I'd make the following changes....
- Add a step for discussion with colleagues.
- Let the order be changed to suit.
- Add a step for peer review, criticism, & replicating experiments.
-
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?
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
- Add a step for discussion with colleagues.
- Let the order be changed to suit.
- Add a step for peer review, criticism, & replicating experiments.
And I get similar results if I search or "ESP", "telekinesis", "paranormal", "alien abduction", etc. Even pre-college educators and pop. science sensationalists don't think that their conceptualizations of science or scientific methods cohere with google searches.
The point I that over a century of incredibly drastic results in scientific practice challenging the very roots of the would-be Scientific Method have presented a serious empirical, independent criticism for this simplification over and against those from the history and philosophy of science (Putnam, Quine, Popper, Feyerabend, Kuhn, etc.).
And I provide you with material from the foremost scientific organizations on planet as well as from peer-reviewed literature (and can provide more, if need be) demonstrating that such simplifications are actually distortions.
Ok. So you are quoting from website lists, and I am using my experience as a scientist, the scientific literature, the philosophy and history of science literature, etc. Neither one of us is denying the widespread dissemination of the notion that "the scientific method" exists. One of us is denying that it actually does (at least in the sense represented e.g., in you stepwise procedural account above) and has provided accounts from the history of sciences and the literature to demonstrate. The other quoted a webpage.
To you and to many. It is just incompatible with actual scientific practice and methods.
Actually, if you have provided a false criterion to distinguish scientific research/methodology from non-scientific, and this distinction turns out to be baseless, then that's all that is implied: you have accepted an inaccurate conception of what "the scientific method" is and the nature or the scientific process, but have held on to the notion that such an entity must exist and to the extent it doesn't then something follows from both the assumption that your entity ought to exist and that it doesn't.
We actually don't get to have it any way. One the one hand, there are people like you who demand that we adhere to The Scientific Method that we never have and that hasn't ever characterized scientific inquiry, and on the other we have those who criticize us when we engage in scientific research that doesn't conform to the fictional process that describes not scientific progress but an idealization given in popular and pre-college educational accounts of the scientific endeavor.
Weren't you recently saying something about consensus?
I gave no restrictions upon any terms to be investigated. I explicitly denied that pseudoscience is characterized by the inquiry of any particular question, field, etc.
You alluded to a topic but gave no evidence as to how this topic is relevant or that you are sufficiently familiar with the research concerning it. Not saying you aren't or couldn't, just that you didn't.
You seem to confuse the empirical scientific literature with the policy literature.
Inaccurate theories can have incredible predictive power and accurate theories appear to be extremely limited. What makes science unique is the application of a systematic, logical framework to empirical observations, testing, and results.
But you can't even follow the logic that forms the entire foundation for all analysis (from single-variable calculus to complex analysis to the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics to the phase and configuration spaces of classical physics to computability theory and even the constructivist approach to the real numbers).
That's because such existence is an assumption. We assume an objective reality exists.
How So?
No. Actually there is a rather famous quote about this, in which it is posed to a scientists that "he" defend the scientific method, with the end result being a failure. Most of us enter into our fields pretty sure that we are practicing the scientific method. It takes some time, and much reflection, to realize we can't actually nail down anything that amounts to what this would-be method actually is.
One difference is that, rather than have you rely on me or others here I can direct you scientific literature on the absence of such a method, its specious origins, and the extensive scientific literature against it all that exists independently of me. I don't need to plug some terms into "google".
Same thing could be said about any field, that it's views in popular or mainstream culture are distorted. Religion/spirituality comes to mind. Art also comes to mind.
What I hear you arguing for is that particular fields of science, via research and practice are making up methods as they go along, and providing (hopefully) testable findings as a result of the methods. Perhaps a simplification, but as fair as saying this about any endeavor that is later debated on open forums where persons not immersed in the field try to filter their arguments/counter points through over simplified perceptions of what that endeavor entails.
To me, it benefits the larger philosophical debate if in shared reality there is no scientific method universally utilized by all practitioners of science, and is therefore NOT the best method for investigating the world, acquiring knowledge. More like 'just another method, not inherently better than any other method, but still possible for others to follow in that path to see for themselves if the method works, and findings are similar.' Helps if you are granted a couple million dollars to walk the same path of certain practitioners to mimic the actual method for a particular area of study.
Lemme know if you need more webpages, from (allegedly) scientific sources that speak about a scientific method as if it is universally understood, and nearly identical in most instances of that universal description. I say allegedly scientific, because with what you are stating, pseudoscience is being re-written to understand what it means, as suddenly the dictionary definition is off the table.
I obviously disagree with this. I think it is being followed, but is likely seen as too simple given the parameters of any research being done. Still, I would think the basic principles of observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis are all there, and/or could be found in published results. Just that one would plausibly find a lot more, and see other activities that could be seen as expounding on the simplified version. While also seeing a lot of bias being employed along the way to challenge the fundamental understandings of empirical research.
Your argument here is with the dictionary. I'm thinking that you think the dictionary is 'guilty' of over simplifying things, perhaps written by non-scientists, and is not authoritative on matters concerning actual scientific practice, actual methods, and what is actually pseudoscience. Therefore, any layperson who may be understanding (or trying to understand) what science entails from such simplifications is many steps behind what 'actual' scientists are up to. And even though that is highly inconsistent given the diversity of branches of science, pay no attention to that. Realize there is such an animal as 'actual' scientific practice, and that magically all (actual scientists) agree on what that is, but refrain from describing it, realizing that would be an over simplification.
Fascinating. To me, there is no "we" or "us" different from others, in what you are writing. So much diversity, and no actual account for scientific method means there is no actual account for pseudoscience. Therefore, there are no non-scientists. All people are actual scientists. Some may be more experienced, but that doesn't mean the less experienced are non-scientists. Also doesn't mean that those who study phenomenon outside the scope of one branch are non-scientists, just practicing another form/branch of science that cannot be pigeon holed by over simplified terms, as much as some might try.
Yep, seems even more applicable now. The elitists in science are seemingly framing an ongoing discussion about what is and what is not science, and claiming ownership on actual science vs. pseudo science, when philosophically they have failed to distinguish this in a meaningful way, except by their own elitist biases. Before, when I used the word consensus, it had some inklings of noble intent. Not anymore.
I wish double speak like this was under scrutinized in other endeavors, like science is currently allowed to enjoy. Admittedly, that is changing in recent years, and is good at getting rid of the elitism. All things you are stating about science's uniqueness are so debatable, on a few levels, it is interesting anyone would still believe such a fictional simplification. Even more interesting if they think they can enter into a debate and not resort to elitism to provide false sense of authority in making their points.
Which is inherent bias. It is nice when the assumption is admitted to. It helps anyone looking at this admission realize that science rests on faith (in the alleged reality).
How is it philosophically flawed? Because the inherent bias, or assumption that objective evidence exists, when it has not been philosophically established to show it actually exists. Given how profound the assumption is, I could see how many logical fallacies pertain to this assumption. I really don't see how it is different than assuming God exists, and then proceeding as if that assumption is true for everyone, and when findings come up, never ever questioning the fundamental assumption, but just seeking to deal solely with the results and update or even eliminate those which 'empirical research' deem in need of updating. Appeal to (false) authority comes to mind, as does circular reasoning.
I don't get how your explanation results in a no to the question I asked: would it follow that anyone who believes THE scientific method characterizes what science is, is a non-scientist?
Your reply says "most of us (scientists) eventually realize we can't nail down anything that amounts to what this would-be method actually is." I am asking about the people who see THE scientific method as characterizing science, and you are telling me most scientists do not characterize science by THE method. At the very least, I would think your response would be, 'maybe.'
And as I see it, based on where the discussion has taken us so far, what you would direct me to is alleged scientific literature. Perhaps, I'll too conclude it is scientific, or perhaps I won't. There won't be an actual objective means for knowing it is actual scientific literature, just some biases at work that have me investigate matters on my own and reach conclusions that I determine work for me, or don't.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
It's simple, really. Most scientists decide that something is right and so it is accepted as the prevailing theory. All other theories are then rejected.
Until another theory prevails among most scientists instead of the former one. Then that one is right according to them.
This is science throughout the ages.
Until another theory prevails among most scientists instead of the former one. Then that one is right according to them.
This is science throughout the ages.
Shad
Veteran Member
Science is seen as tentative in the conclusions made It enables modification and even dismissal of outdated and false ideas. However the shift from one theory to another is based on more than just as say so. It seems like you expect absolutism of religion which is just projection of your beliefs, nothing more.
Which is why, for any field, we don't rely on google search results as authoritative. If one wishes to know how scientists, or historians, or classicists, or mathematicians, or whatever do what it is they do, the internet might provide some good answers or it might not, but the work in the field itself is what tells you about the field.
Why would I want you to provide me with popular webpages to understand how I do what I do?
Fine.
Dictionaries exist as guidelines to usage, not to define (and certainly not to reflect technical uses and practices).
Any layperson trying to understand science or what scientists do shouldn't rely on a dictionary, but books like the great J. B. Conant's Science and Common Sense or one of The Teaching Company's The Great Courses:
Which apparently is being made up as one goes along. The world wide web allows for information to be shared. If not interested in sharing information about one's work in a way that it will never be found online, that would strike me as highly unusual for any human endeavor, much less one that would plausibly lay claim to its work being responsible for creation of the world wide web.
To back up claims / points up for discussion on an open forum.
I rather enjoy the implications of the discussion of this thread. Helps put other debates on the forum into a different context where some seem to think science is unified in its approach, and methods, to investigating matters and providing testable evidence to support its claims where say religion is (allegedly) disorganized and lacking a consistent method for all to follow. This thread has made it more clear that science (as a whole) is rather delusional if any particular proponent tries to argue a position of systematic principles governing all of science. As there are clearly various denominations of 'actual' science and methodological determinations following impromptu guidelines, it really shows it is every bit as ad hoc in its conclusions as other human endeavors.
Oh, but those practitioners and persons immersed in their own denomination will try to sell you on a different take. Let the games continue.
I started this thread to get an idea about how others, especially non-scientists (as most individuals aren't scientists) understand the scientific method. I am happy with the responses I received. I made the mistake of responding to your post and thus biasing future posts as well as likely (and apparently) ending the possibility of additional posts by other members.
I did not create this thread to explain how scientists practice, the nature of scientific inquiry, or debate either the nature of science or the social dynamics of the scientific community.
I'm not interested in debating the merits of science or the nature of science with someone who not only isn't a scientist, but who is also incapable of understanding the logic behind the absolute foundations of the real number system and therefore virtually all mathematics (or at least any mathematics recognizable as such by those untutored in e.g., exterior derivatives or p-adic analysis or other fields that would to most not necessarily be familiar as mathematics, let alone familiar).
You seem to understand "science" through dictionaries and a single topic that you describe not in terms of the scientific literature but in terms of the politics governing the research, and given that your topic seems to be health related it necessarily involves research that depends upon logic and mathematics beyond you.
If I can't even convince you that your misuse of notation (i.e., the number 0.000...1 to mean something other than a number with finitely many decimals the last of which is the numeral 1) isn't logically consistent let alone an argument against the claim that the limit of sequence of decimal digits in 0.999... is 1 and therefore the number 0.999...= 1, I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything about the practice of science, dependent as it is on the application of logic to the development and testing of theories based on and used as a basis for empirical study which itself requires the incorporation of logic in design, practice, and interpretation.
You back up claims by quoting dictionaries, websites, rhetoric, and the use of private definitions and interpretations.
Fine. That's your prerogative. You can deny the rational basis for basic mathematics as easily as you can the rational basis for scientific inquiry and your insistence concerning a method you believe to be somehow supported as a component of the scientific endeavor because of the number of google search results you obtained. This is also your prerogative.
It is my prerogative to choose not to waste my time trying to explain to those who have already made up their minds. After all, there are none so blind and those that will not see.
Could've said all this in PM.
All ad hominem stuff. I'd defend myself agains the falsity in much of what you say, but not worth it. You keep sticking to ad hom when you raise your points of faith, and I'll keep pointing out the irrationality of what it is you are purporting. Good day.
Found in the news today.....
http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
The author talks of the problem of big mistakes in science.
But I see something good here, ie, the mistakes are being found.
The method (or methods) isn't perfect, & we shouldn't expect it to be.
Related.....
I recently heard an "expert" speaking on NPR about the environmental & traffic
problems of buying things over the internet, & having them delivered to us.
He addressed things like UPS's fancy algorithm to minimize time trucks spend
on the road, how it used to be that trucks delivered massive loads to brick & mortar
stores, & how traffic is getting worse. What I found striking was that he didn't balance
this against the fact that we ourselves don't drive to stores when we buy this way.
This is perhaps even more efficient than all these consumers driving to stores instead
of having things delivered.
When one takes a position, & only looks at evidence supporting that position, this isn't
analysis....it's apologetics. Real analysis requires looking at the entire picture, including
that which might debunk one's pet theory.
http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
The author talks of the problem of big mistakes in science.
But I see something good here, ie, the mistakes are being found.
The method (or methods) isn't perfect, & we shouldn't expect it to be.
Related.....
I recently heard an "expert" speaking on NPR about the environmental & traffic
problems of buying things over the internet, & having them delivered to us.
He addressed things like UPS's fancy algorithm to minimize time trucks spend
on the road, how it used to be that trucks delivered massive loads to brick & mortar
stores, & how traffic is getting worse. What I found striking was that he didn't balance
this against the fact that we ourselves don't drive to stores when we buy this way.
This is perhaps even more efficient than all these consumers driving to stores instead
of having things delivered.
When one takes a position, & only looks at evidence supporting that position, this isn't
analysis....it's apologetics. Real analysis requires looking at the entire picture, including
that which might debunk one's pet theory.