Do you have the definition of 'scientific method'?

[badger]

Do you have the definition of 'scientific method"?

I often read and hear people insisting that the scientific method must be followed before they will accept any ideas or proposals.

But so far during these conversations, nobody has ever shown a clear description or definition of what that process should be. I've come to believe that this term is just something that can be 'thrown down' to obtain leverage in debate or conversation... an 'it' phrase.

I recently tasked the internet about this and one university scholar's article explained that there were five differing answers for different areas of research. So that person just had an unfixed and loose answer which was very unscientific.

Can anybody here define the scientific method?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The scientific method is a empirical system of obtaining knowledge through a cyclical process of steps...

 

[badger]

The scientific method is a empirical system of obtaining knowledge through a cyclical process of steps...

Thank you for the above.
Please allow me to ask questions about the above.

The use of the word 'empirical' interests me, because the cycle shown in the diagram might not be using as accurate research results, nor tested with correct testing as may be required.

Of course, decisions made upon scientific method can often be disproved at a later date.

The method above may be the best course of action for any searches, but if the researchers are in any way biased then the results could suffer dreadfully. I wonder if 'careful selection' of researchers, testers, experiments and analysis is not crucial to accuracy? If so, surely there should be mention of those additions in the definition?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thank you for the above.
Please allow me to ask questions about the above.

The use of the word 'empirical' interests me, because the cycle shown in the diagram might not be using as accurate research results, nor tested with correct testing as may be required.

Of course, decisions made upon scientific method can often be disproved at a later date.

The method above may be the best course of action for any searches, but if the researchers are in any way biased then the results could suffer dreadfully. I wonder if 'careful selection' of researchers, testers, experiments and analysis is not crucial to accuracy? If so, surely there should be mention of those additions in the definition?

No, because the results aren't readily accepted as facts. This is why the method is cyclical. Results are questioned, if not by the same researchers/testers, by others, and the process runs again until all margin of error and/or bias is eliminated.

 

[badger]

No, because the results aren't readily accepted as facts. This is why the method is cyclical. Results are questioned, if not by the same researchers/testers, by others, and the process runs again until all margin of error and/or bias is eliminated.

Hello again.
So the scientific method cycle does not produce results that are readily accepted. All results are questioned? OK.

At what point of the SM process can science declare that 'all margin of error and/or bias has been eliminated? Never?

If this is the case, debaters who criticise others for seeking truth by any other cycle of actions don't really have a strong case, because the answer can come winging back that 'SM does not produce truth with certainty'.

I would give far more respect to challenges that ask 'How did you research, test findings and analyse all?" rather than 'Did you follow the scientific method?'. The title of itself seems to be no more than a name, maybe?

 

[EricPH]

The theory of evolution is probably the greatest challenge to the scientific method. We fill in all the gaps by either saying, mutation and selection did it, or God did it.

Science is summed up by the God of the gaps argument, or evolution of the gaps argument.

 

[badger]

The theory of evolution is probably the greatest challenge to the scientific method. We fill in all the gaps by either saying, mutation and selection did it, or God did it.

Science is summed up by the God of the gaps argument, or evolution of the gaps argument.

Although I did not have evolution/creation in mind when I started this thread, it certainly does seem to be an interesting point that you make.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The title of itself seems to be no more than a name, maybe?

No. It is the procedure or process as described above, that can minimize errors, confounded variables, and the like.
Modern inventions exist because this process was repeatedly used to figure out what would work.

 

[badger]

No. It is the procedure or process as described above, that can minimize errors, confounded variables, and the like.
Modern inventions exist because this process was repeatedly used to figure out what would work.

Hello again.
Did you have any modern inventions in mind?
I can think of a few modern inventions which have caused much difficulty.

I have no doubt that research, proposal, testing etc is a key part of the journey to invention, to give this procedure a name which has become so powerful in debates etc seems strange.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Hello again.

Hi

Did you have any modern inventions in mind?

Every single one.
Modern medicine, modern agriculture, food science, factory machinery, airplanes, cars, electricity, refining fossil fuels, devices for alternative energy (solar and wind) computers, radio, tv, home appliances, devices and chemicals for sanitation, modern architecture including HVACs and building safety systems (ex earthquake resistance or improved building materials), earthquake prediction technology, weather prediction systems, all have been developed through testing/research, relying heavily on the the use of the scientific method at some point in the history of the invention if not its entire history

I can think of a few modern inventions which have caused much difficulty.

So can I. So can everyone, probably.
It is inevitable to be able to find pros and cons in pretty nearly everything.
Whether you think an invention is helpful or problematic has nothing to do with the fact that scientific research utilizing the steps of the scientific method made the invention possible

I have no doubt that research, proposal, testing etc is a key part of the journey to invention,

Yes it is

to give this procedure a name which has become so powerful in debates etc seems strange.

What seems strange? To name a procedure? Why?
It's normal to name things so you can refer to them.

Also the scientific method is not exclusive to the development of inventions, it refers to basic research as well
(and of course basic research, while not done with the goal of making inventions - is something that engineers and inventors later rely upon)

 

[TheLightWithin]

I would give far more respect to challenges that ask 'How did you research, test findings and analyse all?" rather than 'Did you follow the scientific method?'

Why?

. The title of itself seems to be no more than a name, maybe?

No, it refers to researching, testing findings, and analyzing all, by using the most comprehensive method that has been developed for the purpose of researching, testing findings, and analyzing all.... the scientific method.

If you were going to frequently ask people if they did research, tested their findings, and analyzed them all, it might be helpful to have a shorter name for researching, testing, and analyzing, rather than repeatedly using the entire phrase conduct research, testing findings, and analyzing them. The word method could be accurate to describe the use of a process and the word scientific might be accurate to describe the field of endeavor, so you could call it the scientific method.

I'm not trying to be cute or snarky about it - oh maybe a little - but really maybe I do not understand your question or stance on the matter?

If you respect researching, testing findings, and analyzing them all, then it seems like you DO value the scientific method, you just don't like the name of it for some reason.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Unless what you are saying is that you feel there are methods other than the scientific method that could yield more reliable results?
If that is what you mean, can you be more specific about your proposed alternatives to the scientific method and what has led you to believe the results from these alternative processes might be more reliable?

What is the Scientific Method: How does it work and why is it important? | AJE ---- for refresher
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method -- this goes into the nuances some

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
this goes a little more into the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method and questions /challenges people have about it

 

[badger]

Hi

Every single one.
Modern medicine, modern agriculture, food science, factory machinery, airplanes, cars, electricity, refining fossil fuels, devices for alternative energy (solar and wind) computers, radio, tv, home appliances, devices and chemicals for sanitation, modern architecture including HVACs and building safety systems (ex earthquake resistance or improved building materials), earthquake prediction technology, weather prediction systems, all have been developed through testing/research, relying heavily on the the use of the scientific method at some point in the history of the invention if not its entire history

Many of these developments, or parts of them, have been wrong.
We need to remember that because people could be confused in to believing in the scientific method absolutely.
Fortunately Brit advertiser's would not be allowed to increase sales by stating that a product or service has been developed by 'the scientific method'.

Also the scientific method is not exclusive to the development of inventions, it refers to basic research as well
(and of course basic research, while not done with the goal of making inventions - is something that engineers and inventors later rely upon)

Is it ok too call all basic research 'the scientific method'?

 

[badger]

Why?

No, it refers to researching, testing findings, and analyzing all, by using the most comprehensive method that has been developed for the purpose of researching, testing findings, and analyzing all.... the scientific method.

If you were going to frequently ask people if they did research, tested their findings, and analyzed them all, it might be helpful to have a shorter name for researching, testing, and analyzing, rather than repeatedly using the entire phrase conduct research, testing findings, and analyzing them. The word method could be accurate to describe the use of a process and the word scientific might be accurate to describe the field of endeavor, so you could call it the scientific method.

I'm not trying to be cute or snarky about it - oh maybe a little - but really maybe I do not understand your question or stance on the matter?

If you respect researching, testing findings, and analyzing them all, then it seems like you DO value the scientific method, you just don't like the name of it for some reason.

Because every part of function within invention and development is specialised, I would want to know about the surveying, researching, results etc that led to a product or system.

 

[badger]

Unless what you are saying is that you feel there are methods other than the scientific method that could yield more reliable results?
If that is what you mean, can you be more specific about your proposed alternatives to the scientific method and what has led you to believe the results from these alternative processes might be more reliable?

What is the Scientific Method: How does it work and why is it important? | AJE ----

I opened this link and in the first paragraph I read:-
scientific method is a systematic process involving steps like defining questions, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data. It minimizes biases and....

Now that claim is absolutely untrue because questions, hypotheses, experiments, and analysis can all be managed by prejudiced people. Take questions, these can be framed so as to fish for preferred answers. We know this very well because questions can be disallowed by judges, for example. But all of those processes can lead to error is the wrong people are conducting them.

for refresher
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method -- this goes into the nuances some

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
this goes a little more into the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method and questions /challenges people have about it

I studied a science in depth in my earlier years, was qualified to enter the Institute of wood science in 1968, in 1975 I was offered a job with Greenwich maritime museum working in dendo-chronology but the salary wasn't big enough for me to bring up my family and pay mortgage, etc. I certainly believe in scientific research and development but know that delivering 'truth pills' is very very dangerous.
People can be conned in to accepting anything if it is delivered to them with claims such as 'we followed the scientific method'.

Out of genuine interest I ask, what science have you been involved with?

 

[muhammad_isa]

People can be conned in to accepting anything if it is delivered to them with claims such as 'we followed the scientific method'.

I agree with you .. I studied BSc combined science in Coventry UK.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Many of these developments, or parts of them, have been wrong.

Can you be more precise?
All I would point out is that the existence of advanced technology shows that the scientific method allows us to know what works.

Is it ok too call all basic research 'the scientific method'?

If they use the scientific method

 

[TheLightWithin]

Because every part of function within invention and development is specialised, I would want to know about the surveying, researching, results etc that led to a product or system.

It's probably easy enough nowadays to look into the R&D of various products.

 

[TheLightWithin]

scientific method is a systematic process involving steps like defining questions, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data. It minimizes biases and....

Now that claim is absolutely untrue because questions, hypotheses, experiments, and analysis can all be managed by prejudiced people

Minimizes biases for sure. I don't know if I've run across any claims from anywhere about total elimination of bias.
Used to be minimizing bias was an ideal for journalism too. They had their own methods, they weren't trying to do scientific research as such.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I certainly believe in scientific research and development but know that delivering 'truth pills' is very very dangerous.

What is a "truth pill"?

People can be conned in to accepting anything if it is delivered to them with claims such as 'we followed the scientific method'.

Which people?

Out of genuine interest I ask, what science have you been involved with?

I don't conduct research, though I was seriously considering a PhD in clinical or counseling psychology many years ago. I ultimately did not do so, which I sort of regret and sort of don't.
I personally found the research aspect tedious and preferred the clinical application, which was one of the reasons I did not pursue it as intensely as I once thought I would - once I knew about the steps involved. I admire the logic and philosophical natures of the method/methods, but data collection and analysis seemed tedious to me.
When I was in graduate school on the master's level (a clinical counseling program - though I was also briefly in another social science program) the professors hammered away about research research research research research... we read a lot of it.
I was supposed to assist another more senior graduate student (doc level) in a clinical research project that involved her supposedly using some groundbreaking kind of qualitative research. I no longer recall why I ended up not being one of her assistants. I do remembering helping someone else type up a lot of data, and then helping yet someone else where the task ended up being more secretarial than research based - so it wasn't going to help me in my formulation of a research question to study for my doctorate, which was kind of the point in these assistant tasks.

If I knew what I knew now, I could have more easily identified a useful research area, something like intelligence tests or diagnostic tests and their validity or something. But I feel like they hammered away at the methodological abstractions and not the applications enough for students who were relative beginners. Many of us did not have that much undergraduate preparation in research design.