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: 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]