Is there a method?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Juanchogespacho, Jan 11, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's easy......
    The topic of this thread is that there is an accepted scientific method......Speaking broadly that entails as making an observation, developing a hypothesis, testing and testing again the hypothesis,...Arriving at an accepted theory supported by experiments and observations, which is then peer reviewed through accepted processes.
    Naturally depending on the scientific discipline and individuals, variations can and do take place.
    Necessary qualities of the scientific method is knowledge gained from standing on the shoulders of giants, Innovativeness, some Imagination and pot luck.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    There may well be an accepted scientific method, but it isn't one that is adhered to religiously. And the assumption that applying the so-called scientific method is how scientists make discoveries is clearly false since many discoveries have been made during experiments to test for something else.

    The electronics industry is just one example; serendipitous discoveries such as the quantum Hall effect were not expected. Graphene continues to surprise researchers with its unexpected properties. So one should at least adjust one's grasp of what the scientific method actually is; it isn't a recipe that guarantees your hypotheses will be verified or contraindicated, since, you know, you might find something completely unexpected and will then need a brand new hypothesis.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Trippy, while perusing SFOG, I found the following Post/Sticky :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from :

    It would appear to be a perfect example of the application of the real process of science...NOT!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I see the scientific method as a basis or foundation to science, with variations following on from the basic steps.
    The method is actually logic and common sense that extends beyond the field of science and which is practised unknowingly in every day life.
    Even serendipitious discoveries will see the need of the application of the scientific method.

    " Indeed, the scientific method, and the scientists themselves, can be prepared in many other ways to harness luck and make discoveries." WIKI:
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The role of chance, or luck, in science comprises all ways in which unexpected discoveries are made. This is a topic studied in many domains, especially psychology. Kevin Dunbar and colleagues estimate that between 30% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are, in some sense, accidental (see examples below).[1]

    Dunbar quotes Louis Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors only the prepared mind".[2] He suggests that observational rigor can be harnessed to make more discoveries, and also that various investigations into the scientific method itself (e.g. philosophical, historical, psychological, Thomas Kuhn's famous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and so on)[1][3][4][5] have all supported the idea that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays an important part.[1]

    Research suggests that scientists are taught various heuristics and practices that allow their investigations to benefit from serendipity.[1][6] Researchers use the scientific method because the careful control conditions allow them to properly identify something as "unexpected", potentially leading them to new knowledge. Researchers also work across various disciplines to explain their curious findings: They use creative analogies, but also seek help from colleagues with different specialities.[1] Psychologist Alan A. Baumeister emphasizes that a scientist must also be "sagacious" (attentive and clever) to turn luck into serendipity.[7]
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that is the standard standing rule... however, if a moderator directly tells you to open a thread there, it can be presumed you are being given permission to do so...
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Here's a recent book on the subject of purported "Scientific Method" by a noted historian of science that examines in detail the history of a number of iconic scientific advances in the last century:

    Making Twentieth Century Science: How Theories Become Knowledge by Stephen Brush, 2015, Oxford University Press.

    The review on the British Journal of the History of Science begins by saying:

    "Historians, sociologists and philosophers of science have often delved into the question of how and why some theories become scientific knowledge. From demarcationist realism to relativist socio-constructivism, the number of potential answers to this central question has multiplied throughout the twentieth century in the academic literature. The most popular and influential stance among scientists and the general public, according to Stephen G. Brush, is experimental predictivism and, more specifically, Karl Popper's falsifiability. This is a book against it." twentieth century science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0kfLsrJfaAhUW5mMKHeQ6DTIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=making twentieth century science&f=false modern science&lang=en&cc=us
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018

Share This Page