Talk:Scientific method/Archive 5

As a separate question, would the time be ripe for making a separate article for the detailed analysis of the different steps of the scientific method (Observation, Evaluation, and what not) into their own article? I would suggest Scientific method as a process or Stages of scientific enquiry, perhaps favoring the latter. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:01, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Re-read the title of this article. It is this article which is about the scientific method. The only problem is that people keep jamming multiple off-topic ideas in here. We have had this same discussion here before. People keep adding off-topic digressions, and then someone proposes removing the actual topic, and keeping the digressions! We need to treat this article the same way we treat all other topics. When an off-topic discussion grows in length, we move it to a different article, one that is more appropriate for the subject. We may even need to create a new article. RK 14:18, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that is a legitimate view. Would you be more comfortable if just that bit was retained in this article, and all the rest moved to Views of the scientific method, Interpretations of the scientific method or some such? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:59, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Certainly. However, I think the other discussions in this article were not about details of the scientific method, they were about science itself. As such, today I have moved three sections that were in this article; they are now in the Wikipedia articles on Public policy, Science andPhilosophy of science, where it appeared to me that they better fit in. However, this is not to say that they have to stay there, they can be moved around, copied into other articles, and new articles can still be made. RK 17:19, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

I am fine with the recent edits. However, do we want to save any of the material from these now deleted discussions? Do scientists really follow the scientific method? and History of the scientific method. If so, in which articles should some (or all) of this material go? RK 00:20, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

If this article is to lose its content on Do scientists really follow the scientific method? it needs a new title, because it represents only one of two diametrically opposed perspectives on "scientific method." Either both perspectives should get an article with the words "scientific method" in their title or both should be represented in one article. 168... 05:59, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good. BTW, I did not delete the material, but moved it into Interpretations of the scientific method. I see no reason why it cannot be subdivided further, and perhaps some of the most central content moved back into this article, as ☮ Eclecticology did. But let's indeed try to keep this article focused on the core of the scientific method. There is quite enough to fill a whole article on that topic alone, without detailing other paradigms IMHO. And the stuff about judicial uses is not central enough in my opinion, since there is much more to be written about all of the stages of the scientific method per se. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:22, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the following paragraph is in my opinion out of place in an article on the scientific method:

The question of how science operates is not only academic. In the judicial system and in policy debates, for example, a study's deviation from accepted scientific practice is grounds to reject it as "junk science." Whether they are diagnosing a patient, investigating a murder or researching a social trend, non-scientists cite "the scientific method" as an ideal. Methodical or not, science represents a standard of proficiency and reliability.'

What do others think? At the very least it should at most be an afterthought at the end of the article, though I would prefer it to go some other article. It is tangential to article, and not really connected with doing science so much as it is to do with applying scientific knowledge; and thus not within the purview of this article. Maybe an article on applied science or accepted scientific practice? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:31, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I mostly wrote that paragraph and I strongly believe that it is appropriate. Not essential, but appropriate. I think a lot of our differences are arising because we still do not agree on the nature of the controversy that surrounds "the scientific method" and whether that must constrain what we say about it. I think several of you are taking the word "the" in the title of the article as allowing it to be about or predominantly about one way of thinking about scientific method--because disbelievers in "the scientific method" usually describe what scientists do without the "the" or simply as "method," and by "the scientific method" usually mean the same thing the believers mean when they use the term (only they think it's naive). But I just don't think that "the" is adequate to protect against accidental evangelism. Unless we can think of a generous disclaimer and a good title for another article and place that stuff up top, I think we need to stick to our current approach of making this about two broad classes of ideas about scientific method. The questioned paragraph exists to motivate a reader to read on, despite the fact that most people who study the methods of scientists do not believe there is any single method to be abstracted. It says that even so, society often finds it important to distinguish between science done one way or another--that it's possible to do it a wrong way, even if there's no single right way. Part of that paragraph may turn out to be redundant, depending how the back and forth between me and Eclecticology pans out. As a placatory move, I inserted into the first paragraph the idea that the idealized scientific method is a paradigm for investigations of all kinds. Before, that idea wasn't introduced until the second paragraph, where it still comes up. But I don't think we should remove it until we settle on a first paragraph. 168... 16:55, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let me revise that, because I just noticed there's no "the" in the article title. "Scientific method" without the "the" is ambiguous and does mean two very different things, neither of which deserves to be shut out of the article or to appear in an article that does not have "scientific method" in the title. 168... 05:59, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A second axis of ambiguity and/or controversy is whether by "the scientific method" we mean how an individual scientist operates when he or she is proceeding correctly or whether we mean how the collectivity of scientists operates (e.g. one person "observes" and another "hypothesizes" etc). I suspect more people believe in the latter than in the former, but I think the former is the most popular meaning among believers in the scientific method, which I assume includes a lot of the general public. 168... 17:11, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

168..., thank you for identifying yourself as principal author of The question of how science operates ... The tone of this paragraph is political (in a good sense). Since historically, scientists have labored under the aegis of a political power (like the King to which Isaac Newton promininently dedicates Principia Mathematica). And, historically, the scientists are neutral (as Wikipedia attempts to be) as a a survival tactic by the scientists (and Wikipedia). Not having political training, the tactic of labelling an action as junk science in fact marginalizes a scientific finding, which is a political result (hence economic, philosophical, etc.), I find the motivation mystifying, because it is not scientific, but political. Where does a discussion of political power belong in this process? It is a definite fact of history, so where does the 2nd paragraph belong, really. In a discussion of political power of the scientific method? I truly do not know. But you probably have some concepts about this. 169.207.88.107 12:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that science is political, and political in a way that matters to what ideas prevail. Lots of people think that. 168.150.238.72 15:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just had a thought for two article titles. "Scientific method (idealized)", "Scientific method (phenomenological)". I don't like them so much, but I think they help to show how I am thinking about things. 168... 16:55, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I, on my behalf, am very mindful of the dichotomy you enunciate. For my part however, I would choose (if it were up to me, which of course it isn't; you all have to agree as well) to make that particular split "scientific method" and "scientific praxis" or perhaps more colloquially "scientific practices" or something... Help me out here, I know there has to be an euphonious term for what I am chasing.

Please leave the article whole. I can?t imagine what ?phenomenological scientific method? might be, nor can I imagine someone searching for ?scientific praxis?. Far more would be gained by working through the problem, coming up with a first paragraph that is acceptable to both views, than would be gained by a split for the sake of amity. Banno 05:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But there is also the question of whether a laboratory technician doing dna-testing for the coroner or checking an athletes doping-test for steroids is actually following a scientific method of any colour. Or just rigorous scientifically based practises. Which would in my mind be yet a third thing. Do you see what I mean? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:53, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding your last question, yes, I see what you mean. I see that question as overlapping with the one about whether we're talking about individual scientists or the collective--because I see the work of technicians as part of the collective enterprise. I don't much like a title scenario in which only one article gets the word "method," although I suppose it might be O.K. if the "method" article had the generous disclaimer and link to the other near the top. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were science studies people out there who don't want to give up ownership of the word "method."168... 05:40, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By bringing back some deleted older content and trimming the idealized scientific method down to what is traditionally meant by "the scientific method" I have made the article more like what I think a balanced two-meaning "scientific method" article should be. The two meanings are "the scientific method" and "scientific method in practice." 168... 06:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We are still not dealing with the problem of a circular argument. If you follow the scientist link you have the first sentence there: A scientist is, generally, a person devoted to and producing results in science using the scientific method. Here 168... is insisting on having the scientific method as the way scientists investigate..." Together they form a circular argument because they depend on each other. This is as bad as saying that the Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is.

I do see the scientific method as being first and foremost an idealized concept. It was described by Roger Bacon in the 13th century, but the word "scientific" did not appear until the late 16th century, and "scientist" was not recorded until 1840. Thus defining the "scientific method" in terms of "scientists" is grossly misleading. Perhaps 168...'s "scientific method in practice" is what might be spun off into another sub-article. I don't see "scientific method" as having two definitions at all; that scientists use the scientific method is perfectly factual, but it does not define the method.

BTW I do agree with your removing peer review fro the list of steps. One way of looking at that is as just another form of hypothesis testing and evaluation. ☮ Eclecticology 10:30, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)

Ec, you wrote "that scientists use the scientific method is perfectly factual, but it does not define the method." I think your point is that it's neutral to say that scientists follow an idealized formula so long as one doesn't define the formula. Not so. Since you are into analysis, let's analyze your sentence. If the first clause is true, then it's also true that we would be correct to refer to "whatever scientists do in practice" as "the scientific method." It's another claim all together to say that "whatever scientists do in practice" conforms to the simple idealized formula often referred to as "the scientific method" or indeed to any single formula that might be referred to by that name, whether we define it now or not. I believe that separate claim would be disputed by most sociologists and historians and philosophers of science. 168... 07:31, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

One recurring problem with this article is that real-world descriptions keep getting edited, and replaced with highly idealized methods that distort what scientists actually believe, say and do. Then people complain that everything is too neat and theoretical, and not real world! Well, the article was more accurate. Let's prevent these problems by making the descriptions more accurate to begin with. As such, I have restored the following material that somehow keeps getting deleted. RK 21:07, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

As stated above, there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm. Real world science always allows for creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas to enter at any stage in the scientific process. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists describing a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. What differentiates science from non-science is that such creativity is tested against experimental results.

My strong impression is that scholars have come to no agreement on what a rich idealized scientific method would look like. I believe the only consensus is about the old trope known as "The scientific method." To try to make an idealized method more realistic is an ambition that goes beyond what an encyclopedia article should entertain, because it would represent ground breaking scholarship. Furthermore, there really is this old trope that most people are refering to when they say "The scientific method," and so I think it belongs in this article. In any case, adding naturalistic elements to the idealized method is not a substitute for giving air time to the academically quite popular perspective that the scientific method looks very little like the ideal.168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To quote my perhaps overlooked post above:

There is no avoiding circularity if we are to acknowledge what most science studies people mean by "scientific method." 168... 07:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IOW Scientific Method is whatever the "science studies people" say it should be, and logical consistency should be a secondary consideration. ☮ Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)

"acknowledge" to does not mean "to give priority to" or "accede dominion to." I suggest you keep that in mind and read my post again. 168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To be beholden to avoiding circularity is to see "scientific method" as meaning only one thing,"THE scientific method" and not also "scientific method" in practice. 168... 15:15, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This seems like a good argument in support of my position.☮ Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)

Then we are still not understanding one another.168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---