Talk:Scientific method/Archive 12

message: The current DNA picture looks good large but is not made for an icon. What do you think about ? Markus Schmaus 13:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, for one; would you like to do the replacement? I could, if you would like, but please feel free to do so. Any other editor's thoughts? Ancheta Wis 15:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA icon 

message: This article is great from a philosophical point of view, but there are some major points missing. Not all problems can be solved with the scientific method, especially areas of science that rely on historical evidence (geology for instance). It is not always possible to test hypotheses through experimentation. In some cases you are solving a problem by searching for evidence and so-called smoking guns. Plate tectonics is a very good example of this. I would like to see this POV added, I have seen a couple of articled in the scientific literature addressing it, but figured I'd mention it here first for some suggestions. --24.137.104.16 03:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, for example, the overviews in history of science. The topics of discussion in a scientific community might require several lines of evidence, which, when taken together, can be then explained by a single mechanism. As you point out, plate tectonics is an example cited in the history of science#Geology, where continental drift was not taken seriously until the discovery of seafloor spreading. Since it took observation, hypothesis, etc. to see this, one might argue that the scientific method actually does cover this case. Have you considered inverting the argument? I number the steps of the scientific method per the article -- Step 1 considers the lines of evidence: someone in the present considering events that have occurred in the past (and present). Step 2 is a generalization, the statement of a timeless relation which may or may not be true. Step 3 takes the point of view of a time (which may or may not be in the future) in which something from step 2 is true. Step 4 then looks for mechanism/actual happenstance -- in other words, step 3 "talks" (from the future) to something in the present -- step 4 (the past, from the point of view of someone thinking in terms of steps 2 and 3).  Ancheta Wis 08:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific method cannot always be used in science? 

message: Today's additions by 139.55.28.254 appear to be copied nearly verbatim from http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/science.htm. I will revert to last version by User:Markus Schmaus. Edwardian 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: Unfortunately, we need to talk about this large change to the article, which has attained an equilibrium for several seasons of a year, now. If we are to now augment the article with some other considerations, such as the relationship of a specific researcher to the larger community or to specific segments of the scientific community, then we need to talk to this point. But a characterization of a specific scientific result as Good or Bad is a judgement which necessarily involves a protocol. Otherwise, the judgement lies outside of the method itself. Based on the considerations of the method, I have reverted. Ancheta Wis 22:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good/Bad Science 

message: Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice URL

message: An engineer has formulated a theory of cognition and created a class of predictions for his theory. He is trying to build an intelligent machine. Ancheta Wis 00:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions for a theory of cognition

message: I filed an article RFC on the Methodological naturalism article. You can read the issue here. Essentially, the question is whether or not the scientific method is an example of methodological naturalism (MN) or methodological supernaturalism (MS). Since it involves the Scientific Method, I thought I'd post something here hoping to get someone who knows the topic. Does the scientific method allow for supernatural investigations and causes? Your input would be appreciated. FuelWagon 17:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, seriously, does the scientific method use supernatural methods? Your input would be appreciated. FuelWagon 18:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodological Naturalism

message: openning sentence: 'Scientific methods or processes', perhaps a matter of fine semantics; but, are methods processes? To me, a method is a procedure or algorithm describing or defining a process. It becomes an instance of a 'process' when it is put into action. i.e. A process is the execution of a method. Too fine of a distinction?
:Method is usually under the control of a single person (or mind). Process moves out control from the aegis of single persons, and allows things to play out in real-time without micro-management by a single person (or mind). Ancheta Wis 03:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, process takes up time and occupies space; method is more abstract. 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Mtthod has a more general meaning in the philosophy of science, e.g. see Feyerabend#Work_regarding_the_nature_of_scientific_method.--Carl Hewitt 04:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  openning sentence: 'Scientific methods or processes', a matter of semantics 

message: 7. Scientific method and the practice of science
     needs such extensive rework that my suggestion is to delete it.
  Since it only says that publishing and $$ are necesary to practice
  science, it says either too much or too little.  Furthermore the
  entire last paragraph gives great weight to the complaints of 
  the fringers.  So please simply remove the section for now.
8. Quotations
     This quotation, from a play, is entirely inappropriate.  I
   suggest replacing it with a quotation from an actual scientist,
   for example, Sir Issac Newton's quotation about "one man or age".
David B. Benson <dbenson@eecs.wsu.edu>
134.121.64.253 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 7 and 8 

message: I feel that the either a separate History article should be established or the History section of this article should be fleshed out.  Major contributions by those such as DesCartes should receive mention.  The Jade Knight 07:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karol has already created history of the scientific method. You are welcome to contribute to that article. --Ancheta Wis 11:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hello. It seems this page is almost entirely dedicated to explain science as the study of natural phenomena. I would be very interested in knowing what the community of editors of this page thinks of non natural physical phenomena... Let me please explain what I mean by giving you the prototype of a non natural physical phenomenon: a computation. It obeys physical rules, yet it is human crafted: computations (typically) occure inside of physical systems which are man crafted (typically, computers). (Other examples can be thought of, like the study of chemical components which do not exist in nature).
This brings a second question. Computer science (CS), or at least (depending on the acception of CS) scientific aspects of CS can arguably be defined as the study of computations. How doese CS fit into the scientific method? It is (IMHO) very much like mathematics, however it differs in the sense that it studies a physical phenomenon: computations, and that empirical approaches are also used. It probably differs from physics in the sense that the border line between the science (computer science in this case), and technology is much more fuzzy (and, of course, in the fact that the physical phenonenon is non natural...).
I think that the definition of the scientific method tries to capture the essence of scientific practise. Computer science, as I see it, is the newest science. From my POV, the question is not wether CS is a science or not in the sense that it would or would not follow the scientific method. I see CS as a science, and the question is: is the definition of the scientific method up to date? (and therefore doese it captures CS practise?), or doese it need to be adapted in order to aknowledge its failure to capture the fact that CS is a science.
From what I see of this page, and in my opinion, the definition of the scientific method needs updating in order to ackowledge the fact that it misses computer science. (It may also bring an interesting perspective on the question of wether mathematics are a science or not since it seems to me CS is somehow in between physics and mathematics...(So I say informally)). 
Do you feel my POV is widely accepted enough to be cited in the article, or yield minor modifications to it? Or is it a POV which (if pushed further) may well belong to an encyclpedia one day, but which needs to succeed in going through an "original research phase"  first?
I am only an amateur phylosopher of sciences, so I am very intersted in the POV of wiser wikipedians on this subject.
best regards: --Powo 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Study of man-made phenomena such as A New Kind of Science does not fall outside of the natural world. Humans and everything we do is part of the physical world. People like E. O. Wilson advocate the idea that all of human knowledge has a natural unity. --JWSchmidt 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JWSchmidt is correct - "natural" in this (scientific) sense, means "not supernatural". We can explain computers, we can see them. God and Miracles and the like are not "natural" but computers are "natural". KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about non natural physical phenomena? Is this not science? 

message: I am cutting out a chunk of badly-formatted content someone added recently to Science#Scientific method. I guess someone could scrap some material onto this page, if useful, although I notice some of the content overlaps and is contradictory... Karol 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrapping scientific method section from [[Science]] article 

message: JA: I am getting this strange sense of deja vu all over again, so I think I will recycle the title that I used for this sort of investigation all through my share of the last millennium.  I have resolved to do more production, less discussion this year, but still this question of method tugs at the edge of my attention.  So maybe I will just widen the horizon a bit and address some of the issues that I know about, especially ones that have been widely discussed over the years of my acquaintance, as much of this discussion already rounds up all the usual suspects and begins to fall into all the usual ruts, and I won't worry so much about the nits that can be picked out of the introduction.
JA: I doubt if the "screened off bodies of thought" (SOBOT's) are really so diverse and numerous as to defy all description, and it does seem like it's our job to describe all sorts of diverse and numerous things, which folks here go about with notorious avidity, so I'm guessing that there's some other kind of resistance involved in the avoidity thereof.
JA: A good start could be made in very broad brush strokes.  This is not the philosophy of science article, but it needs to coordinate with it in a sensible way.  In that article we need to sort out the working philosophies -- the not always fully articulated philosophies in practice of the reflective practitioners -- from the vicarious philosophies of the speculating spectators.  Each group sees different things, sometimes more, sometimes less, by dint of their different perspectives.  But here it makes sense to give the bigger ear to the method as she's actually bespoken.
JA = Jon Awbrey 13:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry Into Inquiry 

message: * JA: As I read the newer versions of the introduction, the "sez who" issue keeps coming to mind.  This arises over many points.  
* JA: First, there are the different POV's or the variety of perspectives on "scientific method", and even disagreements as to whether there is such a thing, sometimes attributed-blamed-credited to Feyerabend or with less justice to Kuhn.  That raises the question of whether scientific method is constituted by what scientists do and think and write, or whether it is constituted by what various onlookers, some of whom will indeed be the very same doers in moments of reflection and some of whom will be more like never-did-it-much-themselvers.  What sort of balance should the article strike among this diversity of POV's, and not just the POV's of reflecting practitioners, but radically different directions of perspective?  And while we're at it, what sort of continuity is there between what card-carrying scientists do and what T.C. Pits, "the common person in the street", can't help doing just to get through the problems and questions of his or her day?
* JA: Second, more incidentally to the present state of the intro, do we wish to communicate right up front that what science is about is "praising famous names" and by implication "arguments from authority"?  I will vote "no" on that one.  I realize that this particular "sez who" arose as a proffered solution to a problem of sourcing claims, of providing an active subject for the passive "as considered by" phrasing, but I think that this is the wrong solution.  Jon Awbrey 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree on the last part -- is this supposed to be inferred from a source, or is it just assumed that the characterization of scientific method fits with Newton's views?? Holon 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV's on scientific method — Considering the sources 

message: SteenGoddik, it is my opinion that "Scientific Theory or Scientific Law" are not part of this article. The reason is that scientific method is simply that, a list of steps, almost a how-to, which is not necessarily a validation procedure for admitting a concept into the western canon. As the article clearly states, it is the people practicing the method who are the essential ingredient in the method. Thus someone simply stepping through the checklist without the essential understanding of the problem is practicing cargo cult science and anyone who simply proclaimed by fiat that "Concept A" has passed through all the stages of the Scientific Method, and is hereby declared Scientific Law Number 27A-5156. Anyone caught violating 27A-5156 is subject to .... It is not necessary to declare Concept A as Law. It is simply true, or it isn't. And the violations of the law are not subject to punishment by The State. It isn't necessary. The Concept would thus simply be a trope if some exception or limitation to a purported Law A became known. Now if some technology were introduced into our world based on a wrong law, that technology would simply fail.
Now after brutally simplifying the argument, let's examine why Scientist A has mooted some concept A. Well, that's the characterization stage. Scientist A, after some consideration has decided that concept A is notable in some way. If there are conditions and exceptions, the concept must be suitably qualified and limited, or else scientist A has severely limited his employability in the field. Scientist A has noted that this concept seems to solve some problem in the list of unknowns which are all around us.
It may be that you are searching for what John Ziman has termed Reliable Knowledge. --Ancheta Wis 16:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Theory or Scientific Law 

message: * JA: With regard to the following statement, added by Eric Forste:
EF: There is some controversy as to whether practicing scientists actually accomplish their real work by any defined and describable method.
* JA: I modified it in the following way.
JA: There is some controversy, mostly among those who are not, as to whether practicing scientists actually accomplish their real work by any defined and describable method.
* JA: My clarification is a well-considered one, and it is, within the limits of approximation imposed by brevity, true.  I know from ample experience that vastly more practicing scientific researchers spend overwhelmingly more of their long working days worrying about how to raise their significance levels from 95% to 98% than ever bat an eye about the whether there's a method to their madness.
* JA: More generally, there has been a constant erosion of the substance of this article from bystanders who are quite evidently innocent of any significant acquaintance with scientific method as she is bespoke in actual practice.
* JA: I have already suggested that editors who supply various models of scientific method need to provide more sources for their texts — likewise, editors who supply various bits of scepticism about scientific method need to provide more sources for theirs.  Jon Awbrey 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on providing more sources for my texts.  I'm surprised that the controversy is news to people who actively edit this article. --arkuat (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked your edits, JA, but they've all gotten hidden away too.  As you say, time to observe for a while. In the meantime, I recommend that everyone follow the link to the prematurely archived peer-review.  There's not much there. --arkuat (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On controversy, its prevalence, its sources, and the lacks thereof 

message: somebody needs to talk about Descartes in this article.
* JA: OK.  Jon Awbrey 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karol has already moved the Descartes information from this article to history of the scientific method. --Ancheta Wis 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it seemed odd to include Bacon without mention of Descartes (particularly as Bacon's work mentioned is not included in the timeline, I will add it now); so I have included a single line in the history mentioning Descartes and the Discourse on Method. Is there some kind of Bacon vs Descartes posturing thing at work? If so, is it worthy of mention? an interesting resource perhaps: http://www.thingsrevealed.net/dscrtbacn.htm ? -- dwxyzq|T 09:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: history of the scientific method has fuller coverage of Descartes' contribution. --Ancheta Wis 09:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure what you mean? :) I noticed Descartes contribution had futher coverage there but this summary of the history (I assume that is what it is meant to be) seemed to for some reason skip Descartes while Bacon is included. At the same time Bacon is also covered fuller in history of the scientific method. I don't really know, it just seemed like they should both either be included or not included; I chose inclusion. :) -- dwxyzq|T 09:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descartes

message: The Further reading list is very long and not all of it looks notable. I suggest taking some of them out (possibly ones with red linked authors). JoshuaZ 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the list in more detail, I'm inclined to agree with you. If someone read all the books, I think there would be substantial overlap, but none of them seem to be redundant. That is, a large amount would be lost by removing any specific one. Consider the suggestion withdrawn. JoshuaZ 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: Several years ago, the hypothesis section of this article used the term guess, which is the blunt truth. Later, it was appended with an exclamation point guessing!, as if the editor could not believe that scientists could dare to admit that they would guess. It was later softened to systematic guessing. Now I see that the Peirce article no longer states his quote abductive reasoning is neither more nor less than guessing.
To be fair to the younger readers of this article, I believe that it is better for the encyclopedia to admit that 'guessing' is a good thing, something not to be ashamed of, or suppressed. In fact, a part of scientific method, along with 'test' (experiment). Ancheta Wis 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is now resident at Inquiry#Abduction along with other Peirceana. --Ancheta Wis 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: JA, Thank you. Ancheta Wis 00:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic guessing

message: I think scholasticism should be mentioned in this article, as it is the main alternative to the scientific method. Markus Schmaus 14:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific method is an inductive method as opposed to deductive methods as Scholasticism.
Markus Schmaus 16:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific method is a child of Inquiry as well. --Ancheta Wis 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholasticism

message: Kenosis, what would you say to some wikilinks? In addition, when mooting a concept  the grammatical mood might be a little more jussive than imperative. 
  
The scientific method involves the following basic checklist:
*Description (that information must be be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry)).
*Prediction (that information must be  be  valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment) ?what about supernovas?
*Control (that one gaining the ability to might manipulate a variable, if possible and appropriate).
*Understanding (that one identify the cause or causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent).  Before a factor that is the object of research can be said to be understood, that the following conditions must be be  met:
::*Covariation of events (that hypothesized cause  correlate with hypothesized effect)
::*Time-order relationship (that hypothesized cause  occur before hypothesized effect)
::*Elimination of plausible alternatives (this is a gradual process, possibly requiring repeated experiments by multiple researchers who seek to replicate the results in order to validate them).
...
 
One of the things which I personally find quite valuable is your bold synopsis of the checklist of factors which are necessary to gain confidence that one truly understands something. Especially the 'gradual process' statement above. 
Good.
I personally would place the Prediction item at the foot of this list, as Expectations typically do not get formed without an ensemble of supporting data. Otherwise, the Predicted item would necessarily remain personal and unspoken until one gains confidence in the strength of the mooted Prediction.
--Ancheta Wis 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps the Prediction item listed above is really a condition to be fulfilled before a Prediction is possible. In that case, I would not disagree with its position in the list other than a possible relabelling. --Ancheta Wis 07:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: JA: As far as the US scene goes, and making peer review an integral part of American academic life, I think that a better case could be made for the indefatigable efforts of John Dewey.  Jon Awbrey 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... I think i will pull together some of this maybe next week mainly for the History of Scientific Method article, and then see if a more specific history of peer review works in this article.  Saw the Bacon quote too.... Thanks...Kenosis 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: JA: It was so much work coming up with that title that I will have to leave it as an "Exercise for the Reader" until after lunch.  Jon Awbrey 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enchoiry — Learning by Doing vs. Preaching to the Choir 

message: The current philosophy section is long, rambling and borderline incoherent.  Jon, what do you think you are doing to it?  JoshuaZ 06:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JoshuaZ, I have reverted to the time when the section was last called Philosophical issues. JA, let's work on this section on the talk page first, OK? Ancheta Wis 11:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "The understanding must not therefore be supplied with wings, but rather hung with weights, to keep it from leaping and flying. Now this has never been done; when it is done, we may entertain better hopes of the sciences." --Francis Bacon
I invite you to the wikipedia:scientific peer review pages where there has been lively discussion on how to take this encyclopedia to a new level of quality. --Ancheta Wis 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, the main problem I observe is that the direction you were heading with that, while obviously well thought, opens the door wide for every thoughless slant possible without justifiable recourse to revert those inevitable POVs which would follow...Kenosis 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Jon, I'm having trouble understanding what you say above, but it seems like you are saying that you regard this section as "your work." I strongly recommend that you read WP:OR and WP:OWN. JoshuaZ 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asserting inter alia that the editors should write this section in a way that it will lead into the Elements section rather than an afterthought to it?  If so, then the [relatively minor] direction I just started pursuing with it should give way to a considered preparation for putting it up front.  Let me know, OK?...Kenosis 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, then the Heisenberg quote should stay, and the point should be that it is in fact an art too.  Like other arts such as law and engineering, that doesn't mean "anything goes" as Feyerabend argued.  The rest of the article speaks for itself...Kenosis 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy section

message: I noticed this had recently been removed:
: While this scheme often taught as the basis of science, many philosophers, historians and sociologists of science (particularly Paul Feyerabend and advocates of the "strong programme") claim that it has little relation to the ways science is actually practiced.
Why? 
I propose restoring that passage, since it is apparently well-sourced, and deleting all the "scare quotes" instead. They convey essentially no information, and what they do contain is often only a baised point of view. --James S. 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi: I just noticed this, though your reversion was adequately explanatory of your view.  This article is being worked on at present, so i apologize for appearing to have stepped on it completely.  I agree Feyerabend is important, as is the strong programme, though in a separate context actually.  So is Polanyi incidentally.  I will ensure further proposed reorganizations that involve this vocal minority's notable alternative views are discussed here prior to editing...Kenosis 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the reason the article is being worked on is because previously it was a mess; a lot of good content mixed in with a lot of junk and multiple superimposed edits with little or no context with respect to each other.  Anyway, we've been hacking it through, and bit by bit I believe we're getting closer to something that's informative and can actually be read by those interested in the subject of the article...Kenosis 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did mention of Feyerabend's [[strong programme]] get cut? Why not the scare quotes instead? 

message: JA: The levels of misunderstanding that I see exhibited here are turning out to be far worse than I thought.  These misunderstandings have to do with:
# The character of scientific inquiry,
# The character of the critical questions that reflective observers will persist in asking about purported scientific inquiry until they are satisfied by the answers,
# The project of "defending science",
# The ways that concerned parties can legitimately defend, explain, justify, or warrant science,
# The forms of so-called defense that actually undermine both the integrity and the public understanding of science.
JA: One of factors that seems to be preventing the sort of genuine dialogue among concerned parties that might help to find real solutions to these misunderstandings is, I'm sad to say, a kind of "bunker mentality" that I see developing in the soi-disant "defenders of science".  After many tries it has so far been impossible to get it through to some people that critical thinking is not about picking sides.  It involves the critique of sloppy reason wherever it occurs, no matter who does it.  It has so far been impossible to get across the simple logical point that many stories have > 2 sides, that a person who criticizes the arguments put forward on behalf of X is not ipso facto an "adherent" of ¬X.  I have personally had to endure insinuations and even explicit insults like that from people who have no other data about "what side I'm on" than the fact that I criticize their reasoning on a given point.
JA: I think I understand something about the dynamics that brings this to pass, and up to a point I sympathize with those who have been so embroiled in this or that battle against scientific heresy that they begin to take on the characters of similar inquistors in the past.  But I still have hopes that they will do better than their precursers, take pause to clear the fog of war, the "blood in the eye" (BITE), from what should be their better vision.  Whether they know it or not, many others have been tackling these problems and trying to do something positive about them, for longer than they seem to realize.  Jon Awbrey 03:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, I don't fully understand what you are saying above. Could you clarify and explain its relevance to the page at hand? Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, if you are in some part reacting to my comment above about "vocal minority" I hereby retract that one.  Of course science proceeds in paradigms and sometimes gets stuck in them too, enter Polanyi, Feyerabend, and also the strong programme (how you get to "Feyerabend's strong programme" I don't know for sure, and it even got me confused for awhile).  As well, of course it is a process rather than simply a drone-like repetition of The Method.  Obviously there's some more work to do here, but i think I'm going to take a break for a bit and come back to it with hopefully a fresh perspective...Kenosis 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical reflections on scientific method

message: JA: I know that some people think that links should not be replicated, but I find that a good compendium of related topics is a very useful study aid, both on first and on subsequent readings.  It also serves contributors in helping to see some of the discontinuities that will need to be smoothed out across diverse and sundry regions of Wikipedia.  Jon Awbrey 17:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syllabus of QV's 

message: JA: As wonderful as all of these quatotions are, their piquancy is considerably weakened by being tossed together in a salad bon mot.  For my part I like to use such things as pithy epigraphs to lead off pertinent sections of the text, but I've been told that this practice is "not encyclopedic".  So I'll put them here for case by case reconsideration.  Jon Awbrey 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text:  Quotations

message: JA: I will be adding some text to the main article under the heading indicated above on the various models of scientific inquiry that have been discussed in the literature over the years, in good time drawing on some of the references that I've already added — probably starting with Salmon, Hacking, Earman, etc.  Jon Awbrey 02:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Models of scientific inquiry

message: JA: For my part, I do not think that 47 Kb is all that excessive for a keystone article like this, but one way to trim it would be to tighten up the paradigm examples to the few that can be carried through all of the stages in parallel, maybe just two examples from widely diverse fields.  I notice that all of them now are from the natural sciences, which is a source of potential warp in the fabric of science being presented.  Skimming through the examples, the paragraph on Light seemed most isolated and not so well written in its current state.  Jon Awbrey 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tighten treatment of examples & Length issue

message: JA: Moving this paragraph here for reconsideration:
Formal approaches 
Inferential statistics and computational learning theory are concerned with setting out rigorous statistical resp. algorithmic frameworks for induction, or at least practically effective ones.  For a near-optimal method in the sense of computable predictions in the context of algorithmic information theory, see the speed prior.
JA: There may be some other section, present or TBA, that it would fit under, but it seemed like a dangling factoid where it was.  Jon Awbrey 17:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted text:  Formal approaches

message: JA: Recent edits show a tendency toward a type of progressivist fallacy that wore out its welcome in the late great "modern" era, namely the practice of using words like "modern" as honorific terms, rhetorically fashioned to confer some order of unquestioned — and ∴ "unscientific" — legitimacy on a contemporary doctrine.  Now that "modern" has passed from hip to hip replacemnt in our thoroughly post*modern era, the use of the term "contemporary" is more accurate and less of a WP:PEACOCK word.  Now, I do not question, too much, that science is one of those domains where most of us have faith that progress can be made, over the long haul, but nobody with a historical (See Elsewhere, Coriolanus) consciousness could dare to call that progression monotonic.  Jon Awbrey 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done...Kenosis 04:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other one, I must've been thinking "damn-markations"...Kenosis 04:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporary is a good choice, but how I do so hate "post-modern" as I keep wondering what comes after post-modern.  Neo-postmodern?  Then extinction? •Jim62sch• 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tis an inevitable byproduct of faster information turnover and longer lives.  Ahh, for the good old days when most all of us died off before much of anything changed in the world, and the next cohort could use 'modern' with a fresh start!...Kenosis 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Vero, et sic deincips, sine finite. •Jim62sch• 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, "contemporary style", so '50s Festival of Britain. Guess it will do here, but beware of "contemporary" meaning "of the time" rather than of the nowadays style time. Can someone think of a better term for distinguishing science as we know it from ye olde natural history? ...dave souza, talk 12:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not tempt me to change that to nowadays...Kenosis 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoroughly Modern Millie — Peacock Terms & Progressivist Fallacies

message: JA: I have problems with the demarcation section.  It's mostly just Popper's bugaboo again, sans citations, and it suffers from the following problems:
# Is this checklist a new definition of scientific method?
# Is it really the criteria that one uses to tell science from non-science?
# Is the demarcation question itself a scientific question, in other words, one that can be answered by scientific procedures?
JA: No, no, maybe, but not this way.
JA: We already have a highly contentious article on Pseudoscience, and I would prefer not to replicate those peculiar trials here.  So I think that it's better to "describe", not necessarily "define", scientific method in positive terms, and now that we have a reasonable outline, to stick with it.
JA: The items on that checklist are usually referred to as heuristic principles.  Heuristic principles, much as Bohr observed about "deep truths", and much like muscles, tend to come in opposing pairs.  In short, they are approximate maxims, and not internally consistent among themselves.  Their proper application requires experience with the exigencies of given domains, that is, "practical wisdom", or what the Greeks called phronesis.  Thus they serve even worse as a recipe than the more standard statements of method, and a lot of nonsense can be generated by the novitiate taking them too literally and rigidly.  Jon Awbrey 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also the section is out of sync with the main demarcation problem article. I would suggest rewiting the section according to the demarcation article rather than the other way around. --Chris 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demarcation

message: JA: Here is one of my previous attempts at delineating the demarcation problem in positive terms.  I'll probably feather this in momentarily, though I think that these sorts of border disputes probably do more harm than good.
The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science vary in their details from application to application, but they typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or parsimony that fall under the rubric of Occam's Razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered "nonscience".
I begin to like what I see...Kenosis 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what part of the article is that going? •Jim62sch• 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I found it.  Duh.  •Jim62sch• 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ockham's Taser 

message: JA: The word progressive is malaprop here, as it connotes monotonic to many people.  Backtracks cannot be avoided.  Jon Awbrey 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree as it is semantically correct, but then I dislike robust in this case (additionally, it has become something of a buzzword and is devoid of meaning -- one could, I suppose, argue the same about progressive).  Surely there must be some word that covers both meanings that will be acceptable to all. •Jim62sch• 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But rules of thumb are opposable.  (OK, that was bad).  The problem I see is that most folks associate robust with beer "has a robust flavour but won't add to your waistline", and occasionally people (sad, but true).  What about "powerful" or "potent" instead? •Jim62sch• 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robust is an almost meaningless term by itself in this context.  Phrenology was robust in its day, but not progressive; rather, it was a dead end.  Robust and progressive captured the essence here--why make it inacessible to non-scientists if it can be synthesized for both scientists and laypersons.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is robust...Kenosis 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is a non-gracile australopithecus . ...dave souza, talk 12:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish I would have thought of that.  :)  •Jim62sch• 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I kind of like "recursive" as an adjunct descriptor here, but that's already used in another more micro context and suffers the obliqueness problem too.  ...Kenosis 04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Progressive, robust and corrigible.  Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories.  See Correspondence principle.04:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm compelled to disagree on this.  Phrenology was robust because it was filled with speculations; add another one or three?, no big deal.  Astrology today is rather robust too...Kenosis 15:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed on the whole.  The term is reasonable as it is applied in the art of statistical analysis, but suffers even more greatly than 'progressive' from popular misunderstanding.  As such, some combined set of proper descriptors will, in the end, become reliable and stable in the article (with occasional re-checking for arbitrary edits in the future, of course), and at the risk of OR accusations, might even help the philosophy of science along a tad.  If we discuss it properly here on the talk page and source each of the terms (which we have), a synthesis is fully defensible and sustainable...Kenosis 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robust &ne; Progressive

message: JA: An anonymous editor prepended the definite article before our not so definite article, after all this time of discussing the plurality versus commonality issues, leading me to recognize that something very important must still not be clear about that, so here is what fell out of trying to fix that:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge about them, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, as a whole based on observable evidence and subject to laws of reasoning.  Alhough specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Specific hypotheses are formed to propose explanations for natural phenomena and experimental studies test the predictions for accuracy in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results.  Hypotheses in a given field of inquiry are logically bound together by a wider theory that assists researchers in forming new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.
JA: Jon Awbrey 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be honest, I agree with the deinite article.  Otherwise, this sentence, "Scientific method refers to a body of techniques..." would need to read, "Scientific methodology refers to a body of techniques..."  Absent the definite article it simply reads wrong (an unprofessional description, but accurate nontheless). •Jim62sch• 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll give you robust in a minute.  :)  Other than that damned word, I agree wih your observation.  •Jim62sch• 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family resemblance issues

message: JA: The word empirical is currently dabbed to empiricism, which is currently a POV article, as it stakes out a philosophical position that is decidedly not the position of all scientific researchers.  In time I might be able to fix that article so that it describes a heuristic ism and not a dogmatic Ism, but right now the POV by association is false and misleading.  Jon Awbrey 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In due course a separate article on Empirical might make sense too.  A noteworthy empirical observation, Jon...Kenosis 17:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, link to Wiktionary. •Jim62sch• 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Empirical = Experiential &ne; Empiricism

message: JA: Peirce — he would — had a word for it, but it was pure G(r)eek and about 7 slobbles long, and I kant remember it anyway.  But looking through Newell's UTOC, the word "integrative" appears to leap off the page in about the same context and sense.  Will cite chapter and verse later on.  Jon Awbrey 18:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put it in the relevant place of Demarcation problem criteria, pending further discussion and consensus...Kenosis 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. •Jim62sch• 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robust &rarr; Integrative?

message: JA: Look, I confess to being a naturalist myself, which means I think everything that happens is natural.  But adjunction of the adjective "natural" to "phenomenon" has a tendency to bias the discussion of phenomena, "that which appears in the world", toward what are conventionally called the "natural sciences" in contradistinction to the "social sciences", and that leads to various distortions in the concept of science that I'm sure are not intended here.  This not a substantive matter, but one that has to do with the peculiar usage of words on the modern scene, and I do mean "modern".  Jon Awbrey 20:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "natural" shouldn't be directly attached to "phenomena".  But I must say the Natural world article provides a fairly concise and clear description of the most important of the demarcations of science; I surely couldn't resist replacing "them" with something that adds further clarity to the agreed boundaries of scientific inquiry.  Far too many casual conversationalists refer to "things" such as "supernatural phenomena" and other such oxymorons.   This helps, or should help, make this one "thing" clear as it can possibly be to the non-technical reader right from the getgo...Kenosis 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think the article's bit-by-bit getting closer to informative and stable as to the introduction Your point duly noted...Kenosis 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it seems to be coming along nicely.  Sadly, I haven't as much time to devote to this article as either of you, but, as it is in good hands, that really doesn't matter. •Jim62sch• 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural &rArr; Anti-Social ?

message: This section is a stub.  You can help by expanding it. ...Kenosis 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stub template now removed from talk page... ;-) ...Kenosis 07:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving a rule to abductive reasoning

message: JA: I'm not worrying all that much at this stage about blade-running all those replicant wikis — very few trees are harmed in making them, anyway — since the ordering of sections is not all that stable in certain areas.  14:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reduntant wikis are appropriate depending on context; for instance, the placement of three in succession in History, abductive, inductive and deductive, may be appropriate.  The reader can sometimes develop a new interest in checking such things upon receiving an important point from the content of the article; In the Peirce paragraph for instance, whereas earlier in the paragraph no real need to check was given in context early in the  paragraph, when the point is made that the three forms are interdependent today, now there's a reason to check.  This would be an appropriate place to have links in both places of the same paragraph, despite convention.  I chose to put those at the end where the important point was made...Kenosis 16:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikis In Progress, Not Of Necessity Monotonically, Of Course

message: I would like to get feedback on the possible addition of a very important aspect of method today to the second introductory paragraph of the article, or some variant hereof...Kenosis 17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because science is extended for its potential benefits to others, scientific work today is expected to be open to repeated close scrutiny by others, and is expected to be made available for expert peer review of all relevant data and methodology."  17:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, no Wizards behind the curtain in today's scientific method-- though as we know there is the occasional theory that's sufficiently self supporting to just throw it out there and say "here, go check it."  Seems to me the expectation of openness/transparency is sufficiently basic that it perhaps should be right up front in the intro, but don't know for sure, which is why I asked here first rather than just dropping some form of it in there.  A review of pseudosciences will show that this is perhaps the most widely violated expectation-- that of transparency so others can reproduce, verify, assess reliability, confidence intervals, etc etc...Kenosis 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh, the junk factor — indeed it is so obviously so (hey, I gotta wife and kids to take care of) — we have a rough idea how that goes...Kenosis 20:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, duly noted.  Peer review as stated from one Member of the Scientific Community to another: "Hey Hank, like that theory of permissisquidity at whoooole lot."  Of course that's not what peer review is supposed to be.  Let me ponder this, because you're right Jon-- the system's highly imperfect, and often worse when public policy and corporate well being is involved.  Yet, disclosure is primary.  One calls it "science" to draw on the accumulated credibility of science.  And if you can't check it in order to make reasoned judgments whether to rely on someone's results, unlike a hundred years or more ago it ain't science.  That includes the opportunity for others to weigh in in advising the general public about results of additional research of the same set of phenomena, and with reliability and other important issues in evaluation of results.  These can only be determined with proper disclosure of the relevant data and methodology...Kenosis 21:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about the value added by a review. If there truly is communication between the author and reviewer, they are 'on the same page' and are not talking past each other. Otherwise, they are speaking to their constituencies for support and otherwise. This implies that review is a stage toward acceptance of some facet of the method. --Ancheta Wis 05:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And about transparency and some form of publication or at least availability of data and method as a minimal expectation?  Implicit, if not explicit, in the "Method" is an expectation of openness here fairly immediately upon any public announcement of result, otherwise it's in the category of R&D or pseudoscience...Kenosis 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additional sentence in the intro

message: JA: The more I look at what it will take to do a decent job on that Models of scientific inquiry section, the more I realize it will probably take an article of its own, so I have created a stub at Scientific explanation for that eventuality, or maybe Models of scientific inquiry will fit better, haven't decided yet.   Travelling now, so will discuss more when I get back.  Jon Awbrey 15:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meiosis

message: (Here is a peer-reviewed introduction that should go at the top of this topic.  It has been reviewed by the 700 members of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry, a worldwide scientific, philosophical research organization.  Membership in the ISPE requires that the applicant be at or above the 99.9th percentile of general intellectual functioning.  There are five membership levels.  Mr. Kapnick is at the level of Diplomate, the highest of these five levels.)
                            Richard A. Kapnick
Science is the empirical study of patterns and processes in the Universe. (1)
The Scientific Method is the self-correcting tool used by scientists in honestly seeking truth at all costs.  It is arranged in six steps to be followed in order.
1.  Observation.   Using our senses to gather information about the world around us.  
	A.  This includes the "mapping process" used by the human brain to organize this information.
	B.  It also includes reflection on thoughtful questions that naturally arise after an observation is made.
2.  Hypothesis.  An hypothesis is a creative idea that helps explain the observation above.  It is a trial solution that has not been verified.  An hypothesis is stated in a manner that can be tested to see if it is true or false.
3.  Prediction.  The first step to verify the truth or non-truth of an hypothesis.  A prediction extends critical thinking beyond that which is observed.  Predictions are a logical "If . . . then" type of statement.  ("If x is true, then y must also be true.")
4.  Experimentation.  An empirical (verified by actual experience) manner of testing the predictions of an hypothesis.  All
experiments must be repeatable.
	A. An experiment may be designed to test the truth of an hypothesis by trying to demonstrate the accuracy of its predictions, or
	B. If direct experiments are difficult to perform, experiments may be designed to test and eliminate other hypotheses or
explanations, leaving the original hypothesis as the only explanation.
5.  Theory.  A theory is an hypothesis with some degree of verification by empirical evidence.  The evidence appears to indicate the hypothesis might be true.  A theory states the apparent relationships and underlying principles of certain observed phenomena that have been verified to some degree.  A theory is not a “proven true” idea.
6.  Law of Science.  A Law of Science is a theory that has undergone extensive testing and has accurately matched the observed
phenomena or data again and again and again.  It has withstood the "test of time."  While Laws of Science are accepted as responsible and accurate factual truth(2), they are continually reviewed in the search for absolute truth.  No Law of Science is a final statement of the way the universe is.  Laws of Science are modified when new empirical facts are discovered. 
The Scientific Method is universal in its application.  An hypothesis, thought, idea, or belief that cannot be verified by the Scientific Method cannot be verified by any other means known to man.
_________________________
(1) The idea of “cause and effect” was discarded with the acceptance of quantum mechanics, largely because QM approaches explanations
for nature with ranges of probabilities.  We now realize that “cause and effect” is a contrived human concept.  If two events have a near-
absolute correlation, then they are subsets of the whole, larger, summed event–defined within QM’s probability range.  "Cause and effect" has now been replaced with "patterns and processes."
(2) Facts are not “the Absolute Truth of the Universe.”  Instead, facts are the best current human approximation of the truth.  Facts are changed or adjusted as new information is discovered.  Knowledgeable people realize facts may change at some future date.  However, these folks are able to live comfortably with the best “facts” currently available.
--26 April, 2006
::The reason I reverted your insertion of this summary is that the content of the article has to date been arrived at through cautious consensus of editors.  Your revisions are not necessarily revoked permanently, but subject to the verification, commentary and research of many other participating editors.  Also, it is conventional that mass-content editing be justified, ideally point by point, on the talk page.  Most of what you describe above on this talk page is already in the article...Kenosis 03:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are waiting for the editorial review of my article, "Introduction to the Scientific Method," I have a few additional comments.  
I respectfully suggest you are wrong in your assertion about the phrase "law of science" not being an "accepted term of art" for this, or any other, discussion.  "Law of Gravity" rushes to mind as a prime example of a law of science.  Over the last 147 years, the Theory of Evolution has gradually been proceeding to the Law of Evolution.  If not "laws of science," how then would you characterize the undergirding principles of the Cosmos that create what we call "reality"?  Further, if Wikipedia limits all discussions to "accepted terms of art," then it has truly smitten its nose to spite its face.  Why would Wikipedia---a noble concept to be sure---stiffle its own creativity by banishing/editing/censoring out terms that are outside some amorphous boundary of acceptance by an equally amorphous group of editors?  This seems dangerously close to the religion commonly known as "scientism."  
The current Wikipedia content of the topic "Scientific method" is, by any definition, too ponderous.  As has been previously noted above (by another editor), any high school or college student who reads the opening remarks above the "Contents" is likely to (a) fall asleep, (b) be discouraged and tune to "Sponge Bob, Square Pants" cartoons on his TV, or, (c) decide wrongly that he or she is not capable of understanding the explanation of this topic.  The job of teaching often requires breaking a topic into simpler concepts with which the reader has experience.  Language must be selected that is appropriate to the reader.  A person's readiness issues must be considered.  While parts of this article are brilliantly written . . . almost "inspired" . . . other parts need to be moved to an Addendum.  Upon request, I shall be more specific on this issue.
One of the great pitfalls of this topic is the issue of where to start a discussion of the Scientific method.  The California Department of Education in Sacramento insists that scientific inquiry begins with "asking questions."  This thought seems to have become pervasive in the scientific community.  Nonetheless, it is obviouisly wrong to all who go much beyond the level of flaneur of the arts and sciences.  In truth, the initial sensory intake that results in such questions as "How does this work?" or "Why is that so?" or "There must be something else happening here." can only be classed as "observation."  This observation (initial sensory intake of every nature) precedes the development of all questions.  One simply cannot question anything unless certain surrounding observations are in a person's experience.  This is commonly known as foundational support for additional exploration.  The history of knowledge is built on just such a paradigm:  "We stand on the shoulders of giants."
The current Wikipedia article makes this same horse-before-the-cart error in several places by assuming that questions precede observation.  Hopefully, this can be corrected in the days and weeks ahead.
Finally, it is to the great credit of Wikipedia that such a topic as "Scientic method" is even included.  The fifteenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1990) that is in my library has no significant reference to, nor any article titled, "Scientific method."  This fact, by contrast, makes Wikipedia poised for greatness.  Let's outdistance EB and all the rest by presenting a well written, finely honed, easily read, substantially accurate article on this important topic.
Respectfully submitted,
NC cousin
Rich Kapnick
75.3.241.29 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard A. Kapnick, this article has existed for 5 years. There have been thousands of edits by hundreds of editors. You might read the archives if you want to understand what has transpired; it's basically "been there, done that" for your contributions. If you want to raise new issues, you are welcome to raise them on the talk page. The wiki-action occurs when you have managed to pique someone's interest, and they are willing to collaborate with your contributed edits. You are welcome to establish an account. If you were to do so, then you would receive a welcome from the Welcoming committee, who would probably point you at articles like Wikipedia:Five Pillars, which might be a place to start learning how to contribute. --Ancheta Wis 22:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to The Scientific Method 

message: JA: Iteration is not the "essence" of science — what's important is what steps are repeated, and that we have stated quite clearly alright already.  So please refrain from that tiresome refrain.  Jon Awbrey 21:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iteration is an essence of the scientific method. Hollow are the Ori 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, it is not. KimvdLinde 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are arguing researchers just go through the scientific method once and they are completely done? If so I disagree. The goal of the scientific method is understanding but that is not absolute or concrete because it may be contradicted or refined by future application of the scientific method which is why iteration is required. Hollow are the Ori 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You claimed iteration is not an essence of the scientific method, and then you pointed out repeat is in the current intro and repeat = iterate, have you contradicted yourself or are you saying repetition is important but not an essence? If the former please explain the apparent contradiction if the latter I disagree. "Iterative process" sounds better than "repeated steps" because the former implies everything is repeated in all possible combinations an unlimited number of times. Apparently I didn't even notice the word repeat because of the way the sentences and subject are structured convolutedly. In my interpretation the word repeat or iterate should be placed immediately next to a simple unwikilinked list of the steps in the process, so perhaps my primary issues with the current intro is that it's unsuccinct, disorganized and needlessly verbose. Hollow are the Ori 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you write it down in your proposed version, it is THE esssence, while you discuss as AN essence. That confuses. KimvdLinde 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said AN essence and you disputed that. Anyway, now that you are theoretically no longer confused do you agree "iterative process" and some general succinctification and organization are necessary? Hollow are the Ori 22:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got confused because you write it down in your proposed text as THE essence, which it is NOT. It is an important aspect, but not the only, and certainly not THE essence. So, I think your proposed version does not reflect adequatly what the scientific method is. KimvdLinde 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You disputed AN essence just above. Each step in the process is an essence just as the fact that the process is interative, we should succinctly convey just that and not utilize convoluted and/or disorganized sentence construction. Hollow are the Ori 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I though I explained after that. KimvdLinde 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. Hollow are the Ori 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, than we have a misunderstanding. KimvdLinde 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not characterize it that way. Hollow are the Ori 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, plus I would add that you are suppose to iterate after you find a "solution" to verify, refine and attempt to contradict it, so it's not just about try and try again to find one conclusion. The process continues always. Hollow are the Ori 16:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iteration]], [[Recursion]], [[Repetition Compulsion]]

message: Rather ironically, what I find myself asking is whether there is any experimental evidence to clearly prove that (any particular) scientific method works, i.e. speeds scientific progress - or even, is there any evidence to clearly prove that scientists prefer to use a particular formulation of the scientific method?  I ask these questions because over the years I've been presented with quite a range of descriptions of the scientific method, each given with great confidence and quite different from each of the others, and never with any citation that so-and-so compared the two types of 'scientific method' somehow and proved one was better.  I don't deny that there is something better about how we do science now than in the time of Aristotle, but whether the methodology of research into the scientific method itself has progressed since his time is another question...
Also, the most common denominator of all these schemes - that hypothesis precedes experiment - seems contradictory to how I've often seen science done today, as well as many historical descriptions.  For instance, many people came up with bizarre ideas of the macrocosm and the microcosm over the course of history, but science only progressed when a few optics geeks cobbled together telescopes and microscopes and started simply reporting what they saw - and when that happened all preceding hypotheses were of no use whatsoever.  In modern-day biology it seems that perhaps a majority all experiments still progress in a similar fashion, with workers taking a new or favorite tool - gene array experiments, degenerate PCR, allele structure, immunohistochemistry, etc. - and asking, "how can I use this technique to find out something informative about this topic?"  Of course, 'informative' here implies a variation between two or more possible hypotheses, but these hypotheses (such as which of 10,000 genes on an array might be involved in tumor progression) are often rather rudimentary.  
Is there any citation people can come up with for a study in which, for example, a teacher took a group of fifth-graders and split them up, one half being taught the scientific method and the other not, then handed them an identical set of broken clockworks or weird gadgets to figure out, and measured the relative times students in each group took to solve their problems? (unsigned: User:Mike Serfas 06:00, 8 May 2006)
:There might be an ethical problem with such a study: Would it be fair to program an unprepared mind with a junk method, in the name of science? 
:Alternatively, There need only be patience, using links for the old standbys:
:*Gilbert, de Magnete: the world is a magnet with concomitant experiments with iron needles to detect North and South magnetic poles etc.
:*Galileo, Two New Sciences: "gravitational acceleration is a constant near the surface of the earth" with ramps to measure the acceleration using different geometries.
:*The use of models as a technique to  zero in on observable quantities and operational definitions to work with. George Polya, How to solve it: what is given?, what is the unknown?, what do I already know?
:*Robert Lee Moore built up a school of mathematicians from a largely rural state (Texas) by teaching them in a distinctive style.
:Scientific method can be used in as simple a situation as riding in a car. Place an un-anchored item on the dashboard of a car and watch its motion, to come up with the concept of inertia. Then ask the students what they see as the car accelerates or decelerates.
:The crucial item is that the students be taught that they ought to be honest about distinguishing what I know versus what I do not know. Distinguishing Fact from Hearsay.
:Richard Feynman took especial care to expose rote action for what it really was. 
:Stan Ulam mentions his personal experience with a pocket knife in the presence of a strong magnet. "The power of the vacuum"
 
:Right now there is non-critical acceptance of anything published on the internet. That defies scientific method.
:--Ancheta Wis 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there evidence for the scientific method? 

message: Apparently the "Methods of science" viewpoint is slowly taking over from recipe-based descriptions or "Scientific Method."  In the United States, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has recently turned against "The Scientific Method," or what Medawar derides as "the calculus of discovery," and instead recommends that science educators teach about NOS or "Nature Of Science."  This recent change is detailed in the November 2004 issue of the NSTA magazine "The Science Teacher."  Also, the NSTA position statement replaces "The Scientific Method's" list of steps with a "Methods of Science" description:
:"Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work. "  See http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22   Also search Google for +NOS +"Nature of Science"  http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bnos+%2B%22nature+of+science%22
I note that the guest editor for that issue of TST is William McComas, who is already known in education circles for insisting that The Scientific Method is a myth.  See myth #4 in his article "THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE: DISPELLING THE MYTHS", from the book "Nature of Science in Science Education," 1998, McComas ed., online at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/Myths%20of%20Science.pdf  --Wjbeaty 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You get an emotional ploy not worthy of response.   But if you believe that the NSTA isn't replacing "The Scientific Method" with NOS, perhaps you'd better read those links or even track down that issue of TST magazine.  TST has far more influence on US science teachers than this entry in WP could ever hope to have.  --Wjbeaty 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The NSTA has turned against The Scientific Method

message: Using the history of the double helix as a "classical" case of the scientific method is fairly laughable by itself, but the real warpage of historical facts to fit the structure is pretty inexcusable here. The case of DNA is not a neat case of "characterization -> hypotheses -> prediction -> experiment -> iterations"; it is not a neat case of anything. It is thoroughly messy as far as the history of science goes, and its messiness is very well known. 
The "characterizations" section currently makes it sound like Watson and Crick were just following up on the work of Bragg in studying the structure of DNA. In fact the question of whether DNA's structure was biologically important was still completely up for debate at the time, and Watson and Crick were clearly more obvious inspired in their work by the success Pauling had with the alpha helix. The crystallography-centric approach favored by others did not pan out in comparison with the deliberate aping of Pauling's model-building approach favored by Watson and Crick, which was derided by the other physicists as not being serious science. It worked, in the end, but calling this any sort of an obviously logical path is clearly a post hoc accessment.
The "hypotheses" section makes it sound like Watson and Crick hadn't already perceived it as a race with Pauling before the latter had sent the triple helix manuscript to his son. This is false, and while the discovery of Pauling's error clearly invigorated Watson and Crick, it came relatively late into the game (after they had already considered the idea of a triple helix, for example). 
The "predictions" section puts the horse before the cart: Watson had already seen the B-form photograph before they thought of proposing the double helix. The B photograph confirmed that the model was helical, but it did not by itself inspire the idea of a double helix (with the bases on the inside), and still held open the option that it was a triple helix. To call the Crick line from the DNA paper a "prediction" is pretty weak -- it is, at best, a general prediction, not a really scientific one. At worst, it is not a prediction at all: it was a conscious attempt by Crick to claim priority on the idea that the structure suggested ideas about DNA replication, without risking getting any of them wrong in this particular paper (Watson was still hesistant about the model's accuracy). 
The "experiments" section doesn't really work either, since the experiments had been conducted before the model, and while they had influenced the possible outcome of the model, they did not confine it in any real way. The model-building clearly played more of a role in the Watson-Crick story than did the photographs, which only Watson had seen and even then only briefly. It misrepresents the role of Franklin as well -- she rebuffed their initial triple helix model on a theoretical basis. She was not initially against the final double helix model at all, and in any case she knew thoroughly well that the B-form of DNA was helical, she was not convinced about the A-form. 
The "iterations" section says that Watson and Crick had conducted "fruitless experimentation", which is not true (they hadn't really experimented at all), and oversimplifies to the point of absurdity how they actually arrived at the structure for DNA, and what was important. It was a long, messy, and interesting process, not just a case of bond lengths + photos + models. The real innovation was 1. to try and study the idea at all (often the case in scientific work), and 2. to utilize that specific combination of approaches. But even with that, it required many idiosyncratic ideas, encounters, discussions with others, etc. 
I go through the details here not to propose changes be made to them. The discovery of DNA is a lousy example for something like this, but it is not necessarily any more lousy than any other example in the history of science which is not written by scientists or philosophers. Work by historians of science have shown for at least four decades (even longer if you count the only later-appreciated Ludwik Fleck) that you cannot just line up true history of science with the idealized form of the scientific method. Personally, I think the examples should just be dropped. Aside from being inaccurate, they do not clarify anything about the method itself. It would be at least humorous if they were meant to be ironic (they do serve as a nice example of why you can't just say science works in simple, prescribed steps), but I don't think they are. --Fastfission 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fastfission, I welcome your thoughts on the article and examples. In defense, here is some reply to the most telling point (and heart of the method) The "predictions" section puts the horse before the cart: Watson had already seen the B-form photograph before they thought of proposing the double helix. In Watson's Double Helix memoir, he clearly states that he and Crick had already worked out the mathematics of the Fourier transform of a Helix as an X-shape. They had come upon it with the TMV (tobacco mosaic virus) and had already deduced TMV had a spiral shape. At the time of discovery (of structure of DNA) they did not know the orientation of the bases (inside or outside the helix) which Watson deduced by his concrete modelling of the nucleotide pairs. The discovery (of structure of DNA) came after, at least according to Watson's memoir. And Watson is still alive to clarify this for us. It is a golden opportunity for someone to ask and write down so that we can cite. But the article clearly states that scientific method is not linear, as you have well put. It is a horse-race between the steps, some of which can then be linearized after the moment of discovery, for publication. I do not mind the adjective lousy; in Feynman's words English is a lousy language, yet we somehow manage to communicate with it, and those of us who are prisoners of the tongue even attempt to think with it as well. --Ancheta Wis 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA example is historically poor

message: ----
This entire article is far too dogmatic (that is, it asserts beliefs about what scientists do and think far beyond any reasonable cognitive grounds), and probably far too long and even more, well, better not say (though one is reminded of the word of Asimov: "not very bright except in an academic sense").  I do understand, the discipline has been trying to figure out what knowledge is and how it's possible for well over 2,500 years, and that discussion does not compress well.  In short, unless there is a solid critique of scientific method here — I can't find it... — I suggest the whole thing should be overhauled. --djenner 03:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a contribution under a Critical theory rubric might be in your area. Maybe some notes about the role of the political process and marginalization of some scholars and scientists? For example C.N. Yang has stated that he learned all the physics in China, but at the University of Chicago he learned what was hot or perhaps fashionable in the field. But what might you have in mind? --Ancheta Wis 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical theory

message: So how is the concept of causility or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's an interesting question and people have tried to answer a number of ways. A book I recommend is "Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction" by Barry Gower (ISBN:0415122821), which gives quite a detailed overview of the various attempts to find logical grounds to inductive reasoning.  If I get time to supply an overview of the book, I will. Sadly for your question, most, if not all, these attempts make further assumptions that would also need to be justified. Popper claimed to have avoided the whole problem of induction and might therefore have denied any obligation to justify causality. --Chris 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause and effect v.s. the existencce of a God 

message: Sorry for not reading ALL of the discussion above, but it seems to me that the "Scientific Method" is presented in such a way as to assert that it is an orderly process that scientists usually carry out in a step-by-step way. I think it would be MUCH closer to the truth to say that it is a FORMAT in which scientific research is REPORTED.
There are false starts, abandoned hypotheses, failed experiments, etc., which are (by convention) ALWAYS excluded from journal articles. No one simply tells the story of how they made the discovery, unless they write a POPULAR account specifically aimed at laymen. 
Perhaps "scientific method" is a rhetorical technique used to justify one's conclusions (or to "prove" that you've made a valuable discovery), rather than a process used while actually conducting research or making the discovery. --Math Teacher 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE "There are false starts, abandoned hypotheses, failed experiments, etc., which are (by convention) ALWAYS excluded from journal articles.": Yes such things virtually always are excluded from the journal articles. Perhaps they should be written about more often. This article describes successful method, and is quite well balanced by, for instance, a long blockquoted discussion by Heisenberg that sums up some of the difficulties encountered at, shall we say?, the boundary zones of discerning new paradigms.  It even acknowledges Feyerabend.  Not every competent researcher is a Heisenberg, a Watson or Crick, an Einstein, etc., but the vast majority do in fact do the kind of long hard work whose conceptual underlayment is described and summarized in the article (with a fine "real-life example", at that). ... Kenosis 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery method, or reporting method?

message: This talk page certainly needs archiving. Not a chance of seeing the whole thing in Blazer. Could someone who has been paying attention oblige? Banno 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving