Talk:Scientific method/Archive 14

message: :(Please don't archive this section: it is a resurrecting issue, and a permanent pointer to discussion is useful)
Shouldn't this article begin with a The?  Has this debate already been had?  Isn't it, "The Scientific method is a body of techniques..."  Mathiastck 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right at the top of Archive 11, there is debate on the definite article The. --Ancheta Wis 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well I vote to include "The" next time :) Mathiastck 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My modest opinion: I disagree on "The". A laboratory experiment, a computer simulation, a theoretical model: all may be scientific but are far from using a unique and univocal method. One thing is to single out a body of criteria in order to define if a method of inquiry is scientific, and another is to say that there is only one such method. Also (but I might be wrong), I think there is an implicit usage in Wikipedia so as to use "The..." in reference to a book or a specific theory (e.g. "interpretation of dreams" and "The Interpretation of Dreams"). -- Typewritten 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques"
If this article is about a collection of methods, then the title should be Scientific methods. indil (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A redirect already exists. I personally oppose a page move. This article is referenced by thousands of other articles already, under its current title, and is well-known under its current name. A google search shows that the current title is referenced over 4 times more frequently than the plural. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The  

message: I came over from the Mathematics article. After reading both articles, I've come to a couple of conclusions. First the Mathematics article is very good. Not great because it is too wishy-washy on the Math=science thing. Second, here the Science thing appears to be designed by committee. Nothing I read in the article gives me any warm fuzzies except the beginning where it is mentioned that Science was equated with Knowledge a long time ago. 
I can only make two suggestions. Solve the Mathematics=Science problem by including mathematics here in the science definition. Have a definition that shows Mathematics and Logic are also part of science and sciences in themselves. 
Try to decide what it is that a scientist does differently from other forms of non-scientific searches. What is it that makes the scientific methods different, more reliable? Talk more about repeatability. 
In addition, it is my humble opinion that the Popper rules of falsifiability are use incorrectly by most, and it appears wrongly used here. The word confuses more people than it helps. What is described in the "falsifiability" section is testing/verification, and peer review. Since it is so difficult to nail down an understandable meaning for Poppers theories, it would be better to leave them for another section. The definition of scientific method doesn't need the word falsifiability. There are better ways to identify the methods of science, than using that confusing word. 
From what I can tell, scientists don't sit around striving to find a way for their theory to contain falsifiability. They instead look for connection and logic and other possible answers. They also look for consistency. They observe and record. They develop predictions from the data, and they test those predictions for consistency. It is important to make sure we note that a hypothesis or theory is developed from data, not a wild brainstorm and then see if the data can be fit to the theory. It isn't a theory until well tested from many directions. 
Botanists mostly just observe, record, organize, and identify. The idea that scientists use many methods is important. The idea that they use a subset for their particular field of science is also important. The idea that assumptions lead to reductions of potential study areas is also important. It is important to have enough variations in methods that failure to observe a phenomenon is not caused by failing to use a valid method. 
Just a beginning:
Science requires repeatability. Not in everything, but in the background if nothing else. 
Science requires verification. If happens in another way it is false, and no longer science/knowledge. 
Science requires a logically sound test procedure. A test must have more than one outcome. Falsified is only one possible outcome of the testing process.
Science requires recording of the event.
Science requires peer review. 
Scientific methods are developed to improve the reliability of data, theory, and our general understanding. 
Mathematics is repeatable, every time the induction is performed it comes out consistently the same. 
Mathematics is observable, without observing the logical steps in a poof, the proof isn't done. 
Mathematics is verifiable. After a proof, it does come out as explained.
Mathematics is logically sound, any test comes out the same, see repeatability.
Mathematics is recorded. 
Mathematics is always subjected to peer review. Errors are sometimes found at this stage. 
Mathematical methods are the reason science is more reliable. To explore/study those methods is a science in itself. 
Eric Norby 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric Norby, I have included George Polya's work in the article. --Ancheta Wis 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: See Demarcation problem, which deals with, or should deal with, the issues raised above. ... Kenosis 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a stodgy article! Sounds like it was written by a high-school science teacher. What do they know? Real science as practised by real scientists is more about playing around with things until something interesting turns up. Of course, a scientist has to prepare herself to recognise what is interesting. Well, to the good, this article will drive new people away from science and thereby keep the demand (and salaries up for real scientists like us. Cool!--MajorHazard 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Ed Poor, I have added material to the article which resembles your commentary. --Ancheta Wis 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redo the whole thing. 

message: Is it worth including evolution as an example? It stikes me as a pretty good case for the scientific method. 86.129.227.193 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: I suggested to merge the "Non-scientific" stub here. Two arguments: we don't write articles for adjectives and non-scientific method is nothing more than non-scientific method. Mukadderat 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose the merge. See the demarcation problem for separating science from non-science. The criterion for separating science from non-science need not be scientific method. For example, if someone holds myth more dearly than truth, there is no way that scientific method could work for him. --Ancheta Wis 08:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Nothing would be added by bringing the content here. Banno 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: This link is more about philosophy of science than about scientific method. I suggest reverting the link until more discussion on this talk page has taken place. --Ancheta Wis 08:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pathological science]]

message: it makes no mention about who came up with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:The quick answer is Galileo. But that would be an injustice to several thousand years of those who came before him. So it would be wrong to credit scientific method to a single 'who'.  --Ancheta Wis 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Why Start? Banno 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star class for rational scepticism 

message: A myth need not be true (although a myth can be true). "Observation and experiment are subject to a very popular myth. ... The knower is seen as a ... Julius Caesar winning his battles according to ... formula. Even research workers will admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were 'adjusted to the facts' ... until tradition, education, and familiarity have produced a readiness for stylized (that is directed and restricted) perception and action; until an answer becomes largely pre-formed in the question, and a decision confined merely to 'yes' or 'no' or perhaps to a numerical determination; until methods and apparatus automatically carry out the greatest part of the mental work for us." Fleck labels this thought style (Denkstil). Ludwik Fleck, p.84 of Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (written in German, 1935, Entstehung und Entwickelung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollectiv) 
Needham's Science and Civilisation in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed. 
There are other paintings with the incorrect flying horse observation.  This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that we see what we expect to observe, until shown otherwise. 
----
End of draft section for the article.
Comment invited. If it is OK with the community, I propose to put this draft as introduction to the article. --Ancheta Wis 10:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth and myth

message: Ancheta Wis, I appreciate your taking the incentive here. Thank you. Since there is now a section entitled "Introduction to scientific method", it enables the next steps towards considering a separate "main article" such as Introduction to scientific method. Such an article would make easier the task of the many youngsters that come in trying to get an idea. I have no verifiable evidence of this, but rather it's a supposition based on the repeated vandalism of the article in ways that I personally surmise are expressions of frustration for not coming away with an easy read that those readers can use to do whatever assignment happens to confront them. Note that the vandalism rate picks up significantly around the beginning of September. You have my gratitude for the investment of time and energy into the recent talk-page discussion and the just-implemented article edits. ... Kenosis 02:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, we can work together on this. {It was very suggestive to me that the un-named authors of an encyclopedia from 1000 years ago lived in the same city as Alhacen, a pioneer of scientific method. Sounds like Wikipedia, doesn't it?) --Ancheta Wis 09:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Kenosis, thank you. You are welcome to start the article; I will join in. --Ancheta Wis 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite welcome (and I apologize for the signing glitch awhile ago). I'll start making notes toward it. Perhaps in a couple weeks or so, I'll have something adequate to start off an article. I wouldn't want it put up for deletion at a very early stage of development. ... Kenosis 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions to the article

message: I'd like to request that this article be put into permanent semi-protection against anon-IP and newly registered users. The vandalism is quite frequent, presumably mostly from youngsters who find the material overly challenging, frustrating, or who are trying to find shortcuts for completing a school assignment and find it more suitable to play around with the article content than to stick to their work. The invonvenience of vandal patrol on this article, IMO, outweighs the occasional anon IP or new user who has offered useful contribution to this article. ... Kenosis 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Permanent isn't happening, but I'll semi for a bit to give everyone a break. FYI, you may wish to ask on WP:RFPP next time. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I undid the following contribution so that we might discuss it.
:"The "Scientific Method" is subtley different to applying Complexity Science as a thought method in the search for new insights. The contrast is seen best through the shift in study focus from the end point to the influential factors within the "system". It is a shift from developing a hypothesis to solve the question to a focus on experimenting to find drivers within the Complex Systems or the Complex Adaptive System. The search shifts from discovering a truth to exploring for the influential factors."
*One problem is that Scientific Method is not just thought. That certainly qualifies as part of each step, but action and its result is the crucial part especially in the Test/Experiment phase. Without action we cannot know what mattered in our search for understanding the Complex system.
*According to a lecture I heard in 1990 from Murray Gell-Mann, who innovated the study of Complex adaptive systems (CAS) and who was instrumental in funding its study at the Santa Fe Institute, one might concentrate on the minimal length message between agents in the CAS. Thus the focus might be on the interaction between agents. If it is necessary to characterize the agents because they are not yet well-enough known, then this effort would precede hypothesis development.
*By 'drivers' might you mean agents?
*By 'factors' might you mean behavioral factors which control the agents?
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I add the definition of agent which is buried in the history of the agent article: "An agent is an autonomous entity with an ontological commitment and agenda of its own. The term originated in philosophy. Each agent possesses the ability to act autonomously; this is an important distinction because a simple act of obedience to a command does not qualify an entity as an agent. An agent may interact or negotiate with its environment and/or with other agents. It may make decisions, such as whether to trust and whether to cooperate with others." --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To summarize: agents perform actions
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex adaptive systems 

message: The current content of the new section is history of science. But perhaps this new section might become part of the History section farther down the page, perhaps as a subsection. There is no mention of neo-Platonism, surprisingly. The Basra brotherhood which existed just about the time of Alhacen believed in neo-Platonism, as shown by the respective sections of their encyclopedia. And Alhacen lived in Basra. --Ancheta Wis 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the new section down, next to the history section. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: This section is poorly written, relies on questionable sources and is not even consistent with these sources, which in some cases are inconsistent with each other. For instance, one of the first claims is that Pythagoras "learnt his basic geometry from the Sulva Sutras of Budhayana in 800 BC". In fact, however, the notion that Pythagoras learnt anything from the Sulva Sutras, or was even aware of their existence, is not stated in either of the sources referred to. Moreover, the dating of the Sulva Sutras to "800 BC" is the extreme estimate: source [4] gives a range of 800 BC to 500 BC, whereas source [3] gives a range of 600 BC to 300 BC. As such, if these sources are taken at face value, it is far from certain that the relevant Sulva Sutras even predate the works of Pythagoras.
In addition to the dating issue, there is no suggestion in the sources cited that the Sulva Sutras contain mathematical proofs of the theorem, or are even concerned with the issue; they simply make use of the result in reference to religious rituals. Indeed, the author of source [4] writes, "no book on Hindu mathematics explains the system of axioms and postulates assumed", and merely speculates that the result used was not a product of "experience and measurement". This certainly brings the relevance of the Sulva Sutras into question in relation to the topic of scientific method. If the contributor of this section wishes to discuss the origins of Pythagoras' theorem, this article is not the place to do it.
The rest of the section appears to be equally shoddy, and I can see it has already been flagged for lack of citations. I suggest, rather, that the section be either deleted or completely rewritten. As it is now, the writing level in this section is well below that expected in an encyclopaedia, sources are not sufficiently cited, the section is not even faithful to the sources it does cite (which are themselves inconsistent and of questionable validity) and is arguably irrelevant to the article in any case. 80.251.195.2 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section labelled "Scientific method in ancient civilizations" should be considered for deletion