Talk:Scientific method/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tedium

Congratulations folks. We are on the way to completing probably the most boring article in the whole encyclopedia. If we could only get the issue about the double-quotes sorted.

I really don't get a feeling for any life in what we have written. Where is the history? There was a little editing war about which of the Bacons got there first. Why not expand on that a little?

The detailed explanations of well-understood terms leave me cold. I want to know about disagreements, puzzles, colorful episodes and defining moments. I want to know about the people involved. Not just Newton and his apple for goodness sake. Chris

Wouldn't that be more appropriate to a history of science page? Grizzly 22:55, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My hunch as to the origin of the dryness is that it comes from having made this (starting with the last big whopping excision of material) an article foremost about "The Scientific Method" instead of one about scientific practice and the extent to which it is methodological or not. I suspect the topic of the "Scientific Method" bores the people who have an interest in and carry around colorful science anecdotes, and so they aren't contributing. I know it bores me. 168... 23:26, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is hardly the case that scientific method (quotes or without quotes) has no history. We have Francis Bacon and his 'induction by simple enumeration'. Its initial lack of emphasis on hypothosis leading Newton to say he made no use of hypothosis. Then there is the whole history of the inductive method through logical positivism to present day attempts to revive it by philosophers like David Stokes. There is the competing methodological outlook of deductive reasoning introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce in the ninteenth century(abduction) and its current form of conjectures and refutations.

There are methodological battles between, Whewell and John Stuart Mills ( http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/whewell.html ), Popper and Carnap, Feyerabend and, well everyone. I mean, how can we not mention Against Method in an article about scientific method?.

Don't people what to know who made hypothosis, as a concept, important to scientific method? Don't we want to know why we have all learned to say that observations are theory loaded? Was it Popper who told us that? Or maybe it was Kuhn. And what did important figures like Einstein think of all this? Did he give a monkeys about scientific method? --Chris

I'd be very happy to see all of that stuff. I expect whoever removed the philosophy of science content that used to be there (I think it was either RK or Cimon and that some of it has landed at interpretations of the scientific method) will have something to say against it. But you have my vote. 168... 00:49, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The removal of all the philosophers, with the exception of Kuhn, sparked my curiosity in this page. Having material about only one approach to methodology, or even only to one school, would introduce an unacceptable bias. Hence my request that no philosophers or historians be included. I would be happy to withdraw that request if the article addressed a wide range of methodologies. That is, the article should have either general coverage of a range of methodologies, or none at all.
So the option is there to introduce an extended discussion of methodology. But how would it then be different from the philosophy of science article? Such a strategy would lead to the reproduction of much material that is discussed elsewhere.
So I suggest making scientific method an extended list of links, preferably with a commentary, but containing no extended discussion of the various opinions.
Much of the material in the body of the article would be better placed under a new article on hypothetico-deductive method, since it describes only this one theory of methodology, rather than in this general article, which can only provide a NPOV if it is particularly catholic.
In other words, put the methodological debates in the articles for their proponents, and refer to them from here. I don?t see a point, for instance, in reproducing falsifiability here, when the article already exits.
Banno 06:17, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I see the possibilities for overlap. Although the philosophy of science page has a much wider scope than just methodology. Considering the diversity of things that fall under that heading it is inevitable that an article for each of the sub-issues will develop anyhow. On the philosophy of science page such things as scientific relativism, scepticism, instrumentalism and realism will be introduced alongside incommensurability, demarcation criteria, social constructionism and the role of science in society.

Here we can give methodology fuller treatment. Even the page you refer to as a potential source of duplication ( falsifiability ) has not found the space to discuss the normative aspects of Popper's philosophy. --Chris

I think an advantage that hypertext has is that it is possible to move around a text in ways that suit one?s own purpose. To that end, I think it behoves a hypertext document such as this to keep individual items relatively short, but link them to related topics so that more detail can be added. So I think that, for example, discussion of the normative aspects of falsifiability should take place in the falsifiability article; Incommensurability surely deserves its own article, as do demarcation and social construction. The role of science in society surely deserves more than a paragraph in an article on methodology. In other words, a 'fuller' treatment can best be done by making use of links. Banno 11:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1st para

A suggestion for the first paragraph:  ?Scientific method is the way in which science is constructed?. A short definition that avoids obtuse constructions and makes the circularity of the previous definition at least less obvious. Banno 21:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I found that sentence extremely vague. It also encourages the perspective that the scientific method is necessarily something that happens in the world as opposed to something that is foremost an interpretation or description or prescription, which may or may not be accurate and/or advisable to follow. That's the POV issue we've been talking about. Since the sentence doesn't actually explain anything, I just removed it. 168... 19:46, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Vague, perhaps, but true. And a far better construct than the previous one.
There are lots of true but pointless things one could say. I couldn't disagree more about it being better. 168... 20:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Don?t see how it encourages the perverse view you describe. That the construction is of a theory, not a ?thing in the world? would appear to be pretty obvious. Banno 20:25, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Come on, it's not hard to see. scientific method = the way scientists work = what I see when I look through the window of a laboratory = material people and things in action. 168... 20:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, I?ll agree with you in part: Scientific method is the way scientists work. I can ignore the circularity for a bit ? it no doubt derives from the definition of ?scientist? rather than of ?scientific method?. The stuff about the laboratory ignores the social aspect of method ? all the fun articles in journals, and trips to hotel rooms in foreign parts for conferences. They are as much a part of science as bottles and test tubes.
Hotel rooms have windows to. That was an argument by example. I'm glad it seems to have reached you.168... 20:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great. Now the first paragraph doesn?t even mention Scientific Method.Banno 20:29, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I noticed. That's one reason why I say the old intro was better.168... 20:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I suspect, and indeed prefer to believe, that the consensus view was that the old intro sucked. Banno 21:11, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Consensus? What, my vote doesn't count? And whose opinion have we heard from besides yours and some objections to circularity by Ecclecticology in another context which predated my arguments for the existence of another point of view? 168... 21:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) "When someone describes the way in which they think science is done," that someone may be an anti-method anthropologist who is out to refute method and does not wish to prescribe. Hence we can say no more than that "often" they are prescribing in the context of the first paragraph.168... 21:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Even Feyerabend, who is about as anti-method as one can be, in saying ?anything goes?, is prescribing a particular approach to science: that it is improper to set any preconditions on the way in which scientists be permitted to behave. In other words, he is describing the way in which he thinks science ought to be done. Even in explicitly not wishing to prescribe, he prescribes. Banno 03:06, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do not regard "anything goes" as a prescription. Would Feyerabend walk up to a scientist who was carrying out science in a certain way and say "Tut, tut, Liebschen, you're not doing just anything, and so you're doing this all wrong." Perhaps if he had his way he might restrict the society of neuroscientists from passing a law to conduct all future science by a single procedural formula, but that would be a restriction and not a prescription. But I'm not even sure he would presume to do that 168... 04:57, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that someone who adds the sentence, "Verification is the process of getting other people to agree with you." is taking the subject seriously. ☮ Eclecticology 07:19, 2003 Nov 23 (UTC)

On the contrary, ?Verification is the process of getting other people to agree with you? is a succinct and accurate, although perhaps not gracious, description. It also combats one of the underlying flaws of the article: that it either ignores or sidelines the fact that science is a social enterprise. I?ve re-worded the offending sentence, hopefully showing sufficient respect. It also removes the philosophically contentious phrase ??in accordance with the facts??.
To start with you are mixing up verification and peer review. Although I can see peer review as perhaps one method of verification, but a lot of hypothesis testing goes on before it gets that far. I can agree to some extent that "science is a social enterprise", but this article is about scientific method, rather than science. The social aspects are irrelevant to understanding the scientific method. I do concede that "the facts" is problematic, and will change that to empirical evidence. ☮ Eclecticology 09:32, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)
You are seeking to force too great a distinction between peer review and verification. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann could repeat their own experiment. After 200 experiments conducted over 10 years, scientists at the Office of Naval Research suggest quietly that something strange is going on. Yet Cold fusion remains unaccepted by the wider scientific community. That is to say, cold fusion remains unverified. Perhaps it would be better to combine the verification and evaluation sections of the article. Banno 09:53, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whatever the eventual outcome of the cold fusion debate, one has to accept that Pons and Fleischmann at least did some hypothesis testing (however faulty) before they made their theory public. Ultimately every hypothesis remains open to question indefinitely, but the difficulties in one particular corner of science are not going to be solved within the confines of this article. I too believe that "scientists" give short shrift to any situation where "something strange is going on", and that their use of the epithet "pseudoscience" is an abandonment of responsibility. They like to have their world neat and tidy, and it can be painful to admit that something can remain unknown or unidentified. To do so would be to accept paradox as a valid result. ☮ Eclecticology 20:03, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

The entry "the spread of notations, which are the key common concern of philosophy of science," is opaque. The "philosophy of science" article does not use the word "notation" at all. Ultimately, no notation is itself a hypothesis; they could perhaps be viewed as an extension in symbols of the concept of definition. They are not falsifiable.

This article has really gone downhill in the last couple days. I've attempted to deal with some of it, but there is a lot that still needs to be repaired. The tone has become more argumentative, and at that rate someone who naïvely tries to read it as an encyclopedia article will leave more confused that when he started. It starts a title, "Departures from formulism", without ever defining formulism. Is the detailed explanation of double-blind drug tests helpful to understanding what we mean by the scientific method? That may very well be a perfectly valid application of the method, but it does nothing to help us understand it. ☮ Eclecticology 08:23, 2003 Nov 23 (UTC)


"Formulism" was me. There seemed to be some sensitivity in the air to the "scientific method in theory"/"scientific method in practice" distinction that I'd introduced to the article. The section that was once headed in "...in practice," became "creativity and aesthetics", which did away with the connotation of departures from the ideal. "Formulism" was my idea of a compromise. I'm not especially fond of it. I'm not even sure I'm using the word in a commonly accepted way. I noticed it's not in the American Heritage dictionary. A standard use would be, I think, in distinguishing "the Heisenberg and Schroedinger formulisms" of quantum mechanics. I meant the heading as "departures from formula" or "formulaic-ness" or "formula-icity". Really I suppose it should be "departures from method."168... 17:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just went to the "One Look" website http://www.onelook.com/ , and it shows the word as listed in only two dictionaries.
  1. Encarta: belief in formulas: a belief in or reliance on formulas, especially inadequate or obsolete ones
  2. Infoplease: adherence to or reliance on formulas.
I even considered the possibility that it might be a misspelling for "formalism", which has 30 entries at One Look, and could fit in our context.
As you may have gathered from my previous posts, my view of the scientific method starts with the ideal, and everything else is either an elaboration (Popper, Kuhn and the philosophers) or a departure (science in practice) from that ideal. This does not imply anything right or wrong avout the elaborations and departures; it merely attempts to give a coherent structure to the topic.
I don't attach as much importance to the headings as to the text. I'm sure you'll find a heading that will be more meaningful. ☮ Eclecticology 19:34, 2003 Nov 23 (UTC)

social aspects

The statement above that 'the social aspects are irrelevant to understanding the scientific method' is quite extraordinary. But perhaps it says much about what is going on in the editing of this article, as does the admission that 'the scientific method starts with the ideal, and everything else is either an elaboration or a departure'.

Not if one makes a distinction between the scientific method, and what scientists actually do. ☮ Eclecticology 20:58, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to ask who the audience is for this article. What is described in the section on the ??idealised?? scientific method is much the same as that in my high school biology text of thirty years ago. Yet it persists, and is useful presumably in the way that Richard Dawkins called lies to children. It is a story that simplifies a complex process. So if the intended audience for this article is a schoolchild, then the article might be useful. If, however, the intended audience is considered to be even slightly more sophisticated, then surely they will want to know a bit more about the complexity of methodology. In such a case, the idealised method is a gross oversimplification, if not, as Feyerabend might argue, simply a lie.

I see the audience for a general encyclopedia as being the general public. Describing an "idealised" scientific method sets the groundwork for what we are talking about. It defines, circumscribes and explains just what we are talking about. That is not yet a lie. Only when that groundwork has been laid can we fairly enter into the difficulties. ☮ Eclecticology 20:58, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the authors here are simply not willing to admit the validity of views that might be even remotely critical of the idealised method. Perhaps it is because of a misguided loyalty to science, which might be perceived as under threat from an increasingly critical society. But in failing to even discuss the criticisms of Kuhn and Feyerabend, let alone the post constructionists and post-modernists, they are adopting the attitude of an ostrich.

I certainly have no loyalty to science as it is practised. The fundamental elements of the scientific method remain strong. I make a distinction too between the general notion of a hypothesis, and Popper's view of a hypothesis as a necessarily falsifiable statement. It's good to know just what we are criticizing before we start to criticize it. ☮ Eclecticology 20:58, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

I noted above that my attention was caught when someone removed reference to Popper and Feyerabend from the article, arguing to the effect that the article should be kept 'pure', presumably meaning unadulterated by the ravings of the philosophers and social critics. But a literate reader will quickly see that they are being duped, and feel no gratitude to the authors. How much better, on the contrary, if the article could admit the criticisms, and encourage the reader to investigate them for themselves.

I don't particularly support their removal. At the time of their removal I was perhaps too busy with an argument about another part of the article about which I felt more strongly. ;-) ☮ Eclecticology 20:58, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

My point at the time was that if one removes Popper and Feyerabend, one should also remove Kuhn, and any other philosopher of note. The result is a remarkably uninformative and tedious article. I suggested changing this to the simple definition ? a 'lie to children', and adding the annotated links for those who want to research further. But it seems that the article will remain in its present, stagnant and irrelevant state with the revisionists continuing to remove any attempt to broaden the content. A bit of a shame, really. I noted 168?s sympathy and concern, expressed in talk:philosophy_of_science, for the defacement of that article caused by scientists not trained in philosophy. It appears that the same thing is happening here, in an article that should be the meeting place of science and philosophy. Banno 10:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not that it makes a difference to your point, but for the record I made my comment on the philosophy of science talk page more with this article in mind than specifically about that one. I consider scientific method a philosophy topic, more or less, or more specifically a science studies topic. It's almost completely meta to science per se. Besides being able to offer pertinent anecdotes (which I suppose could have the power to refute certain ideas), a thoughtful scientist is bound to have something to say on the matter, but it probably won't be anything she or he was formally taught in training as a scientist. A scientist learns scientific method by apprenticeship, and may or may not be able to articulate what he or she has really learned. 168... 08:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hear, hear. The article makes a pretty good attempt at explaining idealised scientific method. But once its done that why doesn't explain the criticisms of scientific method from philosophy of Science, a section on the history of the debate from Popper to Kuhn to Feyerabend to Lakatos to ?? which improve this article greatly. It doesn't have to go into great detail, just give the positions and the relationships between them, showing how debate has developed over time. It would be difficult to do, but would be well worth doing. : ChrisG 11:46, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You make my point with the words "But once it's done". A historical review of the development of the scientific method would be fine, and I don't at all object to mentioning any of the significant players in that history. How we say things is also important. A reference to Popper's concept of falsifiability is not the same as a reference to the somewhat pejorative "falsificationism"; the latter implies unspoken elements that may never have been a part of Popper's writings. Throwing in terms like "post-constructionism" only serve to obscure the topic because most readers will have no idea what that means, and those who do have an idea may find it quite different from what the user intended. "Lies to children" is close to trolling, because it serves more to create a reaction without providing any useful information; the person who uses such a term has a duty to the reader to clearly specify just what lies he's talking about. ☮ Eclecticology 20:58, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

Scientific Method is both iterative and recursive

My last edit, which is a precis of On the Shoulders of Giants is intended to illustrate that the scientific method is both iterative and recursive.

I hope everyone can agree that the philosophers, historians and sociologists who are mentioned in the Introduction are observers of the scientific method, not necessarily practitioners. 169.207.117.140 15:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

169, the link to recent changes is an excellent addition. Am I correct in thinking that the page List of topics (Scientific Method) has to be maintained manually? If so, I have one suggestion. Why not use the "what links here" page instead, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Whatlinkshere&target=Scientific_method


That way the links will be maintained automatically - no need to edit the list of links. The lists are otherwise virtually identical.

Bizarre! It only helps those who want to make sure that their POV is protected. ☮ Eclecticology 02:45, 2003 Dec 4 (UTC)