Jump to content

Talk:Scientific method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:4453:243:5000:8035:133b:1320:7b6c (talk) at 05:02, 23 August 2022 (→Science: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Kuhn_1961_p.166_citation

I have been trying to follow Kuhn's citation using JSTOR,[1] because it states incorrect sentences, according to scientific method. The problematic sentence which alerted me is "The route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward" (Kuhn 1961 p.166). Reformulating proposed hypotheses is of course the subject of the article.

The sentence can be refuted with a trip to the hardware store, where you can buy a voltmeter for $11 (the price of the instrument is only part of the cost, of course). It can also be refuted by Feynman's trick of using a simple example problem domain (mentally) to follow a researcher's hypothesis; when the simple example domain (a thought experiment which you keep to yourself) deviates from the mooted hypothesis, just inform the researcher. Kuhn's article is also outdated; he states General Relativity is untestable (Kuhn 1961 p.168) which is refuted by the LIGO, and tests of general relativity, not to mention the global positioning system.

What I propose is to re-use the citation (pp.164-165) to reinforce the concept of error (the difference between expected and actual values, i.e. random variables) which uses Mackay 1969's reference on uncertainty limits, and strike the paragraph citing Kuhn 1961 p.166. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kuhn, Thomas S. (1961), "The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science", ISIS, 52 (2): 161–193 JSTOR

Myth and belief

One of the sections of the article newly cites Robert Nola, who was drawn into the controversy over Mātauranga Māori, which is the corpus of belief, pre-European colonization. The argument is that the Māori guides to navigation across the Pacific are a posteriori, and hence empirically derived. I propose to incorporate the argument, as part of empiricism, into the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference no. 1: Isaac Newton's name spelled incorrectly

The relevant part of the first reference is:

Newton, Issac (1999) [1726 (3rd ed.)]. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

This is incorrect because his name is spelled as Isaac and not Issac. It is also not how they spelled his name in that edition. [1] [2]

the scenfifc method has been here for 1500 year helllo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.246.136 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt9qh28z. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

These citations are from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), which covers the motion of the planets. Biology is another branch of science, which is not addressed by the Principia, but rather part of what Newton termed the ocean of truth which lay around him, undiscovered and unexplained. "I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in the now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." —Newton (1747) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Chpter no 2 understanding the concepts question/answer 39.36.63.69 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might start with How to solve it by George Polya, including his "express the problem in your own words", which is part of step One: Understand the problem. That is, ask questions of yourself, and seek their answers (this search is a never-ending process). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't understand the first question, find a second question, related to your problem, that you can answer. Repeat this process until you get to something that you can re-state to yourself, in your own words. That would be a signal that you understand it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"DNA experiments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DNA experiments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#DNA experiments until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Good evening For your assignment activity ( Science)

Answer the following questions in your Science Activity notebook.

Activity 1 Title: Scientific Investigation

1. What is Scientific Investigation? 2. How important is Scientific Investigation in the empirical nature of science? 3. What is Scientific method? 4. Enumerate and discuss the steps in scientific method. 5. Differentiate Observation from Inference. 2001:4453:243:5000:8035:133B:1320:7B6C (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science

Good evening For your assignment activity ( Science)

Answer the following questions in your Science Activity notebook.

Activity 1 Title: Scientific Investigation

1. What is Scientific Investigation? 2. How important is Scientific Investigation in the empirical nature of science? 3. What is Scientific method? 4. Enumerate and discuss the steps in scientific method. 5. Differentiate Observation from Inference. 2001:4453:243:5000:8035:133B:1320:7B6C (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_method&oldid=1106089263"