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: 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.