Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 02 2015, @07:33AM   Printer-friendly
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.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by bradley13 on Monday November 02 2015, @08:58AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Monday November 02 2015, @08:58AM (#257417) Homepage Journal

    Reproducible doesn't work so well for historical events, such as the birth of the universe

    Ah, but you didn't read his list correctly. First, you make observations (possibly of historical events). Then you form a theory. Using the theory, you make predictions.

    Your predictions are (obviously) not of historical events, but of future events. Then you observe what actually happens, see how well it matches your predictions, and correct your theory. Rinse and repeat.

    Granted, absolute reproducibility is only possible for future events that you can deliberately trigger under controlled circumstances. This is not possible for natural events (geology, astrophysics); one must make do with predictions for similar events (when will the next volcano erupt? When will the next supernova be ovserved?). However, we are still dealing with future events.

    Unfortunately, certain fields only pretend to use the scientific method, counting on general ignorance to give them a pass. In pseudo-sciences like sociology and psychology, the measurement of results is generally subjective. In other areas, predictions are made years or decades in the future, which effectively precludes verification; too many climate studies fall into this category.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Troll=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 02 2015, @11:52AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 02 2015, @11:52AM (#257437) Journal

    In pseudo-sciences like sociology and psychology, the measurement of results is generally subjective.

    What is your rigorous distinction between "pseudo" sciences and "real" science? You've already conceded that reproducibility isn't a requirement to be a science, because geologists cannot be seriously asked with predicting where the next continent will form. You give them a free pass on that sort of thing, but you hold the "pseudo" sciences to a higher standard especially when they do work at reproducibility.

    If you approach your subject matter like a scientist, postulating, experimenting, testing, and drawing conclusions from the results, and then sharing everything with your peers, isn't that the heart of the scientific method? Or is it impossible to deem something a science because it studies the "wrong" thing?

    So, it's possible for a person who studies the behavior of yak in the Siberian taiga to be called a scientist, ie. a biologist, but it's not possible to call another person who studies the behavior of a different animal, let's call them "humans," a scientist because. It's possible to call a person who studies how the human body's systems work a scientist, as in doctor, but as soon as you try to study how the human brain works, in its function as well as in its structure, then you forfeit the "real" scientist label because.

    "Real" scientists are real, because, and "pseudo" scientists are fake, because.

    Or are you glossing your political passions into a broad condemnation of fields of study because one of them once said something you don't like?

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NickFortune on Monday November 02 2015, @01:38PM

      by NickFortune (3267) on Monday November 02 2015, @01:38PM (#257478)

      The basic sequence of observe/theorise/test holds true.

      You may not be able to create a new planet to test your theories, but you can produce reproducible tests that would disprove your theories. Or make predictions that could be tested by data from other planets.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @03:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @03:28PM (#257529)

      "What is your rigorous distinction between "pseudo" sciences and "real" science?"

      In science people make observations, these are verified by others to ensure it is worth theorizing about. Then they come up with theories (explanations) for these observations and deduce mutually exclusive predictions from each theory and compare to new observations. If you fail to do any of those steps, it is pseudoscience.

      I will say, much of what is passed off as science today is pseudoscience according to this definition. At least in biomed, it is explicitly discouraged to attempt reproducing observations of others and the predictions are so vague (one group higher than the other group) that they are no good for distinguishing one explanation from the other.

      "You've already conceded that reproducibility isn't a requirement to be a science, because geologists cannot be seriously asked with predicting where the next continent will form."

      Where does this come from? I see it all the time but it makes no sense to me. We are talking about reproducibly making the observations, this has nothing to do with observational vs experimental evidence.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @09:29PM

        by Francis (5544) on Monday November 02 2015, @09:29PM (#257698)

        Allegedly the blue light from monitors causes macular degeneration. Never mind that the whole idea is ridiculous and that monitors haven't been in common use anywhere near long enough to make such a determination.

        People need to realize that medical doctors aren't scientists and have no idea how to design experiments. On top of that, the things you'd have to do to conduct science are mostly illegal or ethical violations. So you get ridiculous notions recommended with little or no research to back them up.