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.
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.
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.
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.
It is just incompatible with actual scientific practice and methods.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weren't you recently saying something about consensus?
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.
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.
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.