SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the can-we-debate-this-scientifically? dept.
It's probably best to get the bad news out of the way first. The so-called scientific method is a myth. That is not to say that scientists don't do things that can be described and are unique to their fields of study. But to squeeze a diverse set of practices that span cultural anthropology, paleobotany, and theoretical physics into a handful of steps is an inevitable distortion and, to be blunt, displays a serious poverty of imagination. Easy to grasp, pocket-guide versions of the scientific method usually reduce to critical thinking, checking facts, or letting "nature speak for itself," none of which is really all that uniquely scientific. If typical formulations were accurate, the only location true science would be taking place in would be grade-school classrooms.
Scratch the surface of the scientific method and the messiness spills out. Even simplistic versions vary from three steps to eleven. Some start with hypothesis, others with observation. Some include imagination. Others confine themselves to facts. Question a simple linear recipe and the real fun begins. A website called Understanding Science offers an "interactive representation" of the scientific method that at first looks familiar. It includes circles labeled "Exploration and Discovery" and "Testing Ideas." But there are others named "Benefits and Outcomes" and "Community Analysis and Feedback," both rare birds in the world of the scientific method. To make matters worse, arrows point every which way. Mouse over each circle and you find another flowchart with multiple categories and a tangle of additional arrows.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/28/scientific-method-myth/
Excerpted from NEWTON'S APPLE AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE, edited by Ronald L. Numbers and Kostas Kampourakis, published by Harvard University Press.
[See our earlier discussion: Have Some Physicists Abandoned the Empirical Method? - Ed.]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Monday November 02 2015, @08:05AM
Ah, I see the Critical Theorists are attacking the methods of Science directly now.
Ignore TFA, it's is more Frankfurt School style critique with no substance or alternatives offered, as is the way of the SJWs they spawned.
But! It's an excerpt from the Harvard University Press you say? Isn't Harvard a fine upstanding institution? Or, no, you mean the Bait and Switch Harvard? [youtube.com] Ah, yes, that's the one.
Our old gods are dead and no place is sacred anymore.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:59AM
Harvard and their buddies, the breeding ground of fascist SJWs and haters of free speech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Monday November 02 2015, @02:39PM
Yeah, pretty much. The reason they're pushing for the abolishment of the scientific method is because "soft sciences" (the humanities) like social science and culture studies can't reproduce their experiments. They want the prestige of being "sciences", but anyone with any REAL background in science won't take them serious because they don't follow the scientific method. Solution: do away with the scientific method. Then they're free to make whatever bias observations they want without having to have a reproducible experiment.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @09:17PM
I think that's the problem, science shouldn't be prestigious because it's science. Science should be prestigious because of all the things it's done for us, not because it's been labeled as prestigious. Same goes for art. I've never met an artist that got offended for not being called a science.
I fail to see why obvious non-science like psychology, sociology or anthropology should be called science just to appease people that are being overly sensitive. Not being labeled as science doesn't make the pursuits any less worthwhile. If they want to be science, then they need to be striving to use the scientific method as much as possible. They may not have a limited ability to design experiments, but it doesn't mean that they can't observe, hypothesize, experiment and reproduce. It's just that they're limited in what kinds of experiments they can perform.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 02 2015, @04:19PM
... as is the way of the SJWs they spawned.
May....those SJWs...is there anything they can't do!?!
Maybe more on-topic: Is there any conversation these boogeymen can't be crow-barred into?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 02 2015, @06:53PM
May....those SJWs...is there anything they can't do!?!
SJWs turned me into a newt!!!!
.
.
.
.
..
.
I got better.
And, experiments? In social sciences? Like economics? That is just called "policy", and there is no method to it, scientific or otherwise. A tiger? In Africa?
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 03 2015, @01:55AM
I know I'm getting sick of the SJWs on here and the other site, attacking SJWs. Perfect example upstream in this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:49AM
I know I'm getting sick of the SJWs on here and the other site, attacking SJWs.
Sorry to bother, but didn't you know? Well, obviously not, otherwise you would not make such a statement! I am more than happy to clear the entire matter up for you!
Point One: There are no SJWs. Never have been, never will. There are only people with intellect and good will who work for a better tomorrow. Now this threatens some AIJs (Anti-Social-Injustice-Jerks) and motivates them to come up with the "SJW" moniker in an attempt to label and deride. And by Jeeves, they have just got me to do the same! Oh, horsefeathers. Which leads to point two.
Point Two: Karl Rove. Large, obese, aged-out College Republican. You know the type. But he did learn something from history class, especially WWII history: Goebbel's "Big Lie" tactic. Basically, whenever your opponent tries to pin a label of derision upon you, you must make it a matter of pride, and own the insult. People thought George W was stupid, so he when full-bore with that, and then no one could attack him with that. (At least not until his younger and apparently less smarter brother attempted to run for President of the United States of Florida.) So you are sick the the SJWs attacking SJWs when there are no SJWs? I wonder what it is like to live in your world. Must be fun, except for that "being sick all the time" thing.