The Scientific Method -- is there such a thing?

[Reg Prescott]

The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise.

My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist.

Whenever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose.

My purpose here, then, will be to articulate the reasons why a growing number of people like myself deny the existence of the scientific method as traditionally understood.

 

(1) First, we need to be clear about what is, and what is not, being claimed. My claim is not that science is entirely unmethodical; that scientists do not employ various methods of one kind or another. The claim, rather, is that there is no single overarching method of science; there is no unique method employed by all genuine scientists in all times, all places, and all disciplines. Of course chemists use litmus paper to detect the presence of acid, while geologists use dating techniques to determine the age of rocks, say. That said, surely no one would venture the opinion that carbon dating (for example) just is the scientific method. 

 

(2) Before setting out, we must pay careful attention to our application of the concept "method". We must agree that the concept properly applies to certain processes, quintessentially a cookbook recipe for instance (just follow the steps and voila!), and must be withheld from others which depend more on luck or creativity than rigid adherence to a set of rules; a lottery scoop or the writing of a novel, say. If the overzealous defender of science insists on applying the concept "method" no matter what, then the whole notion of a substantive "scientific method" is trivialized and we might as well stop right now and head down the pub instead for a few bevvies.

 

(3) The reason why belief in TSM is so widespread, and unquestioningly accepted, by the populace at large I suggest is not due to any in-depth investigation conducted into the matter by John Q, but rather simply because the idea is inculcated ad nauseum on Discovery Channel showcases, introductory science textbooks, and by high school science teachers. TSM, until quite recently at least, has just been one of these background assumptions most of us simply take for granted. We've been told it is so by the right kind of people, therefore it must be so.

At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own:

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein 

Scientists, by and large, get on with doing science: metascientific issues lie outwith their own areas of expertise. There are people, however, who devote careers to studying what it is that scientists do, including the methods they employ; these people are philosophers and historians of science, and it is to them we must turn.

 

(4) Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all.

Outstanding thinkers who have written on TSM include Descartes for whom deduction is the essence of scientific reasoning; Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill who advocate induction; William Whewell is widely credited with introducing hypothetico-deductivism as the putative method of science (note here that any talk of speculative hypotheses was anathema to inductivists such as Newton). 

Moving into the 20th century, Karl Popper famously espoused falsificationism as the method of science. Later, subsequent upon the so-called "historical turn" in the philosophy of science, scholars began to take a close look at what real world scientists actually do -- as opposed to the ivory tower logical idealizations of previous generations -- and in many cases came to a rather stark conclusion: there is no unique method of science. Thomas Kuhn speaks of science in terms of a series of paradigm shifts; Paul Feyerabend, somewhat scandalously, concluded from his studies of historical episodes that the only inviolable methodological precept to be found is "anything goes"!

Now, lack of consensus does not necessarily imply that TSM is chimerical; it may simply be that we have not yet been able to pinpoint it. I would suggest, though, that at the very least, it ought to give pause to even the most implacable apologists of TSM.

 

(5) The porridge test: Specifications of The Scientific Method invariably turn out to be either too hot or too cold. 

If the criteria specified are overly restrictive -- that experimentation, say, be a necessary component -- then it turns out that much of what we intuitively regard as good science ends up being excluded. Many scientists (Copernicus, Darwin, etc), and many areas of science (paleontology, astrophysics, etc) conduct few or no experiments; gardeners meanwhile do lots!

On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys? 

 

(6) A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. Given that "hypotheses" always seem to get a mention when the issue of TSM is broached, is the formation of a hypothesis the kind of thing you'd regard as methodical? Is there a step-by-step algorithm for constructing hypotheses? Is this not what would be more aptly described as a creative process? And surely the concepts of creativity and method are diametrically opposed to one another: the more of one, the less of the other.

August Kekulé famously claimed that the ring-structure of the benzene molecule came to him in a dream of a snake eating its own tail -- hardly what might be called a methodical discovery!

My denial of TSM is almost invariably met with a reaction of outrage. It does seem to me, however, if there is any impertinence at all, it arises from those who would have us believe that our finest scientific minds are little more than unthinking automata slavishly adhering to the steps of an inflexible pizza recipe. Genuises need not apply; any fool can do it!

Well, if geniuses need not apply, why do we need the likes of Newton and Einstein?

Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks!

I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science:

 

"Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it....

What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists."

Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method"

"I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

[beecee]

48 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago.

Single,?  invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted. From my own lay persons perspective, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments.

Quote

My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist.

Perhaps because of your rather strict uneccessary guidelines.

 

Quote

henever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose.

Perhaps you are too sensitive to criticism of your rather inflexible guidelines? And of course it is a fact that many times this and other science forums are confronted with over zealous religious fanatics. 

Quote

 

At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own:

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein 

 

Again one could interpret that as over sensitive to any and all criticism of your opinion based on inflexible guidelines. On Einstein's quote, firstly I don't agree he is denying the existence of the scientific method, and secondly it is easy to take quotes out of context.

Quote

  Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all.

Although obviously they may all go about it in various different paths, the foundation of the scientific method I'm sure would underpin all results.

Quote

On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys?

I could agree with that. Science and the scientific method in my opinion is simply the application of logic, based on current knowledge.

Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Henry Huxley.

 

Quote

Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks!

Great stuff!

 

Quote

I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science:

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. Bertrand Russell

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists...Richard Feynman

[Reg Prescott]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Single,?  invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted. From my own lay persons perspective, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments.

 

Let's begin here then.

"Single,?  invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted."

Yes, single and invariant. If there were three methods, say (which of course there aren't), then we should be speaking of The Scientific Methods, not "method". Same goes for "invariant".

More poignantly, if there is not one, but three, or ten, or a thousand, methods of science, in a constant state of flux, that you bizarrely insist on collectively calling "The Scientific Method", then the three functions I adverted to in my opening paragraph (i.e., unification, demarcation, explanation) can no longer be served. How, for example, would we appeal to a protean smorgasbord of methods to explain the success of science, or to demarcate bona fide science from astrology or Intelligent Design, say? The Creationists might quite plausibly claim "We're using a method of science too; just not the same one as 19th century paleontologists used". Then what: rule them out of court by imperial fiat?

 

"[1] ask a question" : You mean like "How do you get a philosopher off your porch?"  

The answer is "pay for the pizza", but I trust the problem is clear. You'd have to be a little more specific.

 

"[2] Research" : Um, how exactly? Same problem as above: hopelessly vague. You might as well be advising us, "Just generate knowledge, dammit!"

 

"[3] Formulate an hypothesis" : Well, first and foremost, it really gets my goat when people say "an" hypothesis. Why can't you say "a" hypothesis? Grrr!

Right, lots to say about this one. First, review my point (6) in the OP. In what sense can "formulate a hypothesis" possibly be considered methodical? Do you have a method for doing this? If so, please share.

Is the formulation of a hypothesis not what would be more aptly described as a creative, rather than a methodical, process? Isn't the imperative "formulate a hypothesis" akin to "have an idea"? No doubt scientists have ideas/formulate hypotheses, but then so does everyone else; I suspect dogs and cats do it too (I used to tease my cat by placing his foodbowl in unlikely places and watch him formulate and test various hypotheses as to its whereabouts).

For this reason, both the Logical Positivists and Karl Popper drew a distinction between the so-called context of discovery and context of justification. How scientists come by their hypotheses -- inspiration, eureka moments, riding on beams of light, dreams of snakes eating their own tails, etc -- was considered a matter for psychologists and historians to discern, but of no interest to the methodologist who looks for method or rationality only in the subsequent justification of said hypotheses.

Meanwhile, our old pal Isaac Newton, would throw a fit; he had this to say on the place of hypotheses in science:

Quote

Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. 

Under Newton's inductivist characterization of the scientific method, propositions are to be extracted inductively from data; one does not bring a hypothesis to the data. Tsk tsk! This is a theme we're likely to encounter again, Beecee: if someone else characterizes TSM differently from yourself (and there is no shortage of candidates), are we to take it that your own version of TSM is the correct one and all the rest are wrong?

 

"[4] Test said hypothesis": Er, how? If we're going to talk of method, you'll have to be a little more specific, I think.

But we have now entered the hallowed "context of justification" *drumroll*. This is where things get exciting.

 

That's enough to get us started. But stepping back to look at the larger picture, it seems to me -- even supposing (which I don't) that you've nailed it -- you're making science a bit too easy. What I mean is, it's not at all difficult to imagine those Creationist hoodlums, say, setting up their own publishing network and acting in accordance with your 6-step program.

Thus, based on the criteria you've offered us, you'd be forced to concede that the aforementioned hoodlums are perpetrating good science.

And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that now, would you?
 

[beecee]

16 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Let's begin here then.

"Single,?  invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted."

Yes, single and invariant. If there were three methods, say (which of course there aren't), then we should be speaking of The Scientific Methods, not "method". Same goes for "invariant".

More poignantly, if there is not one, but three, or ten, or a thousand, methods of science, in a constant state of flux, that you bizarrely insist on collectively calling "The Scientific Method", then the three functions I adverted to in my opening paragraph (i.e., unification, demarcation, explanation) can no longer be served.

I believe you are being obtuse.... Again, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments.

Quote

The Creationists might quite plausibly claim "We're using a method of science too; just not the same one as 19th century paleontologists used". Then what: rule them out of court by imperial fiat?

Yes, they can claim what they like, but obviously and naturally, they lack any empirical evidence supporting their mythical claims and of course plenty of empirical evidence falsifying the same myths.

Quote

 

[1] ask a question" : You mean like "How do you get a philosopher off your porch?"  

The answer is "pay for the pizza", but I trust the problem is clear. You'd have to be a little more specific.

 

You need to be serious if you want to debate your claim. eg: a star maybe in a position different from its known position when viewed in the day time and behind the Sun. Or why did Mercury not appear exactly where it should be under Newtonian gravity.

Quote

"[2] Research" : Um, how exactly? Same problem as above: hopelessly vague. You might as well be advising us, "Just generate knowledge, dammit!"

No not vague, just numerous ways of conducting said research depending on the exact discipline...the foundation/s remain the same.. 

Quote

"[3] Formulate an hypothesis" : Well, first and foremost, it really gets my goat when people say "an" hypothesis. Why can't you say "a" hypothesis? Grrr!

Are you interested in discussing why your claim is not as you say, or would you rather indulge in pedant? Or as another remarked in another thread, are you just attempting to be argumentive?

Quote

"[4] Test said hypothesis": Er, how? If we're going to talk of method, you'll have to be a little more specific, I think.

Observation, as per the Eddington observation to test Einstein's hypothesis during an eclipse.

Quote

 

you're making science a bit too easy. What I mean is, it's not at all difficult to imagine those Creationist hoodlums, say, setting up their own publishing network and acting in accordance with your 6-step program.

Thus, based on the criteria you've offered us, you'd be forced to concede that the aforementioned hoodlums are perpetrating good science.

 

Not at all....simply again dismissing those mythical claims due to falsification by real science.

Quote

And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that now, would you?

  Ahh, again, some false pretentious suggestion to maybe hide an agenda perhaps? 

 

[Reg Prescott]

@ Beecee

Sorry, being a newbie here, I'm not very adept with the quote function. Bear with me. Oh, and I promise not to make any more jokes. I almost forgot myself. Frightfully sorry. The last thing this world needs is more laughter, eh? Now to your latest responses...

"Yes, they [Creationists] can claim what they like, but obviously and naturally, they lack any empirical evidence supporting their mythical claims and of course plenty of empirical evidence falsifying the same myths."

Now, the most obvious problem here is, I'm guessing these Creationist swine would claim to have evidence for their beliefs, as you do for your own. So do we:
(1) Allow you to determine -- by fiat -- what does, and what does not, constitute evidence for or against any particular claim, or
(2) Come up with a set of criteria that we all agree upon so that we may all determine for ourselves whether or not such-and-such constitutes evidence for such-and-such a theory/hypothesis.

Do you have such criteria? If so, spill the beans, please.

"You need to be serious if you want to debate your claim. eg: a star maybe in a position different from its known position when viewed in the day time and behind the Sun. Or why did Mercury not appear exactly where it should be under Newtonian gravity."

Ok, you've provided us with two examples of proper scientific questions that might be asked. What you have not done is provide us with a method for generating proper scientific questions. Our topic is here is methodology, remember? Do you have such a method?

"Are you interested in discussing why your claim is not as you say, or would you rather indulge in pedant? Or as another remarked in another thread, are you just attempting to be argumentive?"

Argumentative? A peculiar accusation indeed to hurl at one's interlocutor in a debate forum. We came here to argue for and against the existence of The Scientific Method, right? You're arguing for; me against. I believe your claim is hopelessly wrong and I'm arguing against it as we speak.

"Observation, as per the Eddington observation to test Einstein's hypothesis during an eclipse."

Nice example. But you're supposed to be defending the method of science, including the testing of scientific theories/hypotheses. You still have not explicated a general method of testing; merely pointed to one random example. 

"Not at all....simply again dismissing those mythical claims due to falsification by real science."

Would you please explain how falsification works? What is the method for falsifying hypotheses? (Don't giggle -- this is trickier than you might imagine). Is falsificationism the Method of science as Karl Popper insisted?

" Ahh, again, some false pretentious suggestion to maybe hide an agenda perhaps?"

Leave my hidden agenda out of this, whatever that happens to be. And stop sticking your tongue out at me, too. This is a serious debate.

To be quite frank, Beecee, there may be less difference between us than you think. You posted the following quote -- implying that you endorse it -- from Thomas Henry Huxley...

Quote

Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. 

Einstein says something very similar...

Quote

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.

 

In my view, both Huxley and Einstein are exactly right. But our topic is The Scientific Method, remember? How can "common sense" -- on pain of contorting the concept beyond recognition -- possibly be described as a method?

Consider:

"Go make a pizza"
"Er, how do I do it?"
"Just use your common sense", and

"Go generate scientific knowledge"
"Er, how do I do it?"
"Just use your common sense"
 

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

@ Beecee

Sorry, being a newbie here, I'm not very adept with the quote function. Bear with me. 

No problem, I have plenty of tolerance for newbies as well as IDers and other believers, including my lovely wife, but I give those fanatical believers that come here specifically to dis science and the scientific method, the utmost scrutiny.

Quote

Oh, and I promise not to make any more jokes. I almost forgot myself. Frightfully sorry. The last thing this world needs is more laughter, eh? Now to your latest responses...

Joke? Oh, I took it as facetiousness and sarcasm.

Quote

Now, the most obvious problem here is, I'm guessing these Creationist swine would claim to have evidence for their beliefs, as you do for your own. So do we:
(1) Allow you to determine -- by fiat -- what does, and what does not, constitute evidence for or against any particular claim, or

You're doing the closeted support of their claims, so the onus is on you to present any such evidence for scrutiny, and certainly not determined by me as a lay person...we have other reputable scientists that will show conclusively that they nor you have any evidence supporting such myth...ie of course if you personally are claiming that they have such evidence.

Quote

(2) Come up with a set of criteria that we all agree upon so that we may all determine for ourselves whether or not such-and-such constitutes evidence for such-and-such a theory/hypothesis.

Do you have such criteria? If so, spill the beans, please.

Again, the critieria and claims of YEC's has been invalidated many times. If you believe there is any valid evidence supporting their nonsense, then the onus is on you. But let me say right now, that the longer you post, and the more obtuse remarks you make, the more it appears that you do have an agenda.

 

Quote

Ok, you've provided us with two examples of proper scientific questions that might be asked. What you have not done is provide us with a method for generating proper scientific questions. Our topic is here is methodology, remember? Do you have such a method?

That is all entailed in the foundation/s of the scientific methodology which you are in denial of.

 

Quote

Argumentative? A peculiar accusation indeed to hurl at one's interlocutor in a debate forum. We came here to argue for and against the existence of The Scientific Method, right? You're arguing for; me against. I believe your claim is hopelessly wrong and I'm arguing against it as we speak.

Not my suggestion, it was another poster in another thread, but OK, I'll withdraw the argumentive remark in favour of the more obvious obtuse comments.

Quote

Nice example. But you're supposed to be defending the method of science, including the testing of scientific theories/hypotheses. You still have not explicated a general method of testing; merely pointed to one random example. 

I don't need to defend it at all. It stands on its own and is supported many, many times over the years. You on the other hand have offered nothing concrete, just a couple of half hearted philosophical arguments denying it.

Quote

Would you please explain how falsification works? What is the method for falsifying hypotheses? (Don't giggle -- this is trickier than you might imagine). Is falsificationism the Method of science as Karl Popper insisted?

Please check out the falsification of YECers and their mythical claims that have been falsified.

Quote

Leave my hidden agenda out of this, whatever that happens to be. And stop sticking your tongue out at me, too. This is a serious debate.

It is the obtuseness and avoidance of answering questions in others that  have pretended that science has problems where it hasn't, that has had them exposed with hidden agendas. Yes, I agree, it is a serious debate, except your refusal to accept the onus of responsibility, as you are making the claim.  

 

Quote

 

To be quite frank, Beecee, there may be less difference between us than you think. You posted the following quote -- implying that you endorse it -- from Thomas Henry Huxley...

Einstein says something very similar...

 

In my view, both Huxley and Einstein are exactly right. But our topic is The Scientific Method, remember? How can "common sense" -- on pain of contorting the concept beyond recognition -- possibly be described as a method?

 

In my view neither of them are anywhere near saying that the scientific method as I have described does not exist.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

You're doing the closeted support of their claims, so the onus is on you to present any such evidence for scrutiny, and certainly not determined by me as a lay person...we have other reputable scientists that will show conclusively that they nor you have any evidence supporting such myth...ie of course if you personally are claiming that they have such evidence.

No idea where you got that from, dude. 

 

What I am doing is asking you to provide us with a set of criteria (a method!) that each and every one of us can apply in order to determine what counts as scientific evidence for/against such-and-such a claim -- whether that claim be of the Creationist variety, general relativity variety, or any other variety.

 

Do that now, please.

[beecee]

14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

What I am doing is asking you to provide us with a set of criteria (a method!) that each and every one of us can apply in order to determine what counts as scientific evidence for/against such-and-such a claim -- whether that claim be of the Creationist variety, general relativity variety, or any other variety.

Do that now, please.

I've already done that, but hey! you are being obtuse again.

[Reg Prescott]

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

I don't need to defend it [The Scientific Method] at all. It stands on its own and is supported many, many times over the years.

 

Er, at the risk of sounding obtuse again, why are you here?

 

I thought the plan was that you would argue for (i.e., defend) the existence of The Scientific Method while I would argue against?

Edited October 5, 2018 by Reg Prescott
added brackets

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist.

I agree.

But that is no reason to attack science and scientists in general.

 

I would say that the scientific method is the rational application of scientific principles to an issue or enquiry.

 

This definition comes with several riders or notes.

1) By definition the method is a process. It does not include the generation of the issue or enquiry in the first place. That is separate and (in my view) the source of much confusion.

2) There are multiple principles. some are more important than others. The balance between these is case specific.

3) Godel's theorems tell us that, no matter how good they are, inductive processes alone cannot answer all question that can be asked of an axiomatic system.

4) So review and verification (preferably independent) is one of the most important of the scientific principles.

 

 

[Reg Prescott]

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

I've already done that, but hey! you are being obtuse again.

 Well, I can't see it (i.e. your criteria for determining what does, and what does not constitute scientific evidence)

 

Be a good sport and direct me to where you did it. Better still, copy and paste below. It'll only take a few seconds. Thanks!

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

I agree.

But that is no reason to attack science and scientists in general.

Not sure whether this is directed at me or not. Is it? I don't believe I've attacked science or scientists.

All I'm doing is try to get science right. Isn't that what we all want?

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Er, at the risk of sounding obtuse again, why are you here?

 

I thought the plan was that you would argue for the existence of The Scientific Method while I would argue against?

I'm here to learn science and boost my understanding of concepts I'm not totally familiar with. Again the scientific methodology does not need me defending it...it stands as the best methodology we have and successful.

Your attempt to simplify and y apply non existent supposed guidelines is in error as I outlined in my first post.

The error in your claim and the professionals you claim that support that opinion is not as clear cut or precise as you would like the forum to believe. The motivations of those arguing against a Scientific Method is I believe to be faulty and philosophical in nature. 
Here are a few of the real life characters in that show the myth in the philosophical claim that the scientific method does not exist.......Aristotle, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo  Newton,  James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and a hundred others that could be named.

https://www.thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441

Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies:

 

 

[Reg Prescott]

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is the obtuseness and avoidance of answering questions in others that  have pretended that science has problems where it hasn't, that has had them exposed with hidden agendas. Yes, I agree, it is a serious debate, except your refusal to accept the onus of responsibility, as you are making the claim.  

 

Here's a sample of my questions to you that have either ignored, evaded, or passed the buck to someone else:

 

1. Do you have a method for generating hypotheses?

 

2. Do you have a method for generating scientific questions?

 

3. What are the criteria for determining what does, and what does not, constitute scientific evidence?

 

4. Will you please explain how falsification works in science?

 

Now, while you're busy working on that, I'll work on any questions of yours that I've evaded. Are there any?

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Here are a few of the real life characters in that show the myth in the philosophical claim that the scientific method does not exist.......Aristotle, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo  Newton,  James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and a hundred others that could be named.

 

I could add a few more to the list if you like. And each one of them has a different tale to tell. Which one, in your opinion, got it right?

(Dunno why that's in block letters above. I can't change it. Sorry!)

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 All I'm doing is try to get science right. Isn't that what we all want?

Is that right? And yet since you started posting, you have been critical of myself and others that have been critical of the religious fanatics that have come to a science forum on evangelical missions to criticise the science. Tip for you...the very nature of science, the scientific methodology and scientific theories, means that science is a discipline in continued progress, as further observations are made, as technology leads to more intricate experiments and the gaining of knowledge, means that science is self regulatory and changing all the time as we learn...based on the foundation/s of the scientific method.

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

I could add a few more to the list if you like. And each one of them has a different tale to tell. Which one, in your opinion, got it right?

(Dunno why that's in block letters above. I can't change it. Sorry!)

They all mostly got it right because they all had as the foundation the scientific method to rely on. 

Again your questions have been answered, maybe not the answers you want, but answered none the less.

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Is that right? And yet since you started posting, you have been critical of myself and others that have been critical of the religious fanatics that have come to a science forum on evangelical missions to criticise the science. Tip for you...the very nature of science, the scientific methodology and scientific theories, means that science is a discipline in continued progress, as further observations are made, as technology leads to more intricate experiments and the gaining of knowledge, means that science is self regulatory and changing all the time as we learn...based on the foundation/s of the scientific method.

Well, supposing what you say is true, what does this (i.e. being critical of you) have to do with "getting science right"?

 

Want a link to the Wiki page on the irrelevance fallacy?

[beecee]

Oh and please oh please please please, list for me the evidence that you suppose that YECers have to support their mythical nonsensical claims.

[Reg Prescott]

Just now, beecee said:

Oh and please oh please please please, list for me the evidence that you suppose that YECers have to support their mythical nonsensical claims.

That's not why we're here, dude. The topic is The Scientific Method. Try to stay focused. (Personally, my own interest in YEC is negligible, if that's any solace to you)

Now when do you intend to address these questions on scientific method that you've been evading? Want the list again?

[swansont]

There is no single scientific method. That's a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science and try and have their own pseudoscience or ideology-masquerading-as-science placed on equal footing.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, supposing what you say is true, what does this (i.e. being critical of you) have to do with "getting science right"?

Unlike the religious fanatics you appear to have a soft spot for, and once again, science to its credit is not based on proof, faith or any mythical obscure book as guidance. Science if it does not have it right in some area, will end up in time getting it right, in the future. But just in case like another one once conttinually pushed, if by right you mean truth or reality, then once again you are certainly wrong and have a poor picture of what science and scientific theories and models are about. Theories and models are based on experimental and observational evidence...whether that model or theory is this truth or reality is of no great concern, as long as the theory or model continues to make successful predictions and continued aligning with observation..eg: GR and its prediction of gravitational waves which we all know now has been verified, at least five times from last count.

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

That's not why we're here, dude. The topic is The Scientific Method. Try to stay focused. (Personally, my own interest in YEC is negligible, if that's any solace to you)

Now when do you intend to address these questions on scientific method that you've been evading? Want the list again?

You claimed they have evidence as good as the scientific evidence. Please support your statement. And again, no evasion on my part at least. The scientific method stands and will continue to stand...at least the basic support foundations that I listed.

[Reg Prescott]

"There is no single scientific method. That's a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science and try and have their own pseudoscience or ideology-masquerading-as-science placed on equal footing." - swansont

 

Oh, I quite agree that there is no single scientific method (you might wanna tell Beecee the news, though).

However, as for "a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science", you mean like Isaac Newton? Oh, and quite a few others besides... (please don't make me compose a list)

Edited October 5, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no single scientific method. That's a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science and try and have their own pseudoscience or ideology-masquerading-as-science placed on equal footing.

Agreed. There are though some foundations on which the scientific method and its various paths would follow or align with, do you agree?

2 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

However, as for "a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science", you mean like Isaac Newton? Oh, and quite a few others besides... (please don't make me compose a list)

Didn't you raise this same furphy in the other thread? Perhaps you need to be more open and forthright on what you exactly are trying to claim, or lead up to. Oh, and yes I too agree totally in all of swansonts post

[Reg Prescott]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Unlike the religious fanatics you appear to have a soft spot for, and once again, science to its credit is not based on proof, faith or any mythical obscure book as guidance. Science if it does not have it right in some area, will end up in time getting it right, in the future. But just in case like another one once conttinually pushed, if by right you mean truth or reality, then once again you are certainly wrong and have a poor picture of what science and scientific theories and models are about. Theories and models are based on experimental and observational evidence...whether that model or theory is this truth or reality is of no great concern, as long as the theory or model continues to make successful predictions and continued aligning with observation..eg: GR and its prediction of gravitational waves which we all know now has been verified, at least five times from last count.

 

Ah, I did try to warn about the perils of making blanket statements about science. But some people just neeeeeeeeeeeeeever listen, lol.

 

Are there scientists who hold that the goal of science is, as you suggest above, merely the construction of "empirically adequate" models (and never mind truth)? Lots of 'em.

 

Are there scientists who, contrary to your asseverations above, hold that the goal of science is truth? Lots of them too.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

You claimed they have evidence as good as the scientific evidence. Please support your statement. And again, no evasion on my part at least. The scientific method stands and will continue to stand...at least the basic support foundations that I listed.

Quite sure I didn't. Point us to where I made that claim, please. 

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed [there is no single scientific method]. There are though some foundations on which the scientific method and its various paths would follow or align with, do you agree?

 

You're doing an awful good job of concealing the fact that you do not believe there is a single method of science, dude.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Ah, I did try to warn about the perils of making blanket statements about science. But some people just neeeeeeeeeeeeeever listen, lol.

 

You mean blanket statements like YECers and other religious fanatics having empirical evidence for their claims?

Quote

Are there scientists who hold that the goal of science is, as you suggest above, merely the construction of "empirically adequate" models (and never mind truth)? Lots of 'em.

Most reputable scientists I suggest, but not with the attitude of never mind the truth. If the models and theories happen to align with this truth or reality, then all well and good. but again, as long as the model works...eg: SR, GR, the BB and of course the most certain of all, the evolution of life.

Quote

Are there scientists who, contrary to your asseverations above, hold that the goal of science is truth? Lots of them too.

More philosophically speaking I suggest. 

[Reg Prescott]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

"Are there scientists who, contrary to your asseverations above, hold that the goal of science is truth? Lots of them too."

More philosophically speaking I suggest. 

"All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn")
 

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed. There are though some foundations on which the scientific method and its various paths would follow or align with, do you agree?

Yes. There are some common general principles, but they may manifest themselves in different ways depending on the phenomenon. Such as repeatability — some take this as a requirement that you have to be able to do something in a lab under carefully controlled conditions, which would make e.g. astronomy and cosmology, which have a lot of one-off events, unscientific. But the approach they take makes those fields scientific — you can make observations of multiple events, even if they aren't identical.