Is there a method?

dumbest man on earth said:
Is the Topic of this Thread now : reifying abstractions? : or the real process of science?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Trippy said:
If you want to complain about my decisions or skills as a moderator, take it to SFOG.
Click to expand...

Trippy, while perusing SFOG, I found the following Post/Sticky :
Stryder said:
Complaining about Moderators.

Since this seems to be missed an awful lot by those that complain, this is being stickied.

Open Government was initially an Experimental forum created by the Sites initial founder Porfiry, it was made to allow certain thought to be made about the sites operation and not created as a place to Flame about Moderators in regards to peoples personal discontent.

Complaint threads about Moderators will be LOCKED, not just in this forum but all the others too. This is because it doesn't do anything constructive but just causes more problems in the long run.

If you have a problem with a Moderator then you can:
Take it up with the Moderator in question through Private Mail (PM). This is not suggested if you are wanting to send abuse, only if you want to ask why a post was deleted, where a post has been moved or why something has been moderated. For the most part they will explain themselves and you might be able to remedy the problem via either a repost that's been through moderation or just the understanding not to do it again.

Always ask if they are the moderator you need to deal with, they will ask of the other Moderators if they aren't and direct you to the correct one.

Just Remember: Moderators are Human (no matter the rumours) so treat them nicely. We aren't here to be abused or throw abuse back, if you want that get yourself a chat bot that you can program yourself.

If the Moderator is personally singling you out from the rest of the forum and you feel unfairly moderated, PM a Super-Moderator or Administrator about that Moderator. We can look round and ask questions about what's going on. We will try to remain unbiased when dealing with situations and will attempt to deal with things fairly.


If by this time you still think there is some sort of conspiracy or we (Sciforums) is being unfair, then the likelihood is you've burnt so many bridges that people just don't want to deal with you any more.

[Resources]
List of Moderators/Administrators
Click to expand...
- the ^^above quoted^^ from :http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?79023-Complaining-about-Moderators

It would appear to be a perfect example of the application of the real process of science...NOT!
 
arfa brane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries
 
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."

https://www.amazon.com/Making-20th-Century-Science-Knowledge/dp/0199978158

https://books.google.com/books?id=S3ObBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=making twentieth century science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0kfLsrJfaAhUW5mMKHeQ6DTIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=making twentieth century science&f=false

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/making-20th-century-science-9780199978151?q=making modern science&lang=en&cc=us
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top