Portal talk:Scientific method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to /Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
To-do list for Portal:Scientific method: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Biography section - Popper, Kuhn, Feynman, Feyerabend, etc.
  • More images
  • More articles - the main philosophy of science article may have some good places to start
    • Suggestions here. Paradigm shift, research, hypothesis, hypothesis testing, experiment, Occam's razor, more.
  • DYK section should be a bit snappier
  • Hunt for associated Wikimedia
  • List of related portals
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (September 2007)

If you look at -printable page- view or an actual printout, there are several errors in format.

I cannot tell from markup what forms the overlaps and errors. Someone better than I at wiki format please have a look and help with the cleanup. Smithran 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)smithran

Contents

[edit] Opening comments

I think this is the first attempt I have seen to illustrate these philosophies diagramatically. Quite interesting. Some questions have come to my mind. First off, is it correct what is said about Popper? I have always associated this model of scientific progression (rightly or wrongly) with positivism. And Popper claims not to be a positivist. Not that I could do any better, but I wonder if the diagram really captures the essence of critical rationalism.

I like the Kuhn diagram, it is simple and to the point although I imagine Kuhn fans could pick fault with it. The Feyerabend diagram I'm also reasonably happy with. Something all of these diagrams might benefit from is some way to depict their relationship with falsifying instances; for Popper falsifying instances are a big deal, for Kuhn they have a cumulative effect over time and for Feyerabend they hardly matter at all. Chris 12:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If Kuhn says the theories are incommensurable, why does the diagram show them intersecting? I think the diagram oversimplifies. Banno 21:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
So Feyerabend's ideas are a bit loopy? Banno
At the risk of misattribution of FastFission's diagram, it might be said that the Feyerabend picture mirrors the state of the early quantum theory, the Kuhn picture mirrors the current disconnect between quantum mechanics and general relativity and the Popper picture mirrors the as-yet non-existent theory of everything, or perhaps the Newtonian world view (ex QM,GR). FastFission contributed this diagram for the History of science series. You will find it there in one of the subpages. Ancheta Wis 00:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The diagram of course oversimplifies -- it is only meant to show differences in basic approaches. The Feyerabend diagram is actually adapted from one in Against Method, the others are just simple representations. The "area" covered in the diagrams is meant to be taken metaphorically -- it's the "body of facts and other things thought to be explained by the theory". --Fastfission 16:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the diagram is more confusing than enlightening, especially for people unfamiliar with the philosophy of science who don't already understand the ideas of Kuhn, Popper, etc. I get that the curves for Feyerabend convey arbitrariness, but is there a particular reason why they are not closed to encompass an area, like the other two? Assuming the enclosed area represents the total of what a theory explains or deals with, openness might imply an expanding scope over time, even for one theory, but if that's the case, that holds for Kuhn as well. As for Kuhn, I think the most essential part to convey about his idea of scientific method is not the partial incommensurability, but the steady growth of normal science within one paradigm; in any case, having every circle the same size and having one completely separated from another is misleading... all three should have a common area of overlap, and subsequent ones should get bigger, and cover most but not all of the previous ones.
Also, some of the content in the portal isn't really about scientific method, and it's kind of a narror topic for a portal. It seems like a general philosophy of science portal would be much more useful, and it would be easier to populate.--ragesoss 13:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I propose renaming and expanding the scope of this portal to Portal:Philosophy of science. This portal has been around in it's current state since May 2005 with very little development. It could form a very strong three-way partnership with Portal:Science and Portal:History of science. Rfrisbietalk 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Philosophy of science will allow the portal a far broader scope, and add some interest. I have added the question to the talk page of WikiProject Science, also, so hopefully some members will drop by here to give their opinion. riana_dzasta 14:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Scientific method is not philosophy, but about practice of science; if Philosophy of sci. needs a portal, then let's build one. It's not so hard; after all, I started this one. So anyone who needs Philosophy of sci., just ask me, and you can have that portal in a short while. --Ancheta Wis 21:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We have plenty of experience building portals. If you want, I'll put this back to where I found it and start the other one from scratch. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just started Portal:Philosophy of science. Rfrisbietalk 21:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you meant Portal:Philosophy of Science. Portal:History of science is already a Featured portal. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed the link, sorry. Rfrisbietalk 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on Ancheta's statement about scientific method not being philosophy. I can see how that statement might hold, although for the History of scientific method article, most of the discussion will be around philosophers. Ironically it is the history article which is part of the science project while the scientific method article is part of the philosophy project. --Chris 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I think that rather than separating the categories with "|" we should italicize every other one.

Current
  • Philosophy: Logic | Philosophy
With Italicizing
  • Philosophy: Logic Philosophy

• s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk · contribs • 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Italicising seems to give undue importance to the word in italics. Maybe that's just a psychological thing for me, don't know about anyone else :) I personally prefer separating with bullet points, like this. What do you think? riana_dzasta 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. • s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk · contribs • 13:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of scientific method topics

you should add a link to this somewhere here. List of scientific method topics

24.68.66.45 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)