Do you have the definition of 'scientific method'?

[Thomas]

My objective in starting this thread was ... to shake the one overall term for all that has become fashionable.

OK, that's a worthwhile pursuit, in an age of ignorance and presumption, of scientific fundamentalism and the belief that empirical determinism is the sole path to truth.

But 'the scientific method' is the best available approach to that which can be determined empirically. The problem is people bandy the word about as the equivalent to a 'theory of everything' and that if anything lies outside the bounds of empirical determination then it's not, nor can it be, 'real' or 'true'.

The problem today, of course, is that communication media is awash with illiterate and ill-educated opinion, pseudo-science and utter rubbish, which always has a degree of counter-culture or '.alt' appeal.

I once heard a panel of neuroscientists discussing their field on a late-night BBC radio programme. One of the panel observed that once a term catches the popular whatever-it-is, then all manner of nonsense is poured forth, and the people who actually know what they're talking about tend to sink back into the shadows, in self-preservation.

Recent popular ideas are 'neuroscience', 'cosmology', 'quantum physics' in which all manner of speculation abounds. Their popularity waxes and wanes.

An example of an enduring popular fallacy is the 'science v religion' debate, and alongside that the claim that 'Religion is responsible for more wars.'

 

[badger]

OK, that's a worthwhile pursuit, in an age of ignorance and presumption, of scientific fundamentalism and the belief that empirical determinism is the sole path to truth.

Thank you for that.

But 'the scientific method' is the best available approach to that which can be determined empirically. The problem is people bandy the word about as the equivalent to a 'theory of everything' and that if anything lies outside the bounds of empirical determination then it's not, nor can it be, 'real' or 'true'.

Yes. I would much prefer to see which part (or stage) of 'scientific method' is being performed, rather than see that term being punted.

The problem today, of course, is that communication media is awash with illiterate and ill-educated opinion, pseudo-science and utter rubbish, which always has a degree of counter-culture or '.alt' appeal.

When I retired (Jan 2010) I turned away from my past work and have never looked back, or I would have been consumed in anger several years before now, ill educated opinion and prejudice was everywhere.

I once heard a panel of neuroscientists discussing their field on a late-night BBC radio programme. One of the panel observed that once a term catches the popular whatever-it-is, then all manner of nonsense is poured forth, and the people who actually know what they're talking about tend to sink back into the shadows, in self-preservation.

So true. That occurs in any field of work.

Recent popular ideas are 'neuroscience', 'cosmology', 'quantum physics' in which all manner of speculation abounds. Their popularity waxes and wanes.

I do follow Professor Brian Cox's film series on Solar system, Universe and Planets, but he is very careful to explain that implications raised from observations are not knowledge and only best guesses.

An example of an enduring popular fallacy is the 'science v religion' debate, and alongside that the claim that 'Religion is responsible for more wars.'

Yes, I've seen that many times.
Sadly, People are responsible for more wars.

 

[Thomas]

I do follow Professor Brian Cox's film series on Solar system, Universe and Planets, but he is very careful to explain that implications raised from observations are not knowledge and only best guesses.

Heard a funny story on the radio yesterday. Prof. Cox was asked by comedian and 'national treasure' Bob Mortimer.
(I'm guessing the US has never heard of him – look on YouTube for Bob Mortimer on 'Would I Lie To You' panel show, where his absurdist humour confounds everyone. I'll put a link in media).

Bob's question to Prof Brian Cox:
"You know when you're on an aeroplane, and you're eating a packet of crisps, when you've finished the crisps, you flatten the packet, open the window and drop the empty packet on top of the clouds? Well, does the packet sit there, on top of the clouds?"

Prof Cox said it was a silly and brilliant question, because what would happen? It's outside his field of reference, so he does not presume to know.

The panel (inc. meteorologists) actually discussed it. Clouds are of course vapour, therefore the packet would fall through. However, there are variable air densities within clouds, and air currents, so depending on what type of cloud formation it was, and how big, there would be different effects ... eventually the packet would fall, but it might well waft around a bit inside the cloud, apparently, if the conditions were such ...

What I always enjoy is when a knowledgeable person is asked perhaps a 'childish' or an apparently silly question, if there's a shred of anything useful in it, they'll pluck it out.

 

[badger]

Heard a funny story on the radio yesterday. Prof. Cox was asked by comedian and 'national treasure' Bob Mortimer.
(I'm guessing the US has never heard of him – look on YouTube for Bob Mortimer on 'Would I Lie To You' panel show, where his absurdist humour confounds everyone. I'll put a link in media).

Bob's question to Prof Brian Cox:
"You know when you're on an aeroplane, and you're eating a packet of crisps, when you've finished the crisps, you flatten the packet, open the window and drop the empty packet on top of the clouds? Well, does the packet sit there, on top of the clouds?"

Prof Cox said it was a silly and brilliant question, because what would happen? It's outside his field of reference, so he does not presume to know.

The panel (inc. meteorologists) actually discussed it. Clouds are of course vapour, therefore the packet would fall through. However, there are variable air densities within clouds, and air currents, so depending on what type of cloud formation it was, and how big, there would be different effects ... eventually the packet would fall, but it might well waft around a bit inside the cloud, apparently, if the conditions were such ...

What I always enjoy is when a knowledgeable person is asked perhaps a 'childish' or an apparently silly question, if there's a shred of anything useful in it, they'll pluck it out.

Ha ha! Bob Mortimer is an absolute scream, and his appearances on 'Would I lie.....' are cherished.

Brian Cox is amazing. Although he has the status and knowledge of Professor, his ability to deliver basic lessons about advances in space exploration is brilliant.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Can you tell me the difference between 'methods' and 'methodology'?

Do they mean the same thing?
If so, why use them both?

Methods refers to the actual tactics, strategies or techniques you use in collecting or analyzing data -the procedures or tools- such as whether you use an experiment or surveys or focus groups etc. Methodology refers to the analysis of your process, your justifications and/or theoretical analysis for why you chose the methods you did - the pros and cons, why you think the strategies you chose were more reliable or more feasible than some other technique.

You use both words to be sure to cover both concepts (which are closely related but not exactly the same) and to be transparent about your process in your study - what you did to collect and analyze data and why you did it that way.

Confusion ensues when people sometimes use the word methodology alone to refer to both methodology and methods inclusively. This tends to enable the further confusing habit others have of using the terms interchangeably, or preferring the word methodology even when talking about methods because the word methodology sounds formal and professional. It sounds like a longer, fancier word for methods, but methodology actually refers to the theory and study of methods.

What’s the difference between method and methodology?

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project. It involves studying the methods used in your field and the

www.scribbr.com

https://www.uwa.edu.au/students/-/media/project/uwa/uwa/students/docs/studysmarter/hm4-methods-and-methdology.pdf

Method Vs Methodology | How to write and Differences

The persisting confusion while drafting the methods and methodology section of a manuscript is common. Learn the key differences between them.

www.enago.com

 

[badger]

Methods refers to the actual tactics, strategies or techniques you use in collecting or analyzing data -the procedures or tools- such as whether you use an experiment or surveys or focus groups etc. Methodology refers to the analysis of your process, your justifications and/or theoretical analysis for why you chose the methods you did - the pros and cons, why you think the strategies you chose were more reliable or more feasible than some other technique.

You use both words to be sure to cover both concepts (which are closely related but not exactly the same) and to be transparent about your process in your study - what you did to collect and analyze data and why you did it that way.

Confusion ensues when people sometimes use the word methodology alone to refer to both methodology and methods inclusively. This tends to enable the further confusing habit others have of using the terms interchangeably, or preferring the word methodology even when talking about methods because the word methodology sounds formal and professional. It sounds like a longer, fancier word for methods, but methodology actually refers to the theory and study of methods.

What’s the difference between method and methodology?

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project. It involves studying the methods used in your field and the

www.scribbr.com

https://www.uwa.edu.au/students/-/media/project/uwa/uwa/students/docs/studysmarter/hm4-methods-and-methdology.pdf

Method Vs Methodology | How to write and Differences

The persisting confusion while drafting the methods and methodology section of a manuscript is common. Learn the key differences between them.

www.enago.com

I think it's just fancy talk.

A google description reads:-
methodology:- a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

The presence of mutations and natural selection is not a hypothesis. We can detect mutations. We can see first hand how different variations affect the reproductive fitness of different organisms.

 

[EricPH]

The presence of mutations and natural selection is not a hypothesis. We can detect mutations. We can see first hand how different variations affect the reproductive fitness of different organisms.

The bigger question is how could the universe and life come into existence without God? Science does not seem equipped to have real evidence one way or the other. Abiogenesis has to happen first, before life can evolve.

Beyond a doubt, first life had to start somehow. If real evidence for abiogenesis can be proved through a natural process; there is still a $10 million prize waiting to be claimed.

https://www.voicesfromoxford.org/or....0 Prize offers,Professor Denis Noble FRS CBE.

 

[Tiberius]

The bigger question is how could the universe and life come into existence without God?

Ah, I see you are moving the goalposts.

Science does not seem equipped to have real evidence one way or the other. Abiogenesis has to happen first, before life can evolve.

Beyond a doubt, first life had to start somehow. If real evidence for abiogenesis can be proved through a natural process; there is still a $10 million prize waiting to be claimed.

https://www.voicesfromoxford.org/origin-of-life-10-million-prize-at-the-royal-society/#:~:text=The Evolution 2.0 Prize offers,Professor Denis Noble FRS CBE.

The fact that we don't know how it happened does not mean it is due to a deity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact that we don't know how it happened does not mean it is due to a deity.

What does it mean?
That everything has evolved without a reason?

I don't think so .. my experience shows that things do not happen without a reason.
..and the reason that does not apply to G-d, is because G-d is non-physical,
and eternal. We have good reason to believe that this physical universe is not eternal.

 

[badger]

What does it mean?
That everything has evolved without a reason?

You are asking a question in order to force your preferred answer there.
If you want to pop a deity in to the answer box then you can, I suppose, but that can only be your faith or your superstition. True?

I don't think so .. my experience shows that things do not happen without a reason.
..and the reason that does not apply to G-d, is because G-d is non-physical,
and eternal.

None of us have any experience to help us answer the 'how did it all initiate' question, and we can't say whether the reason for existence is non-physical. Some people who do believe in a deity think that everything and force is part of a physical God. Either way and any way, we don't know.

We have good reason to believe that this physical universe is not eternal.

As far as we know it is not possible to destroy matter or energy, only to transform it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are asking a question in order to force your preferred answer there.
If you want to pop a deity in to the answer box then you can, I suppose, but that can only be your faith or your superstition. True?

Untrue.

None of us have any experience to help us answer the 'how did it all initiate' question, and we can't say whether the reason for existence is non-physical.

We can say it .. if we accept that the universe has not always existed .. because that is what we mean
by "physical".

As far as we know it is not possible to destroy matter or energy, only to transform it.

That is a physical law..
I remember learning about physics in school .. we were told one thing, and then at an
advanced level we were told another .. such as the nature of light, for example.

 

[badger]

We can say it .. if we accept that the universe has not always existed .. because that is what we mean
by "physical".

That is not correct. We simply do not know whether the universe existed before the great expansion or not.
It might have been a collapsing mass that then burst outwards, a condition known as the big bounce.

In any outcome the universe may very well be a small part of the whole.

That is a physical law..
I remember learning about physics in school .. we were told one thing, and then at an
advanced level we were told another .. such as the nature of light, for example.

That's right. As children we were told what we could grasp and comprehend, as we matured so we discovered more complexity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We simply do not know whether the universe existed before the great expansion or not..

It makes little difference, as far as I can see .. probably because I'm not a reductionist,
and do not accept that non-physical concepts are just imaginary.

Reductionists will claim, for example, that mental health is all about the physical health of
the brain, and 'a thought' is no more than a physical explanation.

 

[Tiberius]

What does it mean?
That everything has evolved without a reason?

If by "reason" you mean cause, then no. Things evolved due to the pressures that were applied to populations over many generations.

However, if by "reason" you mean "conscious intent," then I'll point out there is no strong evidence of anything that is guiding evolution through its intent.

I don't think so .. my experience shows that things do not happen without a reason.
..and the reason that does not apply to G-d, is because G-d is non-physical,
and eternal. We have good reason to believe that this physical universe is not eternal.

So you define God in a way that means you don't have to apply that reasoning to him, and then claim that since that reasoning doesn't apply, he must be non-physical and eternal.

That's circular logic.

 

[badger]

It makes little difference, as far as I can see .. probably because I'm not a reductionist,
and do not accept that non-physical concepts are just imaginary.

I'll bet that you are a reductionist if a neighbour moves your fence posts!

Reductionists will claim, for example, that mental health is all about the physical health of
the brain, and 'a thought' is no more than a physical explanation.

Oh? Are you a neurologist or just imagining neurological answers?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If by "reason" you mean cause, then no. Things evolved due to the pressures that were applied to populations over many generations.

However, if by "reason" you mean "conscious intent," then I'll point out there is no strong evidence of anything that is guiding evolution through its intent.

..so you believe that intelligence evolves from non-intelligence?
..or has intelligence always existed?

So you define God in a way that means you don't have to apply that reasoning to him..

If G-d created the universe, then it follows that G-d is not part of that universe.

 

[badger]

If G-d created the universe, then it follows that G-d is not part of that universe.

Oh no.......... I think that God IS this universe, plus all the others and anything else. So vast that the idea that we are special is ridiculous to me.

Universes may be as many as grains of sand upon a beach. But we are a minute and tiny part of that. But so are our little dachshunds, the canary, the ducks in our garden and all else.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh no.......... I think that God IS this universe..

Like the 'son of G-d' being G-d, you mean?

Of course, if everything is G-d, it is as if it is not defined.
You insist that 'we do not know' if the universe always existed, which makes your last statement
pretty meaningless in my view.

 

[Tiberius]

..so you believe that intelligence evolves from non-intelligence?
..or has intelligence always existed?

First of all, let's define what we mean by "intelligence", shall we?

If G-d created the universe, then it follows that G-d is not part of that universe.

Then how can you know anything about him at all?