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.]
Related Stories
Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser write in the NYT that two leading researchers, George Ellis and Joseph Silk, recently published a controversial piece called "Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics" that criticized a newfound willingness among some scientists to explicitly set aside the need for experimental confirmation of today's most ambitious cosmic theories — so long as those theories are "sufficiently elegant and explanatory." Whether or not you agree with them, Ellis and Silk have identified a mounting concern in fundamental physics: Today, our most ambitious science can seem at odds with the empirical methodology that has historically given physics its credibility:
Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts. These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.
Richard Dawid argues that physics, or at least parts of it, are about to enter an era of post-empirical science. "How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally?" ask Frank and Gleiser. "Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?"
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @07:45AM
Science is basically just accounting to find the simplest model (explanation) that matches reality. We hopefully get new models and new observations over time to re-test all candidates. For economics's sake, we spend most testing on the top candidates.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @07:51AM
Much has been written about this by Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method [wikipedia.org]
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3629717.html [uchicago.edu]
Personally I suspect much of the confusion over the scientific method is caused by pseudoscience being allowed to pass as science for whatever social/political reasons of the day. My opinion on this issue is not yet mature though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @05:00PM
If we stop calling "cultural anthropology" science this problem will go away.
Fields called scientific or that train students at Universities or Colleges of Science do in fact follow or claim to follow a set of specific practices, the scientific method being the key one. This process is observing, creating testable hypotheses and trying to reject them through testing. If you aren't doing that then you by definition aren't doing science anymore. A lot of debate happens concerning what is and is not a valid test, but the process is generally followed.
Some sciences, such as botany and biology, spend a lot of time on cladistics, the observing part of the process. Theoretical physics focuses on the hypotheses part. Experimental physics focuses on the test part.
One part of this is that a person working as a scientist brings a set of observations and hypothesis to their work. Science doesn't just start from a blank clipboard in a lab at 8am on Monday. For instance, your question is a central part of any masters or doctorate program in graduate studies. The Scientific Method helps winnow which hypothesis are not true and leave everyone with a better idea of what, where, how and why the world works. Papers generally elaborate and speculate about (bullshit on) the import of the successful - least failing - ideas tested. But these ideas are still tested.
Reading recent cultural anthropology papers leads me to think that someone is focusing on the bullshit part and forget about the test part.
Aside from Ron L. Hubbard's work, what would Experimental Cultural Anthropology even look like?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday November 02 2015, @07:07PM
Experimental Cultural Anthropoligy would be immoral, but it could, in principle, be the same sort of science as AstroPhysics or Paleontology. The problem is that people don't merely observed, but are observed to be observing, so you get the kind of problems that Quantum Physics has to deal with combined with the lack of ability to do experiments that AstroPhysics has.
That said, if you pronounce with certainty without having extensively confirmed hypotheses after formulating them, then you don't count as a science. The heart of science is observational confirmation or refuation of hypothesis AFTER the formulation of the hypothesis.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Monday November 02 2015, @08:05AM
Ah, I see the Critical Theorists are attacking the methods of Science directly now.
Ignore TFA, it's is more Frankfurt School style critique with no substance or alternatives offered, as is the way of the SJWs they spawned.
But! It's an excerpt from the Harvard University Press you say? Isn't Harvard a fine upstanding institution? Or, no, you mean the Bait and Switch Harvard? [youtube.com] Ah, yes, that's the one.
Our old gods are dead and no place is sacred anymore.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:59AM
Harvard and their buddies, the breeding ground of fascist SJWs and haters of free speech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Monday November 02 2015, @02:39PM
Yeah, pretty much. The reason they're pushing for the abolishment of the scientific method is because "soft sciences" (the humanities) like social science and culture studies can't reproduce their experiments. They want the prestige of being "sciences", but anyone with any REAL background in science won't take them serious because they don't follow the scientific method. Solution: do away with the scientific method. Then they're free to make whatever bias observations they want without having to have a reproducible experiment.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @09:17PM
I think that's the problem, science shouldn't be prestigious because it's science. Science should be prestigious because of all the things it's done for us, not because it's been labeled as prestigious. Same goes for art. I've never met an artist that got offended for not being called a science.
I fail to see why obvious non-science like psychology, sociology or anthropology should be called science just to appease people that are being overly sensitive. Not being labeled as science doesn't make the pursuits any less worthwhile. If they want to be science, then they need to be striving to use the scientific method as much as possible. They may not have a limited ability to design experiments, but it doesn't mean that they can't observe, hypothesize, experiment and reproduce. It's just that they're limited in what kinds of experiments they can perform.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 02 2015, @04:19PM
... as is the way of the SJWs they spawned.
May....those SJWs...is there anything they can't do!?!
Maybe more on-topic: Is there any conversation these boogeymen can't be crow-barred into?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday November 02 2015, @06:53PM
May....those SJWs...is there anything they can't do!?!
SJWs turned me into a newt!!!!
.
.
.
.
..
.
I got better.
And, experiments? In social sciences? Like economics? That is just called "policy", and there is no method to it, scientific or otherwise. A tiger? In Africa?
(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.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:18AM
Scientific Method:
1) Make observations[a]
2) Abduce explanations for the observations
3) Deduce predictions from your explanations[b]
4) Collect new observations and compare to predictions
That's pretty much it, however to be convincing:
[a] These observations needs to be stable and reproducible by other people/groups
[b] These predictions need to be precise enough so that the multiple possible explanations can be distinguished from each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:21AM
Reproducible doesn't work so well for historical events, such as the birth of the universe. Reproducability is a nice bonus, but not a prerequisite for science.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday November 02 2015, @08:29AM
The event may not be reproducible, but the observation is. Everyone can put up an antenna and observe the microwave background of the universe, as often as he wants. Everyone can get a telescope and determine the distribution of galaxies, as often as he wants. And so on.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Troll) by bradley13 on Monday November 02 2015, @08:58AM
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 02 2015, @11:52AM
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
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
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.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 02 2015, @04:21PM
News at 11!! The caricature version of the scientific method you learned in grade school doesn't fully explain the naunces of modern experimental science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:38PM
Nuances or BS of "modern science"? I agree that people have been deviating from the scientific method, I disagree that this is legitimate. Instead it is a huge mistake.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday November 03 2015, @02:10AM
adduce
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:45AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday November 02 2015, @08:25AM
The scientific method is not a myth. It's an ideal to strive for. Saying that the scientific method is a myth is like saying that ethics is a myth, pointing at the fact that probably no one ever has always acted ethical, that there are many people that act blatantly unethical, and that different people disagree on what exactly is ethical behaviour.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @12:17PM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:14PM
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
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Monday November 02 2015, @09:22PM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:26PM
Plainly, as someone that has a degree in the field, you do not know what ethics is. Firstly, it is a process, not a product. Secondly, everyone "acts ethically" whenever a choice must be made whose outcome can't be reliably tested. Finally, ethics is the study of applying reason to subjectivity for superior outcomes. There is little to no objectivity possible. That is what makes it ethics and not something else. There is no "either you are being ethical or you aren't" dichotomy. That does not exist. It is a non-thought to say someone did not act ethically. Within acceptable ethical standards given a context perhaps, but non-ethical? Impossible.
(Score: 3, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 02 2015, @08:36AM
...but I can't prove that.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @08:39AM
What a load of sensationalist claptrap. This almost ranks up there with creationism & climate change denial. "Scientific method a myth! We've all been mislead! We need to go back to worshiping golden calves!"
Sorry, the scientific method is real. It exists. Less clickbait, pls.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @12:28PM
You are probably a spiritualism denier aren't you?
(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~
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday November 02 2015, @09:31AM
In mathematics one can provide a theorem but only with respect to the postulates and rules of inference of the system within which that theorem holds true.
The best you can do is falsify a bad theory.
If a theory seems to be true the best you can do is gain a certain confidence, by falsifying all the competing theories but it happens from time to time that "accepted" theories are falsified. For example Newton proved Kepler wrong, in that the orbits of the planets aren't really ellipses, because all the planets exert gravity on each other. Actually planetary orbits are subtly complex.
Finally, scientists don't study the scientific method. That's what philosophers of science do. It is quite uncommon for scientists to even know much about the philosophy of science.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @04:35PM
Not really possible. The negation of a conjunction only tells you that some element is false. You always have to make some auxiliary assumptions when testing a theory (such as that the equipment is functioning properly), it may be one of those that are incorrect rather than the theory.
The modus tollens logic:
(T & A) -> O
~0 -> (~T | ~A)
Theory T and assumptions A entail observation O. Not observation O entails either not T or not A. Usually A will consist of a set of assumptions and it will be impractical to check all of them. So, in practice, science cannot prove nor disprove a theory. What it can do is fail to disprove a theory despite _severe_ testing, which means the theory must be making useful predictions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday November 02 2015, @10:24PM
Kepler obtained the data to which his Kepler's Law was quite a good fit by timing star and planet transits with, more or less, a gunsight, a grandfather clock and his naked eyes.
Suppose I bought a decent spotting telescope at walmart, used my iPhone as the timer - its clock ultimately derives from an atomic clock - with a vernier on the protractor used to measure the altitude of the transit?
I expect that all by itself, over the course of five years or so, would produce data of such precision that it would demonstrate that the planetary orbits are not ellipses.
Newton derived his Law of Gravity from Kepler's Law by assuming that the planets don't exert any force on each other - that only the sun gravitates with the planets, and that the earth and moon only gravitate with each other.
Newton knew very well that simplifying assumption was false but Kepler's Data was inaccurate enough that one could neglect interplanetary gravity.
There are some aspects of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which have not been tested. Every test we try produces data that fits the theory but there are some tests that are difficult to perform because they require spacecraft, huge masses and the like. So there is still _some_ possibility that Einstein was incorrect.
That is, we do not know that Einstein got it right, the best we can say is that we do not know that he got it wrong.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 03 2015, @06:57AM
Well, get your mind out of the gutter and quit obsessing over T&A!
Nice trick with the disjunction in the antecedent. Won't save you, though, from the confirmation bias of a Modus Ponens! Aha! Have at thee!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @11:09PM
The idea that science is valid is not scientific
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2015, @02:59PM
It is really interesting when the central thesis of your paper is devastated by Wikipedia (the first hit on Google).
"The scientific method isn't real because no one can really describe it."
Well they can. It is fairly simple.
Impressive job Discover!