Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scientific method"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(needs improvement)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
:It won't be deleted, if I have any say in the matter. But item #3 is incomplete and has a poor example.
 
: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.{{Who|Date=March 2007}} 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 eiother to use a reference to Wikepedia OR to incorparate some of these elements.

Revision as of 19:11, April 4, 2007

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. 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 philosophers of science, each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.

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.[Who says?] 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.

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.

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

An alternative way to explain scientific method is the "operational":

The essential elements of a scientific method are operations, observations, models, 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
  • Model - A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
  • 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 refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam's Razor.


I would suggest that what is required her is eiother to use a reference to Wikepedia OR to incorparate some of these elements.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_method&oldid=85360"