Talk:Scientific method/Archive 11

message: I don't think the linked texts disagree much with how "Scientific method" currently describes what is done in science. They all agree that experiments, in broad sense, are essential to science. Not every scientist does experiments, but all depend on them. They also mention the provisional character of scientific theories and the constant reevaluation. 
But they don't agree that this constitutes a method. A method often is used for an algorithm, people can follow without thinking. This is certainly not the case for the "scientific method". 
Using "a scientific method" is also misleading, as it suggests the content of this page does not apply to all sciences. But with the broad definition of an experiment, it does apply to anything I would consider science (as Ancheta Wis pointed out in  #Proposed change.)
I therefore suggest changing the title of this page to "(The) Scientific Methodology". Markus Schmaus 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodology?

message: I hope I'm not speaking out of turn if I say that this article is absolutely crucial to a number of pages in Wikipedia.  It needs to be snappy, understandable, and reliable - in sympathy with Carl Sagan I believe that making this page accessible to the general public will allow a greater understanding of what science is and what scientists do.  Please remember the NPOV Tutorial if you're new to Wikipedia (like me)... and keep up the good work everybody.  Nof20 05:27, 29 Jan 05 (UTC)
:Agree entirely, but the history of the article (see archives refereced above) suggest that the topic is one on which <faith, social, political, ideological, ...: take your pick> are so firly and urgently held that this outcome is unlikely. Given that WP is committed to the policy of wide and unrestricted access, each of those will have an effect on articles. Since this one is, as you suggest intellectually central to anything such as WP, I fear we are stuck with the current situation, however unsatisfactory. A review of as much history as you can get too will show folks appearing, making many edits, and then disapearing. Much of this is likely due to exhaustion. One side has, like a legendary Russian diplomat, an iron ass and can out last just about anyone. I wish I could suggest a solution. ww 23:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of this article 

message: Scientific Method in Religious Practice
Many years ago Yogananda sayd: "My Yoga is Science".
Yoga — Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin word “relig-ion”, which means “link with God”, “methods of ad-vancement to Him”, “Mergence” of a person with God. One may speak of yoga: 
a) as of the Path and the methods of religious advancement and 
b) as of the state of Union with God (in the latter case the first letter of this word is capitalized).
This method can be developed as science.
Religion and science have contradictions only in human mind.
I have restored this link in article.
see also: http://www.swami-center.org
:Skywalker, I was going to move your link that you just restored to the scientific method article when I saw that you have already done so on this talk page. It is good that you are explaining more of the rationale for the link. Please discuss the link and its logic on this talk page first. Note that you can sign your name with ~~~~ , and it would be good to log-in when you work on Wikipedia. I will wait for some discussion with you on this talk page, or elsewhere. If, after some interval, the statements in the linked page cannot be justified, please do not be disappointed if some other editor moves that link to another location. This scientific method article is heavily referenced by others. Ancheta Wis 11:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Method in Religious Practice 

message: Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.
It's not clear what this sentence is trying to say, since neither "Question" nor "Observation" are in the preceding description of the scientific method.
:Agreed. Removed it. -Vsmith 22:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "Question" and "Observation" are part of the Scientific method#Characterization (first) step, in which a questioning, inquiring mind is engaged in a subject. The Teachers using inquiry ... sentence touches on an educational process which attempts to instill this critical facility into students who might not necessarily have enough mental background to be active questioners (inquirers). When these steps are integrated into a whole, then this may add to the students' mental equipment. Before jumping to the conclusion that observation is not part of the first step, try reading the rest of the article. Thus an active questioning mind is a prerequisite to the scientific method. Thank you for raising the question; however, it would be good to discuss how the sentence might be re-integrated into the article. One possibility is as a  footnote. Ancheta Wis 01:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase could and probably should be inserted in a better place in the article in a modified form - but, it was out of place where it was. The substitution of question for observation is in error. Obervation must precede any questioning, cannot just leave it out - no observation, nothing to question. Observing, questioning, measuring or characterizing are essential to the method. -Vsmith 01:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Categorical statements that use the words always or never are welcome additions to our knowledge, but should be used with care. A test or an experiment is a comparison of an expectation with an observation. Thus it is possible to have an astronomical experiment. All that is required is that something be unknown first. When we think we know enough to be able to predict something, that is an expectation. If we then make an observation for that something, that combination of expectation and observation qualifies as an experiment.
The list of unsolved problems in the sciences  is long;   It often takes researchers considerable time to characterize some aspect of their chosen problem. Here is an example, from astronomy, our first science:  the cause  of the rotation rate of some galaxies is currently unknown, with the best guess being a putative concept, dark matter. But if dark matter can then explain the rotation rate of the galaxies, then a brave-enough researcher can make a prediction. An experiment can then be designed and then performed.
In other words, I disagree with the categorical statement 
*In observation-based fields of science, actual experiments are never performed ...
The Hubble Space Telescope is an observatory which has had many experimental projects, for example, even providing the venue for experimental corroboration for the hypothesis of dark matter.
We should probably re-phrase some of the latest edits to the article. Ancheta Wis 14:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Never is gone. Vsmith 02:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never 

message: The newest addition under reevaluation has a nice link to the Exchange particles of Gravitation x The Standard Model. If it is alright with everyone, I propose moving the link to the Standard Model and appending it there, with an attendant link to that article on this page. Is that alright? That means the hypothesized Graviton and the well-founded Photon, Gluon, and the W's and Z will sit together as they are thought to sit. My reason is that this item under Reevaluation is simply an iteration and recursion of the Scientific Method, where the hypothetical items are the relationship of the Graviton, Photon, W's and Z, and the Gluons. It's physics, alright, but it belongs on a physics page rather than the General Interest page for the Scientific Method, what with the Gluons and Gravitons and all. The link is actually a nice summary of the Standard Model + Gravitation. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Go for it.SMesser 17:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Link transferred here. Ancheta Wis 18:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messenger particles / exchange particles 

message: Current                                                                                                                                                             	Comment
Science deals with assertions about the way the world is, in the form of theories, hypotheses or observations.                                                      	Theory, at least as used in physics, overlaps both hypothesis and observation. That confuses the usage. Hypothesis is a possible explanation about an unknown, before the experiment. Hypothesis is raw guess, unsupported until more evidence can be amassed, from any direction. Hypothesis is flimsier than theory, but its frailty is also a strength, because it easily can become theory with more evidence from observation, from mathematics, etc. My favorite example is the scientist who realized that Salmon might return from the ocean to their streams using their sense of smell, as he smelled the environment near a waterfall. It took him years to prove that realization. If you were to strike the word theory, I would agree with the sentence. If you were to replace hypothesis with guess I would not disagree, but probably the sentence would not survive in Wikipedia.
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment.  If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory remains.                                      	Agree, if the word theories is replaced by hypotheses, or guesses. There are several parts: 1)If a problem is understood well enough to posit a prediction, that is a major advance. 2)That is different from actually testing the prediction with an experiment. For example, there are not any currently known ways to currently test string theory because we don't operate at the huge energies, high temperatures or tiny time scales needed for our current understanding of string theory. Or maybe we don't know enough mathematics. If the hypothesis survives, then it is theory, so I don't disagree with the second occurrence. Thus I might have phrased it Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment.  If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives.
If the prediction is shown to be wrong, then the theory must be wrong.                                                                                              	Actually, the defect might be anywhere along the chain: in theory, in observation, in experiment design, in experiment process, in basic definition, etc.
Any theory which makes predictions can be tested scientifically in this way.                                                                                        	Agree
The idea is that these methods underlie the practice of science, enabling it to determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true.                     	Agree
For short, use POHDECC (Problem, Observation, Hypothesis, Deduction, Experiment, Conclusion, and Communicate).                                                      	this is a summary mnemonic
This method is essentially an extremely conservative approach towards building a supportable, evidenced understanding of the various aspects of the world around us.	Perhaps replace the word conservative with the word cautious
end of Current Comment Ancheta Wis 11:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current comment 

message: By attempting to summarise too much, the intro now says nothing intelligible.Banno
From the first para: "Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations". Science manages? What does that mean?  Banno
The assertion "if a prediction fails the theory fails" is simply wrong. Banno
"Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way." So if a theory makes predictions that are not verified, it is not a scientific theory? Come again? Did the author mean potently verifiable? if so, what about falsifiability? Banno
"With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true." Do you really want to assert that science is determinate? Then you had better re-write the section reevaluation. Also implicit in this sentence is the idea that only scientific facts are true, which is cobblers. Banno 11:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
===Reconstruction===
Current                                                                                                                                                      	Proposed
Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations.                                                                  	Scientists propose new assertions about our world with theories: observations, hypotheses, deductions and tests.
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails.	Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives.
Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way.                                              	Any theory which is cogent enough to make falsifiable predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way.
These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true.                	
The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.                            	
Note: Please improve or comment as you see fit. Ancheta Wis 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science manages... 

message: Current                                                                                                                                                      	Proposed
Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations.                                                                  	Scientists propose new assertions about our world with theories: observations, hypotheses, deductions and tests.
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails.	Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives.
Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way.                                              	Any theory which is cogent enough to make falsifiable predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way.
These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true.                	
The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.                            	
Note: Please improve or comment as you see fit. Ancheta Wis 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstruction

message: Acrotatus, the article on scientific method is not an article about the content of the laws of science. It is commentary about the methods of science; how some logical predicate relates to some other logical predicate. Multiple contributors have added content to the initial paragraphs of this article, which are taken, expanded into articles of their own, and which live in peace there. I personally like your comments about a certain characteristic of the laws of mechanics, which were first observed by Galileo. The current mathematical statements in the articles about invariants under transformation would be improved for general consumption if you were to put your statements there. I have to state, that the invariants have a long history dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks, and that physicists are attached to them. However, the mathematicians, who have a claim to the invariants themselves, are finding that some pet ideas, such as conservation of energy, do not necessarily hold in a gravitational field. This finding, by David Hilbert, 1915 has not set well with others, who have found some expressions (involving pseudotensors) that can still be called invariants. If you like, we could transfer your work to a section of the physics articles. We could work together on this. For example, we could put your statements in the variational principle article. 
Other possibilities: Galileo's principle, physical law ...
But the invariants, as a concept, may not be well-founded, even though they have a long tradition in science. And if that were to be the case (if some experiment were to prove that energy is not conserved in a strong gravitational field, for example), then even the invariants would be history, according to the principles of the scientific method.
One of the ways that this could be accomplished might be to insert your comments into a /Invariants subpage. We could work on them there and discuss exactly where to put them in an appropriate article.
:Agathocles of B., I call your attention to the Equivalence principle where your thoughts about covariance are in play. You are not alone in your thinking, but please refrain from further breaching experiments on this page. Ancheta Wis 11:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covariant laws 

message: To the contributor of the final sentence of the lead paragraph:
:"The scientific method is essentially a means of building support for a certain hypotheses through evidence."
If a researcher seeks to confirm a hypothesis H, one way to do it is by assuming some opposite hypothesis (or null hypothesis) Ň, and then seeking to disprove Ň. If the Ň was disproven, then H survives, but only as another possibility. There are errors (Type I error and Type II error, as examples) for which the researcher must be vigilant.
The previous ending sentence for the lead paragraph was stronger, because all this sentence does is leave the door open for H, Ň, or other possible hypotheses. Thus the need for evidence; the sentence does not state the role for some consequent prediction (some logical consequence of H) which would bolster the case for H, or disprove Ň etc.
Can you reply here, or better, rework the sentence? Ancheta Wis 10:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of the final sentence of the lead paragraph 

message: I can't see any benefit in the new intro - it is ungrammatical; presumptive in treating maths as a non-empirical science and insulting to biology. A chance for comments before I revert... Banno 21:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Feel free.  Guettarda 23:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say revert, it is rather insulting to biology and math is a different critter. Vsmith 23:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert new intro? 

message: So as not to enable this type of Trolling behavior. Please insert the related materials on the referenced sub page. We don't need it as part of the Talk page for the article. Thank you Ancheta Wis 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[/Headless chicken]]

message: Moved the following from article for discussion:
:I wish to suggest another sequence of steps for the scientific method. They are;
::1. observation
::2. theory creation
::3. hypothesis or prediction
::4. experimentation or testing the hypothesis (which is more observation)
::5 accept or reject hypothesis. Acceptance supports the theory, rejection does not support the theory
:The difference between theory and hypothesis is that theory can be modified (it may also be rejected) but hypothesis can only be accepted or rejected.
:A theory is not tested but is supported or not supported by numerous observations.
:An hypothesis is tested and the result either supports or does not support the theory.
:Theories are explanations of how the universe works which are supported by large amounts of observation.
:e.g. Newton's Gravity
:Hypothesis are narrower statements which are designed to be consistent with a theory and are testable
:e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow
:There are several cycles in the scientific method with suttle differences
:1. observation > theory modification > observation >theory modification
:2. hypothesis creation > experiment or testing > acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis >new hypothesis creation > testing >
:There seems to be confusion between theory and hypothesis. The meanings are similar but suttley different. Any comments?
:This is the first time I have edited Wikipedia. So please excuse me if I get the process wrong. I can be contacted at thelash@optusnet.com.au
Posted by User:203.164.197.187
Modified format a bit when I moved to talk. -Vsmith 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from article

message: I will revert the last edit that reads:
"Scientists use observations, hypotheses ... to propose adequate explanations for natural phenomena ..."
and
"The scientific method is [a] means of continually building a supportable evidenced understanding of our natural world."
The highlighted words were added, the first of which I disagree with. The text now seems to say that scientists are satisfied with adequate explanations.  I suspect that this is not what was meant. If there is an alternative reading, I suggest we make it clearer.
The second word I will remove because it only adds length to the sentence and not much else. Chris 23:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert NPOV edits 

message: The description of Bacon's method I introduced neglects any discussion of induction. Here's the text I used in case anyone else feels like writing about it: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm Chris 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I included Aphorism XIX. Ancheta Wis 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon's method 

message: The article is getting long. I'm just going to cut out what I think is least interesting and we'll see how it goes from there. Chris 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about pushing items into main articles? Ancheta Wis 08:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like the Descartes and Newton quotes properly belong in Wikisource. But it would be good to be able to bounce back and forth to them in support of the SM article. Ancheta Wis 08:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a trim 

message: It would be good to get an image of picture 51, to illustrate the DNA/experiment portion of the article. Ancheta Wis 11:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Markus, thank you for the better picture of perihelion advance!! Ancheta Wis 16:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures for photo 51 and for perihelion advance 

message: I found the DNA example that runs through part of the article to be confusing when I skimmed through the article. I think the problem is that it uses the same subhead level, whereas it needs something else to set it apart, though I'm not sure exactly what. If you're not reading carefully and you miss the first DNA bit, the rest of the bits look out of place. --Lee Hunter 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try a back button at each location to set the context. Ancheta Wis 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA example needs different presentation