Talk:Scientific method

causal mechanisms

The article on the Deductive-nomological model mentions that the model fell to new discoveries being made through discovery of "causal mechanisms". I wonder if anyone knows the model of inquiry that replaced it. It sounds like something that could be talked about in relation to Einstein's theory of relativity reducing Newton's laws to "relations" (quoted in Weinert 2004) and maybe invariant explanations, I don't really know. Anyway, somebody here who can drop a source on whatever it is? JackTheSecond (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

pinging @User:Occurring just in case they are still around and have an answer. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I already know 154.161.154.173 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

Popper previously took ethical principles even further, going as far as to **ascrible** value to theories only if they were falsifiable. Popper used the falsifiability criterion to demarcate a scientific theory from a theory like astrology: both "explain" observations, but the scientific theory takes the risk of making predictions that decide whether it is right or wrong:[101][102]

change **ascrible** to ascribe 37.128.247.226 (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

A new 2024 study published in PNAS Nexus extends the classic scientific method and would be a nice addition to the “Limits of method” section. Can you include the following additional one or two sentences below and reference at the end of the ‘Science of complex systems’ subsection within the “Limits of method” section?

A study of science’s major discoveries including all Nobel Prize discoveries illustrates that 25% of discoveries since 1900 did not apply the common scientific method (all three features)—with 6% of discoveries using no observation, 23% using no experimentation and 17% not testing a hypothesis. Empirical evidence thus challenges the common view of the scientific method and strictly adhering to it can constrain some new scientific ideas and breakthroughs, which suggests that we need to reform and extend the way we view the scientific method. Scientific Methodology (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Friend, Einstein used the physical instruments pen and paper for making his discoveries. But that's only the beginning of the story. Scientific theory which does not get confirmed experimentally for making bold, original predictions, is totally lame. So, yes, Einstein got the Nobel because an army of physicists were experimentally testing his claims.

Quote: "Such methods extend our mind and generally make observing, experimenting, and testing hypotheses in science possible, doing so in new ways and ensure their replicability." Isn't that self-defeating?

“At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones at [1]. Note: this is not about Krauss lacking data, it is about how science works in general. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. That paper does look relevant. "The classic scientific method needs to be integrated into and redefined as the sophisticated scientific method that better reflects actual scientific practice." It looks more appropriate in areas where Gauch is cited since his work states that the scientific method is more flexible than rigid process. AAAS also says the same. Not sure if the paper says that the "classic" scientific method is limiting, but rather that our "classical" description of it is oversimplified and inaccurate. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 15:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposal to Add Historical Context to the Definition of the Scientific Method

The current definition of the scientific method on the Wikipedia page emphasizes its formalization in the 17th century. While this is accurate in the context of its modern framework during the European Enlightenment, it does not fully reflect the historical development of empirical and systematic methodologies that predate this period. I propose including a more comprehensive view that acknowledges earlier contributions from diverse civilizations, providing readers with a broader understanding of the scientific method’s historical evolution. Proposed Revision "The scientific method is an empirical approach for acquiring knowledge, characterized by observation, experimentation, and systematic reasoning. While it was formalized as a methodological framework in the 17th century during the European Enlightenment, elements of empirical inquiry have been present in various civilizations throughout history, as seen in ancient Indian, Chinese, Greek, and Islamic contributions to science." Supporting Historical Context To support this revision, I suggest adding a subsection or a brief note that contextualizes pre-17th century contributions: "Empirical approaches to knowledge acquisition were practiced in various civilizations long before the 17th century. In ancient India, texts such as the Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita outlined systematic methods of medical diagnosis and treatment. In ancient Greece, Aristotelian natural philosophy emphasized observation and classification of the natural world. During the Islamic Golden Age, scientists like Ibn al-Haytham developed rigorous experimental methods in optics and other fields. Chinese traditions also employed systematic approaches in medicine and natural sciences. These practices laid important foundations for the formalization of the scientific method during the Scientific Revolution." References To substantiate these claims, I recommend including the following reliable sources: Butterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science. Vol. 90507. Simon and Schuster, 1965. Grant, Edward. The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. Sivin, Nathan. Science in Ancient China. Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early 'Abbasid Society (2nd-4th/5th-10th c.). Routledge, 2012. Majhi, Laxman. "The Contribution of Ancient Indians to the World of Science and Technology." International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts 11.10 (2023): c898-c903. Rationale This expanded view does not detract from the importance of the 17th-century formalization but provides a historically accurate account of the continuity of empirical methods across cultures. By acknowledging these contributions, the article would better align with Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and global representation, enriching the understanding of the scientific method’s evolution. I look forward to feedback from other editors on this proposed change. PrateekthePrateek (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal on adding such a statement, section, and sources. The scientific method has been around for a very long time. Aristotle, William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, etc are notable examples of the historical and cultural diversity and the Islamic ones you mentioned also. In the ancient world you also have Egyptian and Babylonian methodologies. Definitely can be expanded beyond western/Eurocentric scope like the Science article already is. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)