• 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 Scientific Method

robinson said:
fls made a stab at trying to correct something, without realizing her opinion conflicted with half the definitions in the OP.

The two diagrams, from science courses, also disagree.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol116/week1/meth copy.jpg starts with observation, then analysis, then hypothesis

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif starts with "ask a question", then "do background research", then hypothesis

Linda would have us believe "Designing and Performing Experiments should come before Collecting and Analyzing Data".

The few examples in the OP are just a small sample of the many different ways people present "The scientific method".
Click to expand...

This is one of the most important things that you can discover. If you see something that doesn't seem to make sense, it takes no effort or additional information to assume that it doesn't make sense because the person is dumb or the idea is nonsensical. If instead you assume that it doesn't make sense because you don't have enough information, it means you have to learn something in order to discover whether or not an idea has merit.

It is, of course, up to you which path you choose. But at this point, the discrepancies you identify are purely due to your ignorance. You have misunderstood the descriptions that you provided. I don't think I can do anything about that. And I'm not sure that that's a useful answer for your hypothesis (I think you wanted to prove that is was the fault of everyone but you).

Linda
 
The way I was taught, remaining true to the underlying philosophies and principles is far more important than following any prescribed method. It was explained to me that the scientific method, as introduced to us in our earlier school years, is a simplified how-to style approach intended to ease people into the subject, as it is assumed most are not prepared for the deeper (and more meaningful) conceptual basis.

The above would seem to be consistent with what I've read (and observed) about scientists, that they do not tend to adhere to such regimented work procedures. Instead, they concern themselves with remaining faithful to the ideals of falsifiability, supporting evidence, peer-review, etc.
 
Last edited:
Science can not give you truth. All the scientific method can give is internal self consistency.

Going off into the philosophical side of things, I like this statement:

"The actual (minimal) scientific method is not 'set in stone' (it is accepted as openly fallible, as matter of fact we can only say that it is still progressive, as the norm, in what regards fecundity) and is not restricted only to an entirely empirical method, involving Mill's methods and intersubjectivity. It indicates also, using nonempirical arguments, what hypotheses should be chosen as the standard of knowledge [even] in the extreme case that there exist more equally valid, on empirical grounds, hypotheses." (linky)


What is the scientific method? Dont ask a scientist, they'll all give a different definition, ask a philosopher. A much more interesting perspective.

Philosophy of science

Contents
[hide]

* 1 Nature of scientific concepts and statements
---o 1.1 Demarcation
---o 1.2 Scientific realism and instrumentalism
---o 1.3 Scientific explanation
---o 1.4 Analysis and reductionism
* 2 Grounds of validity of scientific reasoning
---o 2.1 Induction
---o 2.2 Coherentism
---o 2.3 Ockham's razor
---o 2.4 Objectivity of observations in science
---o 2.5 Theory-dependence of observation
---o 2.6 Indeterminacy of theory under empirical testing
* 3 Philosophy of particular sciences
---o 3.1 Philosophy of physics
---o 3.2 Philosophy of biology
---o 3.3 Philosophy of mathematics
---o 3.4 Philosophy of chemistry
---o 3.5 Philosophy of economics
---o 3.6 Philosophy of psychology
* 4 Social accountability
---o 4.1 Scientific Openness
---o 4.2 Critiques of scientific method
* 5 Sociology and anthropology of science
* 6 Continental philosophy of science
[....]
Click to expand...



That just about covers it. Though reading all of that wiki article will give you a hell of a headache :)
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
What is the scientific method? Dont ask a scientist, they'll all give a different definition, ask a philosopher.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my definition of the scientific method is:

Have a bunch of ideas in various degrees of vagueness.
Allow a few to become fully formed as the opportunities arise.
Go through the process of background research for the write-up of grant proposals or for the somewhat haphazard ad hoc collection of data.
Discover that some of your ideas are unworkable and suffer a few sleepless nights trying to decide at which point they should be discarded.
Carry through on the modified version of a few of those ideas and collect the necessary data.
During the analysis discover that none of your original ideas are supported, but some kinda interesting other stuff happened.
Repeat until you get lucky.

Linda
 
As a scientist, I use several methods, all of which are leading to certain goals.

There is the understanding what happened goal.
The explaining why it happens goal.
The ability to repeat something goal.
The ability to predict an event, or at least have a probability.
The discovery of something new.
The discovery if something is actually true, not made up, or a scam.
The goal of solving a problem.
And the pure joy of seeing what happens.

Different methods and techniques are employed, depending on what the goal is.

Asking teh Internets for a definition of "the scientific method" would be a "let's see what happens" kind of experiment. There are several methods to reach the same goal, in this example.
 
dudalb said:
He like to play around with Woo ideas,and seems to have certain resentment against authority. The problem is that is a dangerous combination, and sooner or later you will get burned.
Click to expand...

Depends how good your toaster is.
 
cgallaga said:
The scientific method is nothing more than a system of rules to keep us from lying to each other. - Ken Norris
Click to expand...

Heh. I get stuck on Feynman claiming to have watched the nuke reaction re: Manhattan Project ---from/through his pick-up truck window. :)

P.S. For the floor: Popper and Kuhn have good suggestions regarding sifting through madness and reality re: science, it's methods, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom