Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Scientific method (view source)
Revision as of 00:57, January 17, 2010
, 00:57, January 17, 2010inadvertent, a sideshow to the planned purpose
An example of an excellent, useful article. Will it be deleted for failing one of ASchlafly's tests? I ask not to be a pain, but because accepting this entry should cause the rejection of a large percentage of articles currently here.
An example of an excellent, useful article. Will it be deleted for failing one of ASchlafly's tests? I ask not to be a pain, but because accepting this entry should cause the rejection of a large percentage of articles currently here.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:It won't be deleted, if I have any say in the matter. But item #3 is incomplete and has a poor example.
==Poverty of this definition==
Totally diagaree. This is a very inadequate section, which does not at all address what the scientific method actually does , or tries to do, not the depth of verifiability required in accepting theory. Compare what is written here with the Wikipedia entry:
''Elements of scientific method''
There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the [[scientific community]] and among [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]], each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
* '''Observation'''. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* '''Description'''. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* '''Prediction'''. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* '''Control'''. Actively and fairly sampling the range of ''possible'' occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* '''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.<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.
:* '''Covariation of events'''. The hypothesized causes must [[correlate]] with observed effects.
:* '''Time-order relationship'''. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
</div>
The following is a more thorough description of the method. This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as social sciences. Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[iteration]]s, [[recursion]]s, [[interleaving]]s, and [[Partially ordered set|orderings]] of the following:
*[[#Characterizations|Characterizations]] (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
*[[#Hypothesis development|Hypotheses]] (theoretical, hypothetical [[explanation]]s of observations and measurements)
*[[#Predictions from the hypothesis|Predictions]] ([[reasoning]] including [[logic]]al [[deduction]] from [[hypothesis]] and [[theory]])
*[[#Experiments|Experiments]] ([[Experiment|test]]s of all of the above) </div>
An alternative way to explain scientific method is the "operational":
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[operation]]s, [[observation]]s, [[scientific modeling|model]]s, and a [[utility function]] for evaluating models.
*[[Operation]] - Some action done to the system being investigated
*[[Observation]] - What happens when the operation is done to the system
*[[Scientific_modeling|Model]] - A [[fact]], [[hypothesis]], [[theory]], or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
*[[Utility_function|Utility Function]] - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it
One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the [[Scientific_modeling|refutability]] of the model. Another is its [[simplicity]], on the [[Principle of Parsimony]] also known as [[Occam's Razor]].</div>
I would suggest that what is required her is either to use a reference to Wikipedia OR to incorparate some of these elements.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== Four steps of the scientific method ==
Has anyone seen this 4-step formulation?
*Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
*#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
*#The inducement of general [[hypotheses]] or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet [[logic]]al. [[Occam's Razor]] should be considered but need not be strictly applied: ''Entia non sunt multiplicanda'', or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
*#The [[deduction]] of [[corollary]] assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable [[prediction]]s are made based on the initial hypothesis.
*#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced [[implication]]s. [[Observation]] is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or [[falsifying]] the initial hypothesis.
*[[Pseudoscience]] often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]
The difference between this 4-step process and what the article says, is that this one recommends drawing [[conclusion]]s from the hypothesis. The [[scientist]] then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.
Logically, it works like this:
*Hypothesis: the [[moon]] is made of green cheese.
*#If this is true, then the [[spectrum]] of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
*#[[Astronomer]] X did a spectral analysis of [[moonlight]] and found that it did not match green cheese.
*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.
If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the [[criteria]] used by medical [[researcher]]s to determine whether a particular [[germ]] causes a [[disease]]. Such factors as:
*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least [[antibodies]] indicating its presence)?
*Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a [[threshold]]?
I think this was used in determining whether ''[[e. coli]]'' [[bacteria]] in [[water]] makes people sick.
Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
----
It has been nearly 3 weeks, and '''none''' of the writers clamoring and carping about the supposed "bias" of this site re: [[theory of evolution]] have bothered to comment on [[scientific methodology]] here. Does this mean that evolution is indeed a matter of [[dogma]] to them, as [[Ann Coulter]] claims in ''[[Godless]]''?
[[Psychology]] studies invisible events which cannot be measured by any "[[natural]]" means. We can only ask people to report to us, in their own words, what they were thinking or feeling. Yet it is considered a [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:On the other hand, it might be because we have been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements, and did not have the opportunity to contribute. :P --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::If this were true, somebody would have pointed out an example by now. I've been here 5 weeks, and ideological bans simply do not happen. Do not spread false rumors, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, you mean like the following interchange on A.Schafly's talk page just before I was banned...
<nowiki>== Response to accusations of ideology ==</nowiki>
<nowiki>This is quite an interesting accusation. I thought that I was simply pointing out that the entry as written was deficient, in that it contained no references and seemed to present an unjustified diatribe against what the author perceived to be 'liberals'. Not knowing any liberals, myself, I would like to know where i can find such information, so as to read about them, and convince myself that the statements are true. As to defacing, I did not change ONE ITEM of text that you wrote, hence I do not consider that defacement. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)</nowiki>
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
----
You were not "banned" - you are still here. To "ban" means to exclude permanently from the project. Please don't use inflammatory language.
Your account was blocked for three days because of "sarcasm". You had said that you didn't know any liberals.
Instead of engaging me here in a low-traffic area of the site, perhaps you'd like to make your points in a more prominent place, such as [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] got blocked for criticising badly sourced stuff. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that the reasons given for such blocks are just excuses to stifle criticism - they can't be found in the rules.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
== Distinct from Scientific theory ==
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]