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, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Monday November 02 2015, @09:30AM
I first read the comments about the article, then I read the article. It seems that so far the comments are reactionary, missing the point of the article. Nowhere did it say the scientific method is bunk, or incorrect, but that it has achieved the level of mythology. We at SN being more science oriented in general are able to differentiate and stick up for the ideal of "the scientific method". However, the general populace is not scientifically literate, and all sorts of garbage are being distributed as TRUTH because they "use the scientific method". It is this that is the problem, science coopted to deliver propaganda. Reinforce an emotional position with the backing of science, unite the two sides of the human brain with lies and you have an army of believers near impossible yo sway. The article is legit, the scientific method varies greatly from discipline to discipline, though the middle school basics are generally solid.
PS: you are only truly free when you areable to question your own worldview.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Monday November 02 2015, @09:43AM
All I see is strawman arguments. First, the summary is completely beside the point, e.g. "... none of which is really all that uniquely scientific": nobody is claiming that, and more over again. Second, there is simply no universally agreed upon definition of the "scientific method", so no need or way to criticize any particular one. Third, if someone uses "based on the scientific method" as an argument that is certainly unscientific.
Most research is flawed (another word of saying wrong). The press (including SN) makes preposterous claims about scientific findings and certainly uses "scientific method" to mean something that can bolster claims. All that has not prevented science to progress and flourish. Nobody within science mentions or uses "scientific method" in papers unless doing research about research.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:28AM
Yours is the voice of logic and reason. The part of the article I liked was how it pointed out that science is becoming a religion of sorts. Whether you like it or not, the general populace has a middle school level understanding of science which peaks with the phrase "scientific method". Use that phrase and get an immediate boost to legitimacy, deserved or not.
~Tilting at windmills~