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This discussion has been archived.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: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @12:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @12:17PM (#257444)

    The scientific method is absolutely a myth. No better place has this been observed the past week than the fucking idiot Ted Cruz using the "scientific method" to basically deny the Sierra Club funding on global warming. Cruz redefines what constitutes as "science" (probably some racist Biblical interpretation) and then proceeded to deny the chairman of the SC from even talking. It's pathetic and borderline racist to watch (thanks Facebook for auto playing videos....maybe I should unfriend some of these conservative fucks in my life TBH).

    Anytime scientific method can be used to deny the global warming that we can observe on a daily basis (strongest hurricane on record anyone?), its a flawed methodology. We should probably move on to something more verifiable.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:14PM (#257555)

    Ah, and if a Nazi explained to you that killing at concentration camps was "ethical", then this would be a general flaw in ethics, rather than just a flaw in what that Nazi thinks is ethics?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 02 2015, @04:37PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 02 2015, @04:37PM (#257578) Journal
    Translation: I find the person whose opinions I respect the least and use that as my basis for thought. What could possibly go wrong?
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @09:22PM

    by Francis (5544) on Monday November 02 2015, @09:22PM (#257693)

    If you're using the scientific method, then it's science. That doesn't mean that it's good science or that the results will be useful. You could engage in Phrenological research and still be conducting science. In that case you'd eventually discover that there was no demonstrable merit in it and abandon it. But, you'd still be engaging in scientific research.

    In the case of Sen., Cruz, that's a problem of ethics, you can engage in the scientific method and still be unethical. As in you deliberately make choices and decisions that push the results towards the result you want. It's bad science and it's unethical, but up to a point it's still science.