything I said involves pseudoscience in anyway. Texts and conferences aren't "pseudoscience" but a primary means of disseminating scientific knowledge.

Pseudoscience, as my computer's dictionary defines it: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Given how this thread has transpired thus far, I don't see how one can not see how pseudoscience would not enter the picture. Either the scientific method is a consistent guideline that is mostly being followed by people that practice science, and that is well known, or there is a disconnect between the alleged method and actual scientific practice. Such that the actual collection of beliefs and practices are based on something other than the (mythical) scientific method.

Of the field I am aware of, it (pseudoscience) doesn't come up from the majority view. Perhaps occasionally, but I observe it rarely or never. But it comes up often from the minority position. Because those scientists know that the majority's view is based not so much on research, but a political game being waged. Seriously, anyone that is a proponent of science, go study the research as it stands right now for vaping. I welcome that. Come back here and report the findings, and I'll be quite interested in what you find, as it'll show me how much you dug around or did you just go with the consensus view, which is clearly based on pseudoscientific assertions that are currently held in place by 'consensus.' As I've done a lot of research on this, I now realize the same is true for smoking. Much more challenging debate to have there given how strong the consensus is, but because I know I'm not alone in my views and because of how familiar I am with the material, I welcome that debate. Instead, consensus view has seemingly no interest in further discussion, seeing the debate as settled. I see the majority view as willing to accept a lie (or 10) for great political gain, or endless amounts of funding.

What's not really science?

To me, it is about both. And in the reality of science as I see it, it will likely be about both for a long time to come. The philosophical aspect of science interests me more because, well it is cutting to the chase really. The political aspect is asking any person who cares about this discussion to get up to speed with all (or some) of the particulars in a branch of science, understand the key theories, what is currently being researched, the tools that are used, so on and so forth. Having understanding of the minority position(s) in the political arena, I find helpful if not necessary. But also is not the position that a philosophical inquirer or detractor would approach the current debate(s). That would likely be dismissed as impractical to the current debate(s), as you are attempting to do here.

If someone on RF posts a thread (in General Debates) that talks about how Abrahamic God is being misrepresented in most accounts that the layperson is given or accesses, I would think it plausible that in the course of that debate the proponents for religious belief would be sticking to the particulars that OP of that thread was aiming for. While atheists might (rightfully) enter that debate and suggest that there is a philosophical debate, which they are most interested in, that is seemingly being ignored. Perhaps the thread is allowed to handle both discussions. Perhaps both discussions relate, or perhaps some looking on decide the two are in no way connected, and the philosophical is off topic from what OP was intending. But, I still think if OP of that thread is claiming that the teachers of the subject are misleading the students with what actually is practiced later in life with regards to the topic (i.e. career in studying God), that an atheist might think that is highly relevant to the points they wish to discuss.

So, you ask what's not really science. And I tell you that the majority of scientific research around vaping (politics) is not really science. It is pseudoscience. And it is the majority view. It is visibly using political propaganda to gain more research and also using funds to forever downplay/ignore the minority view, which is partially to mostly the minority view because it is not granted unlimited funds by a government that benefits from perpetuating the lies associated with the majority view. That's a very specific example I give, that I believe pertains to this thread. Has, on the surface, little to do with the philosophical debate about science (and scientific method) in general. But has a lot to do with how science as an endeavor, that uses a top-down approach toward indoctrinating people into the field, does operate. Does mislead. Divergence from the current practice is discouraged. So much that if one is not aligned with the current, popular practices, they can plan on finding funding for their research elsewhere, and the popular, consensus based approach (based on pseudoscience) will rest quite comfortably knowing that the laypeople will look to them for 'knowledge' on what current science is understanding about a particular field.

Most scientific research would be inaccessible to you because it would require a level of mathematical competency you do not have. In some fields, you could learn the technical aspects of the field without needing to know at the very least multivariate statistics and some calculus, but you would still need to learn the technical aspects in order to read the research.

If it is strictly mathematical data, then I see it as ceasing to be science. Sorry if that disagrees with world paradigm, but I'm comfortable debating that further.

Also, if you don't have access to databases like ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Nature Journals Online, Wiley Online Library, Academic Search Complete, IEEE, Proquest, JSTOR, etc., it can be quite difficult to even access the necessary literature, let alone possess the necessary familiarity with the subject matter to understand it.

I'm well aware of this. All of which ought to tell laypeople that this type of research doesn't actually apply to them, not meant for them. To the degree it is argued it does apply and ought to be considered by laypeople for (political) decisions going forward, then I'm sure access is granted in some fashion (via articles written by scientific types), all of which fit in with the misleading aspect that is what this thread is getting at.

So, science in want to have it both ways? And finding it challenging now that you've set it up with special privileges for the elite to have direct access and the layperson to never have access. I hope that works out for you. Observably, in this thread, it is problematic, and is noticeably misleading the laypeople into what scientific practice actually entails.

Science works just fine. It just doesn't work according to the mythical The Scientific Method idealization of 18th &19th century experiments in physics and chemistry that underlies to popular model of scientific inquiry in pre-college/early undergraduate education AND popular literature.

Science works fine in the way religion works fine, or anything works fine from its proponents' view. It's working quite well (read as successful business model) for practitioners who fall in line and who don't deviate too far from the consensus. Not so fine for those who branch out from this and stay within the domain of science, but are out of touch with the majority view. And inaccessible to laypeople who aren't granted open access to research for peer review, or shared understanding.

Like all things on the planet today, science is scrutinized at many levels. It is mocked, disregarded at times, and not seen as all that much better of an approach to any other endeavor (i.e. philosophy, religion/spirituality, art, etc.). It's proponents will disagree, but let's see how well they fare in open debate. I can't wait.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't see how one can not see how pseudoscience would not enter the picture. Either the scientific method is a consistent guideline that is mostly being followed by people that practice science, and that is well known, or there is a disconnect between the alleged method and actual scientific practice. Such that the actual collection of beliefs and practices are based on something other than the (mythical) scientific method.

There seems to be a rather fundamental disconnect here and I'm not sure if it is because I am not explaining myself well-enough, or I don't understand what you are saying (or vice versa), or whatever the reason is.
It is absolutely not true that "either the scientific method" is anything, as no such method exists. Scientists do have methods, which vary from field to field, and is generally guided by the application of logic to the design & interpretation of empirical results, but the methods are determined by the field itself as well as the nature of the theory the research seeks to extend, further develop, etc. What distinguishes sciences from pseudoscience has to do not with methods but with the nature of the assumptions dictating the design and interpretation of would-be research in that "field". Often enough, research in parapsychology or holistic/alternative medicine, etc., uses the same methods found in the sciences. The problem is in the application of these methods and even more so the interpretation of the results (e.g., in pseudoscience literature on alternative medicines the research designs do not adequately control for placebo and in fact are set up so that placebo effects will be interpreted as significant effects). Similarly, what distinguishes science from history or metaphysics is the use of empirical methods, rather than the misuse as in pseudoscience.

There is nothing inherently pseudoscientific about an experiment designed to show that certain individuals are e.g., capable of telekinesis or that ghosts exist. There isn't even anything inherently pseudoscientific about a positive result. What is pseudoscientific is if the "positive result" can't be confirmed more generally (through reproducibility, by testing its logical implications, by remaining robust to critiques of the logic of the experimental design and/or data analysis, etc.). If I claim that e.g., every person has an internal, spiritual energy chi/qi which martial artists (among others) can harness to increase their power but I can't provide a method that could test this by a) showing that I can find that people who cultivate their chi can do what is claimed possible by doing this and by b) showing that the results must be attributed to the phenomenon I claim exists in the manner I do such that c) others can perform experiments based upon the logical implications of what I have claimed exists in what manner and why, then my claim isn't scientific. Alternatively, if I claim to have found evidence for ghosts but my evidence could have been due to something else (in particular, fraud) and I claim that other researchers can't conclude as I have because they simply weren't looking for ghosts in the right time and place (neither of which I can provide so that they CAN do this), then I am not making a scientific claim.

Other examples abound. The key issue is that in the sciences, research is driven by the examination of the implications and structure of theories specific to that field and the use of logic to develop empirical tests which allow one to confirm the predictive power of the theory, test its logical implications, test its explanatory power, or extend it by using it to develop & test hypotheses that rely on the framework provided by the theory (e.g., assuming the neuron doctrine is required for all research on the nervous system that involves neural signals whether in the CNS or PNS, an assumption justified by the incredible predictive and explanatory success of this theory and the inability to explain over a century of research finding using any other theory).

Most of the time, the division between science and non-science is clear. This is not always true, even when the issue isn't pseudoscience. Many argue that string theory, multiverse theories, even inflationary theories aren't science but metaphysics as they are post hoc explanations derived mathematically and "tested" not empirically but via mathematical consistency and elegance, can't be tested empirically, and in the case of string theory can't currently even suggest what predictions the theory might make because of the infinite degrees of freedom allowed by the infinitely many different ways one can compactify the extra dimensions (among other things). Because pseudoscience often involves using approaches common to actual science but without sufficient rigor and liberal interpretations of results, there exist borderline cases. A lot of research in alternative medicine actually does show that particular therapies have a measurable effect, but do not or cannot show that this is because of the reasons postulated. For example, acupuncture/acupressure traditionally works by inserting needles or applying mechanical pressure to specific points on the body to effect the flow of chi. The research does seem to show that acupuncture has a measurable effect. But the theory has no explanatory or predictive power (one can't use chi circulation to explain more general phenomena nor can this mechanism be tested even in acupuncture research) and it is easy to show that other mechanisms are more likely the cause of the results (by e.g., using "sham" treatments where needles are inserted at random locations or other controls for placebo are employed which are inconsistent with the postulated "chi" explanation of the effects).

The difference between science and non-science isn't the mythical The Scientiic Method whereby there exists a singular, step-wise procedure common to all scientific practice that serves as a guideline as well as distinguishes science from non-science. This doesn't mean science can't be distinguished from pseudoscience any more than it means science can't be distinguished from literary theory, metaphysics, or everyday tests we all employ to explain our personal observations. It simply means that The Scientific Method isn't the distinguishing factor. The distinguishing factor concerns the application of logic to empirical tests of hypothesis that are generated from and designed to confirm, extend, test, etc., (possibly some component of) theories with explanatory and predictive power.

The idea that one can come up with an hypothesis independently of theory is just plain wrong, and more importantly the idea that testing the hypothesis either confirms it or proves it wrong is even more utterly wrong. If one could test the truth of a theory or hypothesis like this, virtually every high school physics classroom would have shown that every law, theory, or model in physics is wrong. In reality, many experiments that fail don't fail because the theory/hypothesis tested was wrong, but because the experiment wasn't performed inadequately or the theory/hypothesis is mostly right but requires modification. That's why every failure in high school and college labs to yield a result consistent with widely-supported laws/theories of physics isn't counted as evidence against them; it's far more likely that the experiments which don't reproduce the ideal gas law or the inverse squared law or special relativity or the laws of thermodynamics or whatever failed because of experimental error.
Sometimes, however, decades or even centuries of acquired evidence for a theory can prove to be wrong because intrinsic to the theory were untested and ultimately false assumptions, such as that all matter is composed of point-like particles (and the nonlocal phenomena called waves were actually nonlocalized effects upon the media in which they propagate), and sometimes one can continually confirm the validity of "laws of physics" known now to be false: Newtonian gravity is "confirmed" every time everybody drops something as well as by the vast amount of tested or experienced dynamics of physical systems, yet if it were accurate the necessarily the gravitational attraction between an electron and the nucleus would cause every electron in the universe to almost instantly plunge into its atom's nucleus.

or there is a disconnect between the alleged method and actual scientific practice.

There is. But the disconnect is that such a method characterizes science or distinguishes it from non-science.

Of the field I am aware of, it (pseudoscience) doesn't come up from the majority view.

Pseudoscience isn't a view, and fields are themselves pseudoscience or they aren't (even in cases where whether they are is debated; what's debated isn't a "view" but the scientific status of the field).

I see the majority view as willing to accept a lie (or 10) for great political gain, or endless amounts of funding.

For the sake of argument, let's say that e.g., the consensus in psychiatry on the biomedical model of mental illness is not based upon sound, empirical finding but biases, economics, and other reasons that aren't due to sound research (as is, I think, the case) or that the consensus on global warming is wrong (as many, though not me, believe) and due to bias, politics, bad data fitting, etc. This doesn't make psychiatry or climate science examples of pseudoscience. Bad scientific practices exist, as does bias, as does research motivated by ideology, and so on. The difference between science and pseudoscience is that pseudoscience must rely solely or nearly solely on bad practice because they seek to study "phenomena" that can't be studied using good practices and/or for which good practice would consistently and necessarily yield negative results.

So, you ask what's not really science.

I don't. I claim that non-scientists tend to think that science is characterized and distinguished by something (The Scientific Method) which is in fact a mythical, extremely misleading attempt at a pedagogical simplification rather than an actual distinguishing feature of science or accurate description of the nature of scientific inquiry.

If it is strictly mathematical data, then I see it as ceasing to be science.

Statistical methods are used to analyze data or test the significance of hypotheses, but the data is almost never strictly mathematical. That's why most don't regard mathematics as science- it's not empirical.

To the degree it is argued it does apply and ought to be considered by laypeople for (political) decisions going forward, then I'm sure access is granted in some fashion

Why are you sure of this?

And finding it challenging now that you've set it up with special privileges for the elite to have direct access and the layperson to never have access.

Most of the time the problem with access is either one of inconvenience (public libraries exist, most conferences can be attended by anybody willing to purchase a ticket or are open to the public, and every published paper or book that can be accessed by those with membership to some database or subscription to some journal or whatever can be purchased by anybody) or is due to the technical knowledge required.

Science works fine in the way religion works fine, or anything works fine from its proponents' view.

Rejecting religion on an internet forum from a computer or similar device doesn't mean using the results of the successes made possible by religious assumptions; it does of science.

 

[sayak83]

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!

Not much. Talking about scientific method is a severe simplification of a much complex set of activities by a professional corporate body of researchers who are engaged in theoretical or practical problem solving using any and every means they can think of. Its very much like creating a startup using and extending an idea or a technology or a methodological process and convincing the investors (grant commissions, university peers etc.) that it will yield rich dividends, and then walking the talk. Its a capitalist market model with the currency being papers and projects and the honors you gain from it. There are boom bust cycles,like a initially promising research area that collapses leaving pennyless ex-professors looking for jobs, but like all markets, in the long terms its ruthlessly efficient at allocating resources (honor, recognition, mention in textbooks) to the most effective startup.

 

[Acim]

There seems to be a rather fundamental disconnect here and I'm not sure if it is because I am not explaining myself well-enough, or I don't understand what you are saying (or vice versa), or whatever the reason is.
It is absolutely not true that "either the scientific method" is anything, as no such method exists

Really, cause a google search on "scientific method" shows me a list with 36 million hits. If I click on any on the first page, they convey a method that is (consistently) based on:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Predict
4. Test
5. Repeat
(6) When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

My #6 is taken (word for word) from physics department web page on SM (from University of California, Riverside). To me, this is commonly known as the SM, and not understood as one of many possible methods scientists may use. So, if in reality of scientific practice that method is not followed, or thought to 'not really exist' (for them), then by definition of pseudoscience that I provided before, those (proponents of science) who think a particular research study, finding, experiment was based on THE scientific method, when in reality it was not, would be following a field of research that is pseudoscience. But because that latter assertion will perhaps never be accepted by the majority of proponents for science, then science gets to have it both ways. A method that is well known and results in 36 million hits of which many (very many) people are familiar with and uphold as some virtuous investigation path, plus ability to completely disregard that in favor of specific methods based on practitioner needs, that result in research not easily accessible to laypeople. Any other human endeavor tries to do this and they get scrutinized and downgraded as being not inherently trustworthy, given the appearance of "making it up as you go along."

What distinguishes sciences from pseudoscience has to do not with methods but with the nature of the assumptions dictating the design and interpretation of would-be research in that "field".

IOW, what consensus determines as proper (and only possible) understandings for terms to be investigated. Or making it up as we go along to fit our worldview.

Often enough, research in parapsychology or holistic/alternative medicine, etc., uses the same methods found in the sciences. The problem is in the application of these methods and even more so the interpretation of the results (e.g., in pseudoscience literature on alternative medicines the research designs do not adequately control for placebo and in fact are set up so that placebo effects will be interpreted as significant effects). Similarly, what distinguishes science from history or metaphysics is the use of empirical methods, rather than the misuse as in pseudoscience.

All fairly subjective in the way you are describing the difference. Though I wish to say not uniquely subjective, as I strongly believe there is consensus, but a consensus that is not truly allowing much deviation. High degree of deviation from certain so called 'empirical methods' would plausibly result in career ending decisions by certain scientists.

You are choosing, for your counter argument, the common or blatant forms of pseudoscience and even hinting at, or implying that they are not following the (well known) SM by not adequately controlling for certain factors during the well known experiment stage.

Me, I previously alluded to a scientific field (public health) where the majority doesn't use that term with regards to its detractors, while its detractors (some of who are current and former practitioners) do use that term about the majority view because that majority has experiment after experiment where misuse of assumptions is rather easily found, even by a layperson. And thus the minority will occasionally say the majority is practicing a pseudoscience.

There is nothing inherently pseudoscientific about an experiment designed to show that certain individuals are e.g., capable of telekinesis or that ghosts exist. There isn't even anything inherently pseudoscientific about a positive result. What is pseudoscientific is if the "positive result" can't be confirmed more generally (through reproducibility, by testing its logical implications, by remaining robust to critiques of the logic of the experimental design and/or data analysis, etc.).

So, an example that routinely comes up with (politics of) vaping is the notion that vaping needs more regulation, right now, based on the majority scientific view that 'we have no long term studies' on its health impact. Never mind all the umpteen thousand things that exist and are used by humans today which also fit that claim but are not be scrutinized as much as vaping (based on the well established propaganda from the anti-smoking faction of society). What is observable in many studies by the majority is doing a study/experiment on any of the currently found common ingredients in the liquid that people are vaporizing (or technically inhaling the aersol component), and then hinting at the notion there is reason to be concerned that anyone would willfully inhale that given its danger (a la dihydrogen monoxide trumped up data). Experiments that note microns of changes, and suggest a 'possible concern.' With a conclusion to the study that 'more studies are needed' as we have no way of knowing right now if it is 'safe.' How is this not pseudoscientific given the words you are choosing to use for that term?

Even apart from the scientific aspects of this, which again I feel comfortable discussing, is the political narrative that is fairly visible to anyone paying attention. The studies strongly appear to be one huge set up designed to take vaping on the path of increased regulation due to the pseudoscience that is clearly allowed to pass for science. And as many detractors have gathered for the resistance movement, there are stories shared (which are verifiable) that this isn't the first time either these scientists or ones just like them set out to greatly influence an industry for the ongoing benefit of their research. Smoking is clearly in that domain. Lots (and lots) of money to be made, or granted, to the anti-smoking scientists wanting to do some sort of study to verify the inherent bias. Detract from that bias, and you may as well just go to the university or research team you are working with (or for) and say, here are my resignation papers as I no longer can conform to the lies we are perpetuating.

The key issue is that in the sciences, research is driven by the examination of the implications and structure of theories specific to that field and the use of logic to develop empirical tests which allow one to confirm the predictive power of the theory, test its logical implications, test its explanatory power, or extend it by using it to develop & test hypotheses that rely on the framework provided by the theory (e.g., assuming the neuron doctrine is required for all research on the nervous system that involves neural signals whether in the CNS or PNS, an assumption justified by the incredible predictive and explanatory success of this theory and the inability to explain over a century of research finding using any other theory).

IMHO, the "predictive power" is the only thing science can hang its hat on as being unique to science if (and that's a big if) it can be repeatedly demonstrated to have consistent predictive power. All the other items are byproducts of consensus and reinforcement bias.

 

[Acim]

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that pseudoscience must rely solely or nearly solely on bad practice because they seek to study "phenomena" that can't be studied using good practices and/or for which good practice would consistently and necessarily yield negative results.

IMO, that is way too opinionated to be considered reasonable explanation of pseudoscience. I feel, very strongly, if strong detractors were clearly allowed in determining what makes for 'good' and 'bad' practice and what can actually be studied, it would put science on a far different footing than it is now. But because of the consensus around 'good practices' and setting things up so that if you do not align with this, you will not be granted funds and will be ridiculed (via incessant ad hom attacks), that the whole notion of 'good practices' are reinforcing a bias.

While I stand by that counterpoint, it is only barely touching on the philosophical implication you are hinting at, and instead (my counterpoint) is trying to deal with the claim as it fits within current scientific study/practice. Me, I'd prefer to poke at the notion of "studying phenomenon that can't be studied" and explore that for all its worth. Especially as I am one who has yet to find objective evidence for the existence of the physical world. Coming from that perspective, then claims such as the one you are making are put in a light that I really don't think any scientific practice, including pseudoscientific ones, care to scrutinize all that much and are quite comfortable resting on an assumption that is clearly inherently biased, if not philosophically flawed.

I claim that non-scientists tend to think that science is characterized and distinguished by something (The Scientific Method) which is in fact a mythical, extremely misleading attempt at a pedagogical simplification rather than an actual distinguishing feature of science or accurate description of the nature of scientific inquiry.

So, would it follow that anyone who believes THE scientific method characterizes what science is, is a non-scientist? Is that the claim you wish to go with? Cause I feel confident if I go either to another sub-forum here, or another forum that pits science against religion and make the claim that science has no distinguishing guideline, that proponents of science will make note of THE scientific method. I could then ask, are you a practitioner? If they say yes, and I then say, you believe THE method is a real characteristic of science that distinguishes science from other endeavors? And they say yes to this, I can then conclude, rightfully, that they are a non-scientists perpetuating a myth?

Why are you sure of this?

*This question as a response to my saying: To the degree it is argued it does apply and ought to be considered by laypeople for (political) decisions going forward, then I'm sure access is granted in some fashion.

My response to the rhetorical question: Because modern day science is big business and needs the public to believe it is up to worthwhile pursuits that pertain to their lives. Therefore articles are written to grant a form of access to the technical data. Usually with some sort of spin. And seemingly what you would acknowledge is plausibly misleading, but where we may disagree on what ways specifically it is misleading. If it is privately funded and is research findings where the funders would very much not want for laypeople to be aware of the information (anytime soon), then I would be fairly confident that laypeople would not be granted access to the findings in any fashion, other than leaks.

Most of the time the problem with access is either one of inconvenience (public libraries exist, most conferences can be attended by anybody willing to purchase a ticket or are open to the public, and every published paper or book that can be accessed by those with membership to some database or subscription to some journal or whatever can be purchased by anybody) or is due to the technical knowledge required.

In the information age, with a world wide web, I can't see any plausible explanation for why their would be a problem with granting access to laypeople if that was desired (by researchers), especially if said research was believed to pertain to laypeople and was desired to be shared with everyone, regardless of their technical expertise. Let the student decide what they are ready for, rather than paywalls and passwords. That this granting of access happens (perhaps) most of the time, is a great thing. That it might not happen all of time, is a questionable thing. If a particular religion were known to have books secretly under guard, and not meant for everyone (though the authors of that text might disagree), would be seen as a highly questionable thing for that religion, especially from those who are not initiated into the 'technicalities of that worldview.' It would be seen as a bad thing. Again, given the nature of the internet, there would be no actual rationale for not making it available. Given the biases of those who deem themselves 'experts,' they likely could conceive of reasons why not 'just anyone' ought to be privy to that information.