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 54:
Line 54: − + Line 112:
Line 112: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
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.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== Uncle Ed's two cents ==
== Four steps of the scientific method ==
Recently, this was made a redirect to [[scientific theory]] which is one stage of the scientific method. It does not talk about the method itself (observation, hypothesis, predictions, refinement, theory). If there are no objections, I intend to remove the redirect and rewrite the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Recently, this was made a redirect to [[scientific theory]] which is one stage of the scientific method. It does not talk about the method itself (observation, hypothesis, predictions, refinement, theory). If there are no objections, I intend to remove the redirect and rewrite the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Mtur - didn't mean to step on your toes - I saw the article had been redirected to scientific theory, which was obviously incorrect, so I wrote something for it to provide some kind of definition of the scientific method without looking at the discussion page. I expect other people will rewrite anything that looks incorrect. There should be no ideological struggles over this since an understanding of the scientific method is universally accepted by scientists, though it may be phrased differently by different people.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:Seems the only contributors to the old entry were amongst a cabal of vandals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:No toes stepped on - just that they are two distinct concepts that need distinct pages. If the old page was substandard then a new one should be written. I'm just making sure that ''I'm'' not stepping on any sensitive sysop toes by suggesting this. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::Please go ahead. We do have some questionable material in some entries, so I just had to remove all this since the ony two contributors have been blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Maybe we need to look at Popper on scientific method. He's the set text for many university philosophy of science papers --[[User:Edward|Edward]] 23:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
==Use of Theory==
The way the current article is written a single tested hypothesis would be classified as a theory. This is incorrect. I will think of some wording that would convey that a theory is a conjecture derived from multiple tested hypotheses.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:A hypothesis is a conjecture designed to guide experimentation. Hypotheses are extremely useful in problem solving, and are essential in developing new theories. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks Ed for the change. I am quiet aware of the differences (doing research of alkaloids, post doc), it just seemed that the article failed to inform the reader that a basic tested hypothesis can not be advanced to a theory. I was actualy making the change when you edited, my version below:
"Scientists must be able to take such published data and repeat the experiment. This allows for confirmation of the validity of the original hypothesis. Multiple supported hypotheses that have a unified concept allows for the concept to be developed into a scientific “[[theory]]”, which in science means an interpretation or explanation that is well-supported by evidence which is testable and tested. A theory can also be falsified by evidence as well. The level of a “fact” or “law” is simply that which is empirical, and can be assumed to true."
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]