• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The first rule of science

Dabljuh

Muse
D
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Messages
600
The first rule of science is that whenever you hear of a scientist talking of being "absolutely certain" of something, or a study indicates that "something is obvious" etc, you can be "certain" of one thing:

That statement has been bought and paid for by groups that have a significant financial interest.

Real science is forever full of doubt, constantly questioning every aspect of itself and the knowledge it generates.

The more aggressively any scientist asserts his point of view as the ultimate truth, the more vehemently "scientific" institutions try to shut up other opinions, the more money is probably behind it.
 
Not sure if that should be the first rule of science, but I would certainly take it for a first rule of products or investment related science!
 
No that's just the first rule of paranoia - not science.

There are very few unqualified statements that can be made in science, because scientific knowledge generally is provisional and not absolute and eternal.
 
Oh I thought the First rule of science was going to be
"You don't talk about science!"

Actually, I was hoping that would be Rules 1 and 2.
 
I was taught that the First Rule of Science is:

1) Question Everything.

And that the Second Rule of Science is:

2) Repeat.
 
I'm pretty sure the first rule, so far as anything comes close, is "make an observation".

Or what joobz said.
 
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

"Question Everything" (The title, not the first rule. My bad!)

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

"Question Everything" (The title, not the first rule. My bad!)

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
Click to expand...
This was paid for GE. We bring Good Things to Life
 
Fnord said:
I was taught that the First Rule of Science is:

1) Question Everything.

And that the Second Rule of Science is:

2) Repeat.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
Are you sure that's really the first rule of science?
 
Fnord said:
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

"Question Everything" (The title, not the first rule. My bad!)

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
Click to expand...
That is pretty much one of the common listings for the Scientific Method. SCIENCE does not actually have an absolute codified METHOD. Just a general set of principals that textbook authors have arranged into slightly variant sets of "rule/procedures" which do not actually fit all activities that qualify as science but do give beginning students an idea of how science should be done.
 
I disagree with the op-- I think real scientists are and should be biased. From picking what topics to study, to how to study em, to which theory one favors. I think it's good that our bias drives research for any single scientist.

Science itself though is self correcting. My biases must survive peer review; my data must be replicated, and my theory corroborated. Otherwise, it's tossed.

So, though my biases might drive my research, other people with other biases will attack it, and in the end, we get closer and closer approximations to the truth.
 
Fnord said:
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

"Question Everything" (The title, not the first rule. My bad!)

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
Click to expand...

I was told it was the Hypothetic-Deductive method because the two really important points are to formulate a Hypothesis and then Deduce something from your experiments. (Which ignores the Induction you make when you predict stuff, and I'm sure there are other things that desever capital letters that are ignored as well.)

And about that point number 6, your data really doesn't have to support your hypothesis. In fact, a lot of good science is just the opposite: "See how this hypothesis failes!" :) More to the point, I'm just now hoping to get an article published where the bottom line is more or less "Yeah, that didn't go as planned...".
 
Fnord said:
AH! Here it is! A forensics procedure I learned at the University:

"Question Everything" (The title, not the first rule. My bad!)

1) Ask: Formulate and refine a question.
2) Research: Gather as much relevant data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume a set of cause-and-effect rules.
4) Experiment and Observe: Determine what conditions result in which events.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for relevant clues, trends, and results.
6) Interpret: Decide if the experimental data supports the first hypothesis. If not, then return to step 1.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review. This means that chemists review the work of chemists, biologist review the work of biologists, et cetera.

I think that this is also called the "Scientific Method."
Click to expand...

Which is luckily all broken down into the simple to remember mnemonic device ARHEAIP.
 
Dabljuh said:
The first rule of science is that whenever you hear of a scientist talking of being "absolutely certain" of something, or a study indicates that "something is obvious" etc, you can be "certain" of one thing:

That statement has been bought and paid for by groups that have a significant financial interest.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely certain that gravity makes things fall down. Now where's my money?
 
Where I work the first rule of science is:
"To be absolutely confident in your data, do not repeat measurements."

Regards,
Yair
 
So in free fall, what would you call the directions orthogonal to "left, right , back and forward" ?
 
They're all arbitrarily designated cardinal points.

We could call them squit, frump, zoogie and gerald.

And what if we're both in free fall and I'm facing the opposite direction to you, and horizontal relative to your vertical? Which way is which then?
 
PogoPedant said:
And about that point number 6, your data really doesn't have to support your hypothesis. In fact, a lot of good science is just the opposite: "See how this hypothesis failes!" :) More to the point, I'm just now hoping to get an article published where the bottom line is more or less "Yeah, that didn't go as planned...".
Click to expand...


Someone around here uses a sig line that goes something like "Contrary to popular belief, Science has very few 'Eureka' moments. Instead, Science is dominate by moments of 'Hmm... that was wierd...'"

I'm inclined to believe this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom