Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: − + Line 134:
Line 134: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Scientific method (view source)
Revision as of 00:57, January 17, 2010
, 00:57, January 17, 2010inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose
* '''Falsifiability''', or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: ''All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof''. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* '''Falsifiability''', or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: ''All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof''. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.{{Who|Date=March 2007}} Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.<nowiki>{{Who|Date=March 2007}}</nowiki> Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
:* '''Identification of causes'''. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
:* '''Identification of causes'''. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
The law definition should be edited as well. We have discovered that it is was to presumptous for us to claim that something is not going to change, however we can say with a high level of certainty that something will remain the same.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
The law definition should be edited as well. We have discovered that it is was to presumptous for us to claim that something is not going to change, however we can say with a high level of certainty that something will remain the same.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Just saw your last edit, that helps a lot with what I said above.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)
==How and when is it really used?==
I daresay that scientific discovery is only rarely made by systematically applying the "scientific method".
* Most good things that happen with kids (or in any other setting) are inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose of an activity. For instance, it's said that Einstein discovered relativity while riding a train, absent-mindedly watching a parallel train pull ahead, leaving him with the sense of moving backwards -- relatively. As Philosopher Vilfredo Pareto put it "Logic is useful for proof, but almost never for making discoveries." [http://www.tompeters.com/printer_friendly.php?print=1¬e=columns/005078]