The Scientific Method

[Erasmus00]

Its know secret that scientists are hardly perfect in their implementation of the scientific method. Experimental science often starts with the deep seated belief that everyone else in the field is an idiot. Scientists cling to pet theories, often long after better alternatives have been suggested, tested, and established.

 

Does this hurt science?

-Will

[Fishteacher73]

There have been a few theories that were "proven wrong" that have since been validated. There is room for those that continue to mainatin possibly "outdated" theories that may in the future come full circle back to being "right". This is not the majority of theories or cases, but I don't think it is always bad that there are always a few of the "old guard" about for the times it does happen.

[Qfwfq]

Criticism is very much of the essence of scientific method. If you can support criticism, in a way that makes sense, against something well established, do it.

[Tormod]

The scientific method is the basis for all science. It is based on falsibility. If a theory cannot be tested and possibly falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

 

That is why Creationism is not science - their theories are based on the assumption that there is a "one given cause", ie God, which is untestable and as such impossible to falsify.

 

I am not subscribing to the idea that "Experimental science often starts with the deep seated belief that everyone else in the field is an idiot." as Erasmus writes - more often than not, experimental science starts out as teamwork because someone needs to test a prediction that has grown out of a hypothesis.

[adjective]

The scientific method is the basis for all science. It is based on falsibility. If a theory cannot be tested and possibly falsified, it is not a scientific theory.

 

Actually, Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that falsifiability isn't really a valid litmus test because the observations will be part of one of the paradigms they wish to compare.

 

Kuhn went so far as to say that, at the time they happen, scientific revolutions are caused by sociological and personal reasons rather than scientific ones. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions for more information.

 

Feyerabend went even further and suggested that there is no such thing as a "scientific method" and any attempts to establish one would hinder scientific advancement. The reasoning goes like this: Popper claimed that falsifiability was one of the hallmarks of science. Popper's essential project was to define science around a particular set of rules so as to separate science from nonscience. This ends up logically circular, thus unfalsifiable, thus unscientific. So, in trying to establish a set scientific method, one ends up with an unscientific method.

 

Falsifiability is a very useful tool for scientific thinking, but when actually doing science, when one would be applying the scientific method, anything goes would be a better way.

 

Feyerabend came to the conclusion that, ultimately, science can only be distinguished from nonscience by the results.

 

Regarding Erasmus00's statement, "Scientists cling to pet theories, often long after better alternatives have been suggested, tested, and established. " Max Planck once said, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Tormod]

Actually, Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that falsifiability isn't really a valid litmus test because the observations will be part of one of the paradigms they wish to compare.

 

Yes. But Kuhn's major contribution was to point out the paradigms. The establishment tends to be conservative and work against any new (or old, for that matter) theory that can threaten the current theory. Yet theories do not pop out of a vacuum. I don't think you can point out many theories that were not founded on earlier theories. I'd say Kuhn is mostly relevant as an important philosophical treatment of the history of science, rather than as a proof that the scientific method is wrong. After all, the controversy of Copernicus was slightly different than that of Einstein. In modern science we see competitive theories live side by side much more than before.

 

I think that coservatism a fundamental pattern in all human endeavours. However, it doesn't mean that Kuhn was right. In my opinion it is a great book but it is too negative. Scientific revolutions don't happen the same way as they used to - there are many more people doing science, and there is a much higher level of consciousness about science in the general population.

 

Feyerabend went even further and suggested that there is no such thing as a "scientific method" and any attempts to establish one would hinder scientific advancement. The reasoning goes like this: Popper claimed that falsifiability was one of the hallmarks of science. Popper's essential project was to define science around a particular set of rules so as to separate science from nonscience. This ends up logically circular, thus unfalsifiable, thus unscientific. So, in trying to establish a set scientific method, one ends up with an unscientific method.

 

Or rather, this circular reasoning stems not from the fallibility of the scientific method but of philosophical thinking. Philosophy is different than science in many ways, and the realms of logic are vastly different in philosophy than in the sciences. I think that is a good thing, but it doesn't mean that we can just define away the scientific method.

 

Falsifiability is a very useful tool for scientific thinking, but when actually doing science, when one would be applying the scientific method, anything goes would be a better way.

 

So the philosopher wins, and the scientist looses. I do of course disagree. Working with scientists who follow the scientific model I can say that yes, it works. WIthout the scientific model there would be no science. In fact, the scientific model is what defines *science*. Without it, you have non-science.

 

Feyerabend came to the conclusion that, ultimately, science can only be distinguished from nonscience by the results.

 

How are the results interpreted, and by whom? That is what the scientific method is for.

 

I won't undermine the importance of the contributions from the writers you have pointed to. But one of the strong points of science is that it's very basic tenements can be discussed by anyone. That is what makes it different from non-scientific settings, for example creationism, where the scientific method is used as a tool to give credibility to theories that are in essence non-scientific because they have as their ultimate truth something that can not be argued against (the act of creation).

 

Science should have no ultimate truths. That is why the scientific method will never let anything be proven. There are axioms, but as Goedel showed, we cannot know everything about anything.

[adjective]

Upon rereading, I realize that my original proposition wasn't very clear, focusing instead on the anarchic effects, rather than the total effect.

 

My claim is that a universal scientific method stifles scientific progress. There are, most definitely, rules that scientists use for "doing science," but these rules are not applicable to all circumstances all the time.

 

Rather than defining science by its methods, science should be defined by its results. To take Tormod's quite appropriate example of nonscience: creationism. Creationism is widely regarded as unscientific, and with good reason: it has no predictive value. There are _absolutely_ no results yielded from creationism. Instead, it simply says the Christian God created the universe. This gives us no results for anything and thus is not in the realm of science, but rather philosophy (or fiction, depending on who you ask).

 

So the philosopher wins, and the scientist looses.

 

Quite the opposite, actually. Feyerabend's claim was that trying to define a scientific method restricts the freedom of scientists and their ability to make progress, as such the philosopher had no place in the realm of science.

 

In fact, I believe Feyerabend said there were no philosophers, only pedants.

 

Science should have no ultimate truths.

 

That's exactly at the heart of the issue. The claim being made isn't that there shouldn't be a method or that there shouldn't be rules, but that there is no universal method or rules. That, at times, it is necessary for the methods and rules to be broken for scientific progress.

 

Take, for instance, Whitehead's theory of gravity. Until 1972, it wasn't disproven, but Einstein's general relativity ruled the day. If the rules had been strictly followed, Einstein and Whitehead would have been given equal weight--however the rules were broken because Einstein's interpretation was generally believed to be the better theory (I have no idea on what grounds)--and this prediction proved true.

[Qfwfq]

Popper's essential project was to define science around a particular set of rules so as to separate science from nonscience. This ends up logically circular, thus unfalsifiable, thus unscientific. So, in trying to establish a set scientific method, one ends up with an unscientific method.

Despite haviong read Popper's work in which he discusses the demarcation problem, I don't see from whence this logical circularity springs forth. Details?

 

Max Planck once said, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

This did not happen, even with Planck's ideas and certainly wasn't the case with most other innovations. Can you give examples of triumph by replacement?

[Tormod]

Take, for instance, Whitehead's theory of gravity. Until 1972, it wasn't disproven, but Einstein's general relativity ruled the day. If the rules had been strictly followed, Einstein and Whitehead would have been given equal weight--however the rules were broken because Einstein's interpretation was generally believed to be the better theory (I have no idea on what grounds)--and this prediction proved true.

 

Not sure I follow here. The application of the scientific method favors the theory which better explains what we observe. Thus the outcome is as expected.

 

There are no "rules" which require that all theories should be given equal weight...that would indeed be impossible as the scientific method demands that is judged by peers, not by a central body.

 

I am sure you are aware of this so maybe I misread the above quote.

[adjective]

Despite haviong read Popper's work in which he discusses the demarcation problem, I don't see from whence this logical circularity springs forth.

 

The problem is that if you define science around a "scientific method" that only accepts itself is circular, i.e. What is science? Well, that's the scientific method. What's the scientific method? Well, that's science. <--Simplified, but I think you get the general gist.

 

This did not happen, even with Planck's ideas and certainly wasn't the case with most other innovations. Can you give examples of triumph by replacement?

 

I never read it as literal--but rather a critique of conservatism in science. That scientists that have grown up on things a certain way will not readily switch to the other way--or may not even be able to (Einstein's strict adherence to a deterministic universe despite the mounting evidence for QM comes to mind). The new theories don't really succeed (i.e. take over science) until a generation that has grown up on the ideas and views them as self-evident is in place.

 

Not sure I follow here. The application of the scientific method favors the theory which better explains what we observe. Thus the outcome is as expected.

 

Neither theory accounted for the facts better than the other. It wasn't until 1972 that Whitehead's theory was shown to be wrong (the technology, I believe, wasn't around until about that time). The fact that Whitehead's theory wasn't a serious contender in the mainstream arena is a problem with this "application of the scientific method." It was just as good as Einstein's GRT, but was largely ignored.

[Qfwfq]

What is science? Well, that's the scientific method. What's the scientific method? Well, that's science.

:eek: !!!

 

?

 

I never read it as literal--but rather a critique of conservatism in science. That scientists that have grown up on things a certain way will not readily switch to the other way--or may not even be able to (Einstein's strict adherence to a deterministic universe despite the mounting evidence for QM comes to mind). The new theories don't really succeed (i.e. take over science) until a generation that has grown up on the ideas and views them as self-evident is in place.

Einstein' s "Gott speilt würfeln nicht" doesn't show that it took a new generation of physicists, before QM was accepted. Not even Einstein disbelieved QM, he disagreed with Born et al. as to the interpretation of it and so did others. QM was quite readily accepted , and the Born/Copenhagen interpretation of it rapidly became the mainstream view, without a generation replacement.

 

Einstein was a main proponent of the so-called hidden variables conjecture and there are still proponents of it, but this is part of scientific method, it isn't against it. It is still a somewhat subtle and tricky matter. As evidence against hidden variables becomes clearer it becomes less scientific to believe in them.

 

The fact that Whitehead's theory wasn't a serious contender in the mainstream arena is a problem with this "application of the scientific method." It was just as good as Einstein's GRT, but was largely ignored.

Personal opinion is a fact that you couldn't very well eliminate and it has always been around. It isn't necessary to eliminate it, what usually happens is that people with different opinions work on their different paths, trying to find evidence.

[adjective]

Sorry that my explanation on why Popper's reasoning becomes circular is unclear--I'll try to come up with a clearer explanation.

 

Einstein' s "Gott speilt würfeln nicht" doesn't show that it took a new generation of physicists, before QM was accepted.

 

Point taken and conceded

 

Personal opinion is a fact that you couldn't very well eliminate and it has always been around. It isn't necessary to eliminate it, what usually happens is that people with different opinions work on their different paths, trying to find evidence.

 

That's sort of my point. Again, sorry that I've been unclear. Personal opinion may lead to "illogical" feelings regarding one theory versus another. This is far from a bad thing--rather, it helps create a proliferation of ideas so that there is much more competition--thus a better outcome. In cases where a person knows they're right, the declaration of a universal scientific method may stifle the ability for them to really make their point. By declaring that there is no method that applies to all circumstances at all times, we mollify this rigidity; as such, Whitehead's and Einstein's theories may have been on equal ground according to evidence--but the scientists can pick and choose between the two, depending on which they think matches the universe better.

 

I may still not be explaining this clearly. Check here http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfb4/CMV/Lectures/Feyerabend/PKFTrial.htm for a better idea of what I'm trying to say. It's kind of corny, but I think it's a decent overview of a large part of my proposition (I don't agree with Feyerabend on a number of issues).

[Qfwfq]

In cases where a person knows they're right, the declaration of a universal scientific method may stifle the ability for them to really make their point.

Hmmmm... :eek:

[Happeh]

Its know secret that scientists are hardly perfect in their implementation of the scientific method. Experimental science often starts with the deep seated belief that everyone else in the field is an idiot. Scientists cling to pet theories, often long after better alternatives have been suggested, tested, and established.

 

Does this hurt science?

-Will

 

It hurts humanity more than science. Humanity suffers because small minded people who are comfortable in their positions decree what is and is not acceptable.

 

I went to another science forums and made some claims. A woman administrator named Evo decided I was talking nonsense and deleted my posts. Her rudeness, close mindedness and lack of scientific approach was mind boggling to me. When I chastised her, telling her that she had never spoken to me before deleting the posts so she had no idea if I was right or wrong, she ignored me. I then posted some new material and she deleted it again. No one else was given a chance to voice an opinion on the material. There was no review by a group of people who decided there was nothing of interest there. It was this one short sighted reactionary person who denied the entire forums to opportunity to read my posts because she had a personal problem with it.

 

My posts were unconventional science. That was her reason for deleting them. They did not agree with commonly accepted science. I could understand her reasons for rejecting what I said, but to go so far as to delete the posts so no other person could read them was not good science. It was almost as if she was afraid to hear what I said. The subject was about something that related to women. I felt like she was supressing my posts because her personal feelings as a woman were offended. The scientist that she was supposed to be took a back seat to her personal feelings.

[FrankM]

The problem is that if you define science around a "scientific method" that only accepts itself is circular, i.e. What is science? Well, that's the scientific method. What's the scientific method? Well, that's science. <--Simplified, but I think you get the general gist.

 

I never read it as literal--but rather a critique of conservatism in science. That scientists that have grown up on things a certain way will not readily switch to the other way--or may not even be able to (Einstein's strict adherence to a deterministic universe despite the mounting evidence for QM comes to mind). The new theories don't really succeed (i.e. take over science) until a generation that has grown up on the ideas and views them as self-evident is in place. ...

In the case of General Relativity (GRT) even a circular scientific method is not followed. One of the tenets of GRT is that speed of light (SOL) is constant in free space, when in fact it has never been measured in free space, even though the technology to do so has been around for many decades. Anything that might suggest that GRT is not valid will not get a dime of funding.

 

Recently, I had responded to an IEEE Spectrum article about a "Fifth Force", and the author (a physicist) mentioned that my suggestion was "forbidden knowledge", as it questioned GRT. I thought my suggestion was logical. I forwarded the response to one of my correspondents, a Professor of Electrical Engineering, who replied,

 

Frank, you must understand that the special theory of relativity (SRT) is the holy grail. It's the place where religion and science become one. If one has the audacity to suggest other possibilities, he is forever shunned, banned, and is a candidate for being burned at the stake.

 

They don't burn people at the stake directly, but denying funding is equivalent to having ones scientific career terminated. Theoretically, the scientific method is supposed to test processes that either support or question a theory, but SRT gets a pass on the questioning part.

[Buffy]

In the case of General Relativity (GRT) even a circular scientific method is not followed. One of the tenets of GRT is that speed of light (SOL) is constant in free space, when in fact it has never been measured in free space, even though the technology to do so has been around for many decades.

Well, its kinda expensive, and testing in "free space" should have no effect versus what we can measure here on the ground in a vacuum anyway, but I can assure you that we've been bouncing EM radiation (not just light) off the moon from satellites constantly for 30 years. I think that hardly constitutes "not measuring." Inconsistencies would be quite apparent.

Anything that might suggest that GRT is not valid will not get a dime of funding....They don't burn people at the stake directly, but denying funding is equivalent to having ones scientific career terminated. Theoretically, the scientific method is supposed to test processes that either support or question a theory, but SRT gets a pass on the questioning part.

First of all GRT and SRT are some of the best tested theories in the history of science. Anything as counter-intuitive as these things are gets pelted with "that can't possibly be right" experiments. You want to know why "SR is all wrong" research proposals get skipped? Its *not* because everyone is out to get you. Its because of the notion that "its so well tested how can it possibly be wrong? why waste the money on *that* project?"

 

Now the fact of the matter is, you need some training into how to write a research grant: the key is to stay within the scientific norms so you can get funded and published. Then if you *can* produce contrary results, *publish them without any controversial conclusions*. Keep your real theories in a separate paper and wait for several people to validate your results (and they will because of the "that can't be right" postulate above!). *Then* publish your controversial theory and point to the fact that its been validated!

 

GR and SR are counter-intuitive. People who say they are "wrong" are *still* a dime a dozen, and its *meaningless* to sit there and just say "they're wrong, I just can't get funding to do it." If they're wrong, *prove it*. If you can't get funding, *get creative*! There is no conspiracy, what there is is *a complete lack of contrary data*...

 

"There is no try, only do,"

Buffy

[FrankM]

Well, its kinda expensive, ...

If a theory is not correct a lot more money is being wasted on foolishness.

 

.. and testing in "free space" should have no effect versus what we can measure here on the ground in a vacuum anyway,..

Is that a theory or a fact?

 

.. but I can assure you that we've been bouncing EM radiation (not just light) off the moon from satellites constantly for 30 years. I think that hardly constitutes "not measuring." Inconsistencies would be quite apparent.

Just how would an inconsistency be identified when you are making all measurements from the Earth as the reference? The Lageos satellite(s) "anomalies" get very little play in the scientific press.

 

First of all GRT and SRT are some of the best tested theories in the history of science. Anything as counter-intuitive as these things are gets pelted with "that can't possibly be right" experiments. You want to know why "SR is all wrong" research proposals get skipped? Its *not* because everyone is out to get you. Its because of the notion that "its so well tested how can it possibly be wrong? why waste the money on *that* project?"

The GRT SRT theories have all been tested in only one place, that represents provincial thinking.

 

Now the fact of the matter is, you need some training into how to write a research grant: the key is to stay within the scientific norms so you can get funded and published. Then if you *can* produce contrary results, *publish them without any controversial conclusions*. Keep your real theories in a separate paper and wait for several people to validate your results (and they will because of the "that can't be right" postulate above!). *Then* publish your controversial theory and point to the fact that its been validated! ... Buffy

A controversial result, specifically pointed out in the conclusions or not, will not get past peer review, and non-peer reviewed articles do not get published in the traditional scientific press no matter how clever one is in writing a "research grant". Withholding a conclusion from a report, which becomes obvious to others, who have the fortunate experience of getting their observations published, would give the impression you did not understand what you initially published. It is sort of a catch-22 either way.