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