The Ideal of the Noble Scientist

I myself am guilty of this reverence when I quote great physicists like Einstein or Planck or Schrodinger or Bohm. It's as if I assume that since they have devoted so much time to figuring out the properties of matter and light they must be equally adept in metaphysical matters as well. But one's authority as a great thinker doesn't necessarily follow from one's expertise in science. One has only to remember Isaac Newton's obsession with the occult and Biblical prophecies. Sometimes there IS that lucky combination, but I think that is more the exception than the rule.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bohr or Ohm?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aha! Thank you.

 

Scientists are people that generally have a bit more scholarship, education, than most folks. This is a plus for them but they're still human. The thing that keeps science on an intellectually honest path is the scientific method. Ignore the method and you're not a scientist. The folks you mention revealed scholarship to the rest of us. Nothing humans are involved in has a chance of being perfect but the scientific method comes close. You should pick an article written about the method rather than the nonsense you linked.

 

"You might have learned about or participated in such activities as part of something your teacher described as the “scientific method.” It’s a sequence of steps that take you from asking a question to arriving at a conclusion. But scientists rarely follow the steps of the scientific method as textbooks describe it.

“The scientific method is a myth,” asserts Gary Garber, a physics teacher at Boston University Academy.

The term “scientific method,” he explains, isn’t even something scientists themselves came up with. It was invented by historians and philosophers of science during the last century to make sense of how science works. Unfortunately, he says, the term is usually interpreted to mean there is only one, step-by-step approach to science.

That’s a big misconception, Garber argues. “There isn’t one method of ‘doing science.’”

In fact, he notes, there are many paths to finding out the answer to something. Which route a researcher chooses may depend on the field of science being studied. It might also depend on whether experimentation is possible, affordable — even ethical.

In some instances, scientists may use computers to model, or simulate, conditions. Other times, researchers will test ideas in the real world. Sometimes they begin an experiment with no idea what may happen. They might disturb some system just to see what happens, Garber says, “because they’re experimenting with the unknown.”

The practices of science

But it’s not time to forget everything we thought we knew about how scientists work, says Heidi Schweingruber. She should know. She’s the deputy director of the Board on Science Education at the National Research Council, in Washington, D.C.

In the future, she says, students and teachers will be encouraged to think not about the scientific method, but instead about “practices of science” — or the many ways in which scientists look for answers.

Schweingruber and her colleagues recently developed a new set of national guidelines that highlight the practices central to how students should learn science.

“In the past, students have largely been taught there’s one way to do science,” she says. “It’s been reduced to ‘Here are the five steps, and this is how every scientist does it.’“

But that one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t reflect how scientists in different fields actually “do” science, she says.

For example, experimental physicists are scientists who study how particles such as electrons, ions and protons behave. These scientists might perform controlled experiments, starting with clearly defined initial conditions. Then they will change one variable, or factor, at a time. For instance, experimental physicists might smash protons into various types of atoms, such as helium in one experiment, carbon during a second experiment and lead in a third. Then they would compare differences in the collisions to learn more about the building blocks of atoms.

In contrast, geologists, scientists who study the history of Earth as recorded in rocks, won’t necessarily do experiments, Schweingruber points out. “They’re going into the field, looking at landforms, looking at clues and doing a reconstruction to figure out the past,” she explains. Geologists are still collecting evidence, “but it’s a different kind of evidence.”

Current ways of teaching science might also give hypothesis testing more emphasis than it deserves, says Susan Singer, a biologist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn.

A hypothesis is a testable idea or explanation for something. Starting with a hypothesis is a good way to do science, she acknowledges, “but it’s not the only way.”

“Often, we just start by saying, ‘I wonder’“ Singer says. “Maybe it gives rise to a hypothesis.” Other times, she says, you may need to first gather some data and look to see if a pattern emerges."====https://student.societyforscience.org/article/problems-‘-scientific-method’

 

Then they are not scientists. The scientific method is no more than an extension of common sense and logic, something you could certainly learn from.

While there certainly is not one method in conducting individual science, the basis of all science, again is the scientific method which in turn is simply an extension of common sense and logic.

And of course, that same scientific method has seen humanity benefiting as a whole, and dramatically improving our lot in all respects.

 

"The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."===http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

 

Not at all. The scientific method as a foundation and extension of common sense and logic, applies quite admirably.
Of course that absolutely leaves out any semblance of the reality of ghosts, goblins, poltergeists and such.
And of course, you can find any number of internet references, to support any number of views you so desire.

 

In this case I'm more interested in how science is conducted now. The method is having some spectacular results. Maybe you haven't noticed? There's always a path to improvement in any endeavor. Including science.

 

Once I see a bunch of quotes "" I'm out. Unless it's a great scientist or athlete. Just spoofing. I'm already lying since I frequently quote Don Henley and the Eagles. "All the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools". I didn't even get the initial quote right. I initially wrote 'information not knowledge'.

 

Ever think that the success of scientists has nothing to do with some method and everything to do with the intelligence and creativity of the scientists themselves?

 

I like it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What's rather weird though, is the fact that they seem to wear this obvious "fool" tag, or the "independent" tag, like a badge of honour.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Supported of course by all the philosophical claptrap in the world.

 

I don't know what to say. The idea that "most people think" thusly, doesn't move me at all. So what, the masses are asses. It's so easy to get a shitty paper into the popular zeitgeist that it's scandalous. It's been done deliberately, and the standards are lax to non-existent, where you can pay to publish. It's only going to be more so in the future. Don't believe just anything you read.

 

For various favorable traits, scientists surely rate higher than politicians, lawyers, salesmen, & many other professions. I would rate them above priests, rabbis, & ministers for unbiased opinions.

I trust the ethics of scientists over most professions.

Obviously, there are scientists who try to fudge their data in support of some bias. However, most are trustworthy.

During WW2 when the USSR was our ally, it was mostly mathematicians & scientists that were suspicious, agreeing with Churchill's POV

 

Scientific success has a lot to do with intelligence, scholarship and the methods used. Good answer. Right?

 

Yes..but a method only generates science as usual. The real breakthroughs come from inspired minds with the ability to think outside the box.

 

Popular zeitgeist isn't the scientific literature. It was created for spreading shit.

 

What inspires scientists is they've acquired the scholarship to help them 'think outside the box' on difficult subject matter. You think you were born with the ability to that without the scholarship. Crank bullshit.

 

I agree with all of that.

I'm not convinced that scientists always adhere to a single method/procedure/algorithm that defines science and the practice of science, explains the success of modern science since the 17th century and distinguishes science from everything that isn't science.

A great deal of what scientists spend their time doing doing isn't primarily hypothesis-testing. They might participate in a paleontological expedition to the Gobi desert in Mongolia, looking for fossils. They might be compiling a 'flora' of the native plants of Oregon. They might maintain a collection of type-specimens of insect species. They might be involved in an astronomical survey searching for extrasolar planets or using various techniques to characterize the ones the survey has tentatively identified. They might be surveying an area of the Amazon jungle to determine the number of insect species and the abundance of each species living there. They might be trying to construct a mathematical model of something. They might subject an Egyptian mummy to medical imaging to get some idea of the health of the individual it once was. Charles Darwin didn't have a hypothesis in mind that he wanted to test when he set out on the Beagle. Newton wasn't testing a hypothesis when he invented his 'fluxions' version of calculus.