Talk:Scientific method/Archive 17

I've added the following to the "introduction section". Faro0485 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

request for unprotection and/or editprotected
This article is semiprotected but there is no reason stated on its talk page. Please either unprotect it or make the following changes:
 * 1) there are little DNA icons used as bullets inconsistent with the Manual of Style
 * 2) images are not properly staggered left-right-left-right, also contradicting the Manual
 * 3) a laser light show is captioned with the name of an early scientist instead of beginning with the quote it is illustrating, followed by the name of the scientist, as is usual practice. 99.27.132.16 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I started to try to take care of these issues, but it made me actually start reading the materiel in the article... wow. That's all I can say, really. Why is this article as long as it is, anyway? It's a Frankenstein of writing, for crying out loud! Those of you who have "contributed" to this beast ought to be ashamed of yourselves. — Ω (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you start reading the archives for this article before you start casting stones. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you that the article ought to be simple. However, it has a long edit history (it was actually started by the creator of the Mediawiki software) with lots of controversy. The bottom line is that everyone has studied this topic in school and has an opinion on it. Hence its length. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is protected due to "Heavy and persistent vandalism" in September last year. We could possibly try lifting the protection, if other editors would be willing to watchlist the article and keep an eye on it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With the number of contributors to this article, don't you think that there are enough to watch over it? I'm not sure why exactly, but it's been on my watchlist for a long time. With all of the pointless bickering occurring here I tend to ignore it though.
 * It's possible that unprotecting it could lead to a better article. If people could "anonymously" IP edit it, that could help to disperse some of the ego-centric edit conflicts that seem to be occurring here. Sure, vandalism will occur, but it should be taken care of just like everywhere else. — Ω (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As it says in the template: "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Following on from Ancheta Wis's comments above - this is one of the oldest articles in WP and it has been a topic of minor dispute constantly. It has been edit-protected because history has shown that it has not benefited from anonymous editing over the years (which is in contrast to the general "article evolution" pattern at Wikipedia). There is an enormous volume of discussion about this topic available in the archives. Manning (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Ancheta Wis and Manning Bartlett, and with their empirical approach. This article's history is a bit weird, and will probably continue that way insofar as no particular editor caused the weirdness. And the requirement for registration in order to edit the article is pretty minimal and reasonable. The Tetrast (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Article name and Arbcom ruling
Out of interest, a recent ruling by Arbcom is relevant reading here.

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Manning (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you actually asserting that because "the scientific method" is still common usage among folks unfamiliar with the modern terminology, the article should therefore be so named? In fact, the transition to the use of the words "scientific method" (as a mass noun without the "the" in front) has been steadily gaining currency for decades. We also see increasingly the use of "a scientific method" (acknowledging both core commonalities among the various scientific disciplines and differences between them, but as a count noun when used in this fashion). Perhaps best to not put any article (grammar) at all in the opening sentence so as to be reasonably consistent with the WP:Reliable sources on the issue. Best case scenario, IMO, is that ultimately this issue should be explicitly noted somewhere in the body text of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what Manning is trying to say, but WP:THE may be relevant here. — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kenosis/Dragonhawk - actually no, that's NOT what I was trying to say. I was commenting on the argument that the article should be called "Scientific methods" - ie. pluralised - which has been an ongoing issue here. Manning (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification (which could easily have been said at the outset, thus saving me some time and effort). It's an interesting proposal, IMO. I'd sure appreciate a referral to published reliable sources that refer to the topic in this way (as a plural count noun). Though somewhat original I think, it may be a fine way to lessen the many complaints about this admittedly complex issue that appears to often be confusing-to-the-less-than-highly-experienced reader. But in my observations and research to date, it's not the "lowest common denominator", so to speak, to which the arbcom ruling appears to me to refer w.r.t. naming topics. I'd sure be interested in hearing other opinions among WP editors familiar with the topic. Ancheta? Banno? Tetrast? Anyone else? ... Kenosis (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a bit to what I said just above, perhaps it would also be useful to take a few minutes to look at Hugh Gauch's modern classic Scientific Method in Practice, diagram at page 2, easily viewable online, courtesy of the Amazon.com book preview made available [ http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Practice-Hugh-Gauch/dp/0521017084 here]. Gauch depicts scientific method as body of methodology with a nucleus and various branches depicted in a form somewhat resembling a sunflower. Add or take away a few leaves and it still looks like a sunflower. I'd definitely want to pose the question whether this rendering and that of other reliable sources is best represented as a plural noun. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you asked... pedantic points about count nouns and arbitration rules aside, I don't see anything wrong with the existing title (Scientific method). — Ω (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies Kenosis. However I will note that this plural/singular argument currently occupies a substantial portion of this discussion page, as can be seen in sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 above. Manning (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that, AFAICT, every one of the sections just identified were brought to bear by one individual who also attempted to radically influence the article's content by using her/his own original research referenced directly to her/his somewhat anachronistic online thoughts about the topic. IIRC, I mentioned this several sections above. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The term scientific method is well defined and widely used. It refers to a specific methodology, not to all methods used by scientists. Other encyclopedias have articles with this title, in the singular. I have not seen articles with the title in the plural. This is a non-issue, notwithstanding the amount of discussion here. Wikipedians argue about everything. Finell (Talk) 04:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicely put. Manning (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While Manning raised a reasonable point IMO, I trust this very basic issue of the article's title is essentially "water under the bridge", so to speak-- for the present at least. This leaves, of course, Ohm's Law's observation about the Frankensteinian article at present (though personally I'd liken it more to a Mr. Potato Head :). Admittedly this somewhat ad hoc synthesis of the WP:RSs is in the natural character of the various reliable sources that are very similarly divergent in POV as is this article,, without any reliable and clearly defined "sides" of POV in the WP:Reliable sources about the topic, but rather, might we say, "pretty much all over the map" to date. However, in my opinion the article--even at present-- is an extremely reasonable expression of what the WP:RSs say about the topic. No doubt it can be improved-- though in my personal opinion no contributer should, as Ohm's Law asserted, be the least bit ashamed of the present expression of this quite complex topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical diagnosis and scientific method
How is medical diagnosis related to scientific method? Are there sources to support their relation? If so, this relation should be clarified in the article. pgr94 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic is a subset of mission-oriented research; several researchers have noted that scientific method can be successfully applied to specific uses, such as business, medicine, etc. The knowledge can be quite extensive, for example in the use of concrete, where the technology has actually been in use for thousands of years. One difference is in the competitive advantage which the use of scientific method might confer: on one hand, one might temporarily capture a market until the competition surpasses your advance; on the other, when one publishes the knowledge, then one has set a standard upon which everyone can build, which avoids re-invention of the wheel.
 * Governments have used this quite extensively: for example
 * the invention of a usable chronometer, which advanced world science as well as global commerce
 * the space race and big science in general
 * the Manhattan project is a poster child for the advantages and disadvantages of mission-oriented research


 * There are also privately funded researchers such as those funded by
 * the Howard Hughes Medical Institute
 * drug development
 * war on polio
 * The oil companies' expert systems are an example of research with a lifetime. When the limitations became known, the research withered as well
 * Nobel Memorial Laureate Paul Krugman has bemoaned the lack of sound financial and economic knowledge, especially among policy makers in government, where this lack has destabilized entire economies.
 * Several authors in finance actually write about the need for scientific method in their field
 * financial engineering has even found a home for its publications on arXiv.org, originally for physicists
 * Just from this off-hand listing, I believe it is pretty clear an entire article would be needed.
 * However, it is not clear that applications of scientific method improve science. Would these applications make life better? Would these applications make us better?
 * I propose shifting the header to mission-oriented research --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normative science addresses these issues, but it is a stub right now. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. By "sources" I meant reliable sources; could it be that you understood financial sources? Apologies for the confusion. pgr94 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the specific sentence in the article that I am referring to: "The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis." This sentence implies that medical diagnosis and scientific method are related. So are they related methods of inquiry, and if so, how are they related? pgr94 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen the sentence you are questioning in some introductory texts (personally I would have no problem if the sentence Ancient Egyptian documents, such as early papyri, describe methods of medical diagnosis were gone). Medical diagnosis is clearly mission-oriented: "what is the problem" and "how might this problem be solved". Scientific method is most useful when seeking new knowledge, so if a disease has no known cure, then scientific method is one way to get to it (but the timeline for the cure might still be unknown, so a mission-oriented approach might be palliative care).
 * Hope this helps; medical diagnosis and scientific curiosity are two different motivations for an inquiry. A method for satisfying that inquiry can be the same, but clearly can also be different depending on motivation. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyedited the offending sentence and placed Greek empiricism into context with Egypt's prior empirical (but pre-scientific) orientation. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The changes look good to me. I would concur that the two modes of inquiry are related, and it would good to have a reliable source that covers the relationship in greater detail than just a passing sentence.  pgr94 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also raised the same issue for the History of scientific method article here. pgr94 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1911 Britannica notes that the practitioners of ancient Egyptian medicine were unclear about fundamental anatomy (i.e., the function of nerves, veins and arteries, organs, etc.). --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To reprise: Homer's Odyssey cites the ancient Egyptians as the most skilled in medicine, and the empirically-oriented Egyptian physicians preceded the Greeks by several thousand years. From the History talk page you had a professional historian of science give you a citation which states that Greek empiricism was an essential ingredient in the development of modern science. (From this article you see that reliance on a published medical diagnosis can be part of the first step of a scientific method, and that the other steps of scientific method can then be used to provisionally gain new knowledge, which can then be applied for the purposes of medicine.) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No "Criticism" section
I see there is still no Criticism section in Scientific Method. Why not? It would be the perfect place to give some balance to the article. Dare I suggest that it could also reduce the alleged vandalism (as mentioned by others) by giving "heretics" a suitable avenue to cite opposing views. Pretending that there are no opposing views is nothing more than censorship.

For example:

-The ongoing dispute over whether or not there really is such a thing as an all-encompassing Scientific Method (singular) should be cited and published, not hidden away.

-Various other criticisms in the archives paint a picture of "Scientific Method" being little more than a Dogma - a strong emphasis on blind methodologies/mechanization of science to eliminate the need for reasoning.

-What authority gets to decide what is or isn't classed as a valid scientific methodology? The Pope?

PS: It seems a bit bloated. A few methodologies and links would be more than enough. --Guid123 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It takes a special kind of person to understand the limits of his own knowledge. What one can state "is not true" or "is true" is particularly difficult for the vast majority of men. That is the reason that any method fails without the right person practicing it. Sagacity is still in short supply, even though Whewell identified the need for it in scientific work 200 years ago. It's not simply a matter of honesty. It's something else that is lacking for the vast majority of men. Hence a critique of method also needs to examine one's shortcomings. Alhazen said this 1000 years ago, and it still appears to be true.
 * This is a wiki. You can be bold. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Bing Reference - 'enhanced view' has a problem with Reflist
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/Bing search documents a rendering problem in Bing Reference for this article. A version of this article which might work around this problem is saved to the version history in case it is needed. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a tiny example of scientific method, I have prepared an experiment. Except for the possibility that Bing will fix the problem before this test, my expectation is that reverting to the old citation format will render correctly in Bing - the footnotes will then be visible in Bing (after its input process has slurped the change into the Bing data set), unlike the situation as documented above. Would it be OK with the editors if I ran this experiment? I can revert back to the version by RekishiEJ 20:35, 14 October 2009 after the experiment is completed. My expectation is then that Bing will again fail to render the footnotes. If the expectations are not met, then there is another factor which is causing the problem. I currently believe that the issue is that the Bing enhanced view is not expecting a second argument to the Reflist macro, hence the error message documented in the link above. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After effecting the action above, I tried the Bing version, and as expected, the change was not reflected real-time. Now I am waiting for the input process to Bing to take action. If no change is visible, say for a week, that is an indication of the frequency of update of input data. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bing version has updated to the current version of this article from Wikipedia as of 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC). By the tenets of this method, it appears that the Reflist macro used by Bing does not currently accept the additional argument used in Cite.php to localize the citation information in the article. But at least Bing now renders the article footnotes for its readers. Now to determine the limits of the hypothesis, one prediction is that if we should return to the new footnote version, and if Bing has not yet updated its software to handle the new citation feature, then Bing Reference would once more display the bug. For the sake of the Bing Reference users, I forebear from changing the footnote style, unless another editor requests that we continue the experiment. In addition, this tiny experiment shows that Bing currently refreshes its input data on the order of once per week. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

science and mathematics section
it gives a quote about immortality of mathematical truths, or something of that kind.

can you also provide a quote there of Imre Lakatos and his proofs and refutations book? thanks. 93.86.221.197 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. I found a refutation quote: "Criticism is not a Popperian quick kill by refutation. Criticism is always constructive. There is no refutation without a better theory." which Lakatos extends to his love life. Probably better to find something else, eh? Can you give an closer approximation of the quote you are thinking of?
 * I started reading Lakatos' On the value of novelty, and learned that what I think of as a moral injunction in science, namely that one does not fudge theories to fit data, Lakatos stated as a principle: that one does not use facts twice in science - that if something came from A then one does not restate A as a consequence of theory. Lakatos notes that Einstein derives the precession of the perihelion of Mercury from his theory (this is already in the article). I will be adding Lakatos' illustration of Newton and Flamsteed. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you are suggesting: Lakatos (1976, Worrell and Zahar, eds.), Proofs and Refutations: the logic of mathematical discovery (pp 55-56) note that in the nineteenth c., mathematical proof reached new levels of rigor. However with each new proof, there were counterexamples (see for example Ivan Niven & Herbert S. Zuckerman, Mathematics: A House Built on Sand?) meaning that the mathematicians were forced to continually revisit their proofs, much as a scientist engages in the 'epistemic loop' (see Brody, The philosophy behind physics). Obviously, depending on the topic, when one dives down the mathematical rabbit-hole, like Alice in Wonderland, one might never resurface. I think we are delving into a subject in mathematics, however. Thoughts? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been annotating Lakatos (1976, Worrell and Zahar eds.), Proofs and Refutations which is basically a follow-on to Polya's work (1945, 1956) on heuristic in mathematics, and to Popper's work. Lakatos' philosophical position is that mathematics arises from informal mathematics, as evidenced by Gauss, Euler, etc. who then construct formal proofs to justify their discoveries. My difficulty is that this all belongs to the Mathematics wikiproject. Lakatos makes several provocative statements about the nature of mathematics, which definitely do not belong in an article on scientific method, but rather elsewhere.
 * The best quotes I can currently come up with, without transgressing article boundaries are:


 * "" The ... logic of mathematical discovery ... cannot be developed without the criticism and ultimate rejection of formalism. " -- Imre Lakatos (1976), Proofs and Refutations p.4"


 * "" ... Discovery does not go up or down, but follows a zig-zag path: prodded by counterexamples, it moves form the naive conjecture to the premisses and then turns back again to delete the naive conjecture and replace it by the theorem. " -- Imre Lakatos (1976), Proofs and Refutations p.42"


 * "" The nineteenth-century union of logic and mathematics had two main sources: Non-Euclidean geometry and the Weierstrassian revolution of rigour. ... [T]he method of proofs and refutations was their heuristic innovation ... leading to vicious infinity. ... [D]ifferent levels of rigour differ only about where ... criticism should stop and justification should start. " -- Imre Lakatos (1976), Proofs and Refutations p.55-56"


 * "" ... [Y]our unquenchable thirst for certainty is becoming tiresome! How many times do I have to tell you that we know nothing for certain? But your desire for certainty is making you raise very boring problems - and is blinding you to the interesting ones. " -- Imre Lakatos (1976), Proofs and Refutations p.126"
 * Thoughts? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, the Proofs and Refutations article is a more appropriate venue for these quotes. This allows Imre Lakatos' work to stand on its own, rather than as an adjunct to Scientific method. Lakatos' views on nature of mathematics and how it stems from informal mathematics, rather than after the discovery is formalized, can then be stated without worries about 'just what does this have to do with scientific method?'.  --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just had a look at the informal mathematics article. It presents axioms as an advance, without the balancing view of Bertrand Russell's quote "The advantages of the method of postulation are great; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil." --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Image vs. line height
Somebody disliked the little DNA image's effect on line height. Here's one possible solution:

DNA-experiments style issues
Watson and Crick showed an initial (and incorrect) proposal for the structure of DNA to a team from Kings College - Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, and Raymond Gosling. Franklin immediately spotted the flaws which concerned the water content. Later Watson saw Franklin's detailed X-ray diffraction images which showed an X-shape and confirmed that the structure was

Note that the vertical-align percentage acts differently depending on the ordering level of the heading (H1, H2, etc., i.e., the number of equality signs girding the heading) immediately above it. I found that I needed to use an actual subsection heading for this example, the image's vertical position works differently when I faked the heading using bold and font-size tags. The Tetrast (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally like your solution. If we were to retain that solution for 'DNA experiments' then the TOC would hardly be affected. It does help to keep the TOC header names simpler, and I suspect Kenosis might favor as little impact on the TOC as practicable. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't affect the TOC at all. I'll implement. The Tetrast (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now implemented in all cases. I used special formatting for Scientific method - seemed that the bullets should be a little more indented but not too much. (Incidentally the line-height-preserving technique was never going to remove subsection titles from the "Scientific method" TOC. I just wanted to use a mocked-up "DNA-experiments" heading above in my Talk Page example in order to avoid adding a subsection to the Talk Page and its TOC, but I found that I had no choice. Above, I mentioned those details for those who might experiment). The Tetrast (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC). Edited The Tetrast (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC). Tweaks The Tetrast (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Update: Initial solution for the first little DNA image (under "DNA example") didn't work when browser has java & javascript turned off. That was because the sidebar "Science" template was completely expanded in absence of java & javascript, and pushed downward a number of floated images (including the little DNA image just under "DNA example"). Then I tested & found that it also happened with java & javascript running when one clicks on all four sub-templates to expand completely the sidebar "Science" template. So I had to de-float the little DNA image in that case, and eventually found that a table was the best solution. Well, at least it allowed simplification of some special formatting that I had used with the bullets there. The Tetrast (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

DNA-experiments content
The section on DNA experiments needs a re-write. It does not clarify anything as currently written. 174.93.112.57 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising your doubt. As Alhazen wrote 1000 years ago, doubt is the necessary step before certain knowledge.
 * What the article is trying to document in this section is a process which involves multiple stages (in this case, the experiment stage) performed by multiple people (all overlapped in this case).
 * Logically speaking, of course, the only temporal requirement is that the prediction stage occur before the experiment stage. Just who predicted what and who performed what is immaterial. It is not even necessary that the thought process be contained within the thinking of a single person.
 * As I am sure you know, in this method a prediction (documented or at least stated) must occur before the experimental result is known to the predictor. This then serves as proof that the experiment has not been tampered with, that tinkering has not occurred. In the case of the published research result of an individual researcher, the scientific integrity of that researcher is the only guarantee that there has been no tampering. However, this issue is moot when the stages occur at different times (as documented in logbooks, of course), and are performed by different people (typically as witnessed in a documented process).
 * Now, since the stage was set decades before Friday, January 30, 1953, at Tea time, and since James Watson had already performed experiments showing the Fourier transform of a helix on TMV (in June of 1952) and since Francis Crick had already published a mathematical model of the expected Fourier transform (Cochran W, Crick FHC and Vand V. (1952) "The Structure of Synthetic Polypeptides. I. The Transform of Atoms on a Helix", Acta Cryst., 5, 581-586) the experimental corroboration showed itself to the right person at the right time. This is already in the article in four steps in one section.
 * The specific section you raise doubt with is detail. Perhaps what is necessary for a doubter is to follow the hyperlink to the containing statement. The internal evidence, which is in this section, is that Watson had a visceral reaction to photo 51, proof that it is significant. And of course Watson did not take the photo, which is proof there had been no tampering.
 * This is already in the article. I would appreciate a statement about your doubt.
 * I have not cited Crick's realization that Franklin's data showed a monoclinic C2 symmetry, which to him, was proof that the strands of the double helix ran in opposite directions. This was proof that Pauling was wrong about the triple helix. I admit that this would tie together the sentences of this section. As it stands, the sentences only serve to show that Franklin had doubts about the competence of Watson & Crick. From the standpoint of scientific method, this is OK because they are all going to revisit the subject anyway, in the next iteration. By the time of the next iteration, Bragg will have given Watson & Crick permission to work on the problem. Exciting, no? If we are searching for tragedy in this, it is that Franklin needed a someone else, to give her perspective.
 * So, should Crick's C2 symmetry go in the article? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Heading levels
Is there some reason that the heading level jumps from H3 ("Characterizations") to H5 ("Uncertainty", "Definition", "Example of characterizations")? The result is that the headings "DNA-characterizations" and "Precession of Mercury" are formatted as H6 because they're in the (H5) "Example of characterizations" section. Then the further DNA section headings and the "General relativity" section heading are all formatted with H6 as if in order to be consistent with "DNA-characterizations" and "Precession of Mercury", even though they could be formatted as higher-level headings without changing the overall structure.

The thing is, H6, though boldfaced, is font size 1 -- it's really small, and is hard to read if one lacks good eyesight. Many readers will not start fiddling with the browser zoom (if they even know about it) in order to read a few headings.

In other words, instead of this:

(H3)  Characterizations  (H5)  Uncertainty  (H5)  Definition  (H5)  Example of characterizations  (H6)  DNA-characterizations  (H6)  Precession of Mercury  (H3)  Hypothesis development  (H6)  DNA-hypotheses  (H3)  Predictions from the hypothesis  (H6)  DNA-predictions  (H6)  General relativity  (H6)  DNA-experiments  (H3)  Evaluation and improvement  (H6)  DNA-iterations 

we could have this:

(H3)  Characterizations  (H4)  Uncertainty  (H4)  Definition  (H4)  Example of characterizations  (H5)  DNA-characterizations  (H5)  Precession of Mercury  (H3)  Hypothesis development  (H5)  DNA-hypotheses  (H3)  Predictions from the hypothesis  (H5)  DNA-predictions  (H5)  General relativity  (H5)  DNA-experiments  (H3)  Evaluation and improvement  (H5)  DNA-iterations 

I found that the "Scientific method" TOC is currently formatted to show only the top three levels - H2, H3, & H4. But there are no H4 headings in the article. (Correction: Turned out that there were some H4 headings and the TOC hid them because the top 3 levels are H1, H2, H3. The Tetrast (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC).) We could promote the H5s to H4, the H6s to H5, and change the TOC to show only the top two levels. Then the TOC would look exactly the same, and all the headings would be comfortably legible. The Tetrast (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetrast, at one time, the heading levels were similar to your proposal, but when we (collectively) were trying to rationalize the TOC, I shrank the DNA section headings. I have no problem with your idea if it keeps the TOC simple. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Turned out I didn't need to change the TOC level limit from 3, which turned out to cover H1, H2, H3, and not, as I had imagined, H2, H3, H4. TOC is unchanged. The Tetrast (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Image moved from right to left to right
Ancheta, on this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_method&oldid=331434939 you noted "fall back in favor of Tetrast's formatting". Actually I didn't format that picture. But I wondered why you tested moving it. Were you trying to keep it from getting pushed down by the "Science" template which fully expands when a browser's Javascript is turned off? (I turn Javacript off often nowadays. Too many sites load too slowly.) I looked at the page's previous version (inserted note: with Javascript turned off The Tetrast (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)) and it was a disaster. But I had already been testing in preview and had found that it worked fine with the image of Ibn al-Haytham; I added "left" into the markup and it appeared on the left and did not get pushed down by the fully expanded "Science" template. So why didn't it work with the laser image? Then it dawned on me. The laser image comes AFTER the Ibn al-Haytham image - evidently the consequence is that the laser image can't go any higher than the Ibn al-Haytham image. Tests in preview show that, when the laser image has "left" specified and the Ibn al-Haytham has either the default float-right or has "right" specified, the laser image ends up just as high as the Ibn al-Haytham and no higher. But, if you specify "left" in both images, then they work out fine, and appear in their proper places despite the expansion of the "Science" template when Javascript is turned off. So if you were trying to avoid the push-down problem, that's the way to do it. The Tetrast (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC). P.S.: That also explains why I had the earlier problem with the first of the little DNA images when Javascript is turned off. When it's floated, it couldn't float above the down-pushed (by "Science" template minus Javascript) laser and Ibn al-Haytham images, since it came after them. I had a vague idea about the problem at the time but now it's clear. The Tetrast (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Tetrast, I was referring to the formatting which is set off by the div's. No problem. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What of the social (soft) sciences?
Reading over this article I noticed it leans very heavily on the physical (or hard) science with very little clue on how the method works with the social (or soft) sciences like anthropology, sociology, or history just to mention a few. The problem with social sciences is that experiments can't generally be done (if at all) in the manner they are in physical sciences. Is there anything on how the scientific method works in the social sciences?
 * Is there such a fundamental difference in experimentation between "hard" and "soft" sciences? Of course, we can't create specific mental disorders or industries in test tubes in order to precisely measure some aspect of psychology or economics - with an ideal control, and so on. However, we can't create a galaxy or a mantle plume in a test tube either.
 * I think there will be some differences in experimentation simply due to studying different things, but this occurs within the groups of "hard sciences" and "soft sciences", not just at the boundary, even if we could agree where the boundary lay and get a reliable source for it...
 * Experimentation is only part of the scientific method; are there differences in other parts that should be pointed out in this article? Bobrayner (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The two primary empirical differences between social scientific and physical scientific research are, IMO, effective n and dimensionality. Physical sciences generally deal with an immense n that renders statistical errors inconsequential.  E.g., random processes like air resistance or chemical reactions in a fluid involve such large numbers of particles that the results you get will invariably be equal to the expected results of the statistical model (or rather, with a margin of error so small that it is unmeasurable).  Social scientists generally deal with n in the 100-1000 range, making for noticeable (and sometimes overwhelming) variability in outcomes.  This statistical advantage also means that interesting physical properties can usually be isolated to small numbers of dimensions - e.g. ballistic motion can be reduced to an initial velocity vector and the force of gravity in ideal cases, where other dimensions are statistically obviated - whereas interesting human or social properties usually have a good-sized number of statistically irreducible dimensions.  It's worth noting that where social sciences reduce themselves to tightly constrained (and often humanly trivial) models (e.g. neuropsychology) they produce results as rigorous as the physical sciences, and where the physical sciences face non-reducible dimensions (e.g. weather systems, or other fractal-ish phenomena) they do not produce any stronger results than the social sciences do.


 * Add that the social sciences are burdened with an ever-present moral dimension: physical scientists don't need to concern themselves with whether a physical force will kill off an entire village, whereas social scientists do generally feel the need to pass moral judgment on a human action that has the same result. Physicists are content building nuclear weapons (the creation of destructive force as a manipulation of the physical properties of materials); Political scientists argue endlessly over their production and use (the creation of destructive force as a human action)


 * Pardon the OR - I just thought it would help to clarify the issue a bit.  Ludwigs 2


 * Let's use something that has reliable source material out the wazoo: the Emic and etic concept.  It was created partly in response to Horace Miner's Body Ritual Among the Nacirema and helped trigger off what Bruce Trigger in his A History of Archaeological Thought called the "Neo-Evolutionism and the New Archaelology".  Trigge's book itself is a key example of the problem.  Barring political pressures (such as Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union) a physcial scientist in China will generally be using the same theory as one in the US.  The same is not true of a social scientist--wildly different methods may be employed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Exact definition of Scientific Method
Every scientific method is a structured process whose logical structure is based on the knowledge of the common properties observed of different familiar things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add new topics to the foot of the talk page. Moved the contribution here. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No Discussion of Chinese or Asian Contributions to Science
I am concerned this article omits the ideas of Mozi and the School of Names in the history of the scientific method. In fact, there is no discussion of China at all. Why? The wikipedia article on Mozi states " Like Confucius, Mozi idealized the Xia Dynasty and the ancients of Chinese mythology, but he criticized the Confucian belief that modern life should be patterned on the ways of the ancients. After all, he pointed out, what we think of as "ancient" was actually innovative in its time, and thus should not be used to hinder present-day innovation ("Against Confucianism, Part 3" in the Mozi). Though Mozi did not believe that history necessarily progresses, as did Han Fei Zi, he shared the latter's critique of fate (命, mìng). Mozi believed that people were capable of changing their circumstances and directing their own lives. They could do this by applying their senses to observing the world, judging objects and events by their causes, their function, and their historical basis. ("Against Fate, Part 3") This was the "three-prong method" Mozi recommended for testing the truth or falsehood of statements. His students later expanded on this to form the School of Names." I am not an expert in this subject, so I do not feel qualified to write about it.  I am open to comments.Jedstamas (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do any other editors have suggested sources? I have not had access to Needham's Science and Civilisation in China for twenty years; I guess it is time for me to request it on loan. Surely it must be somewhere in a state of 5.6 million people. (Currently, I'm still working on the Lakatos conundrums.) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But you know, the article History of science and technology in China makes no mention of Mozi and the School of Names. Perhaps the contributions would be on a more equal footing there, as it would be perilous to start adding detail about a school of thought that was suppressed in the Qin era in the history of scientific method; the mismatch would stand out. To redress this, we need a list of related changes to the relevant series of articles. Might you be able to list that series somewhere? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For example [here would be a list of related changes for Scientific method
 * and a list of related changes for History of science and technology in China
 * Related changes for Logic in China
 * and Mohist canons from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * and Fenrong Liu & Jialong Zhang, "A note on Mohist logic"
 * and Jialong Zhang & Fenrong Liu, "Some Thoughts on Mohist Logic"
 * --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jedstamas, I see that China never had a Middle Age; this basic fact has not even been acknowledged in the History of science and technology in China. The closest approximation I can see might be Imperial China which ought to be taken up in the appropriate WikiProject, and not here. I notice there is a Portal:History of Imperial China which might identify some appropriate contributors for you. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While trying to get myself oriented about Mozi, I found that some argue that Mohist Logic (from 2500 years ago, about a century after Confucius) was cut short during the burning of the books and the burying of scholars during the Qin period (which the thoughts of Confucius survived). The Chinese governments in the 1900s have come to recognize what they lost. Deductive logic was cut short.
 * It would be analogous to the execution of all of the followers ever to have come after Socrates, and of all of the followers of Euclid, and of all of the followers of Thales and of all of the followers of Archimedes, and of all of the followers of Aristarchos. I guess I would argue that would have set back Alhazen (who was a Neoplatonist) and then the Scientific Revolution in Europe. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jedstamas, I would appreciate your picking up the ball here as I am trying to get something done with Lakatos. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jedstamas, I got an introductory book on Needham by Robert Temple (1986), isbn 0-671-62028-2 apparently when Needham's volumes I-VI were available to him. There is no mention of Mozi in Temple's book. I am requesting Needham's vol II & VII & will note what there is of Mozi in Needham's volumes II, VII. However even Temple (pp 9-12) notes that the Chinese as a civilization quite forgot that they had invented any number of both scientific & technological innovations before modern times arrived with a bang on their doorstep. So one clue is that documentation and dissemination of scientific advances was stymied (such as the obliteration of Mohism, before the Qin dynasty settled in 2200 years ago at the time of the Terracotta Army). This is apparently part of the answer to Needham's grand question. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jedstamas, based on my reading of Joseph Needham, the little page School of Names (名家; Míng jiā) now states that the vast bulk of their work is now lost. I think this explains why 名家 had no effect on scientific method. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of what I am reading, I am forwarding a link to this section to the talk page of Deontological ethics. The Mohists shine brightly there, and perhaps they could have made a difference had their history been different. But who knows? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth &sect;
Is the thread above the cause of the referred to section having its current text? Why is it clumsily trying to say something about this dispute over the gait of horses instead of addressing the subject directly with mention of sources such as Frege, Quine, Tarski etc. that are central and germane to it? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it discusses observation. What is obvious to one is not to someone else. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * rvv --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ways a theory gains broad acceptance
There is some very intersting related thought in the recent issue of Rev. Mod. Phys (see ). Quotes follow: "'We begin by seeking a broad perspective on what it means to probe not merely the validity but also the accuracy of a theory. The canonical view of theory testing is that one tries to falsify the theory: One compares its predictions with experiment and observation. The predictions use input data, for example, initial values of certain parameters, which then are translated by the theory into predictions of new data. If these predicted data agree with observation within experimental uncertainties �and sometimes also uncertainties in application of the theory�, then the theory has, for the moment, passed the test. One may continue to look for failures in new domains of application, even if the incentive for doing so declines with time." "'Of course, without strong “ground rules” it is impossible to falsify a theory because one almost always can find explanations for a failure. So, in fact no scientific theory may be either disproved or proved in a completely rigorous way; everything always is provisional, and continual skepticism always is in order. However, based on a strong pattern of success a theory can earn trust at least as great as in any other aspect of human inquiry."

The article goes on to discuss ways a theory gains broad acceptance. Specific ways listed include: 1 "a striking, even implausible, prediction is borne out by experiment or observation", 2) "a theory gains credence is by fecundity: People see ways to apply the idea in other contexts..." and 3) "a third feature, connectivity. If many closely neighboring subjects are described by connecting theoretical concepts, then the theoretical structure acquires a robustness which makes it increasingly hard—though certainly never impossible—to overturn."

Think this material is relevant to the overall article. Yes, I know I should be bold and add it myself, but I'm busy in the other world these days, so I'm just noting the material here. Perhaps I'll come back later, if no one else melds it in...

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Williamborg, Thank you for this contribution to the encyclopedia. I propose to cite the Rev. Mod. Phys. article's 'ways a theory gains broad acceptance'


 * 1 - "striking, even implausible" ->the statement that Scientific method is for the creation of new knowledge
 * 2 - perhaps the "fecundity" statement be worked in as a quotation.
 * 3 - "connectivity" ->Feynman's statements of how Science is interconnected

and
 * "strong ground rules"-> how falsification and doubt fit in with the need to prove statements.


 * Might this be in line with your thinking?   --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good start to me - go boldly forward and I'll look for your final words in the article. As with all things Wiki and all Wiki editors, if it doesn't look perfect to me, I may edit some more thoughts in later. ; ~ )
 * Think there is also some related material on the scientific method as an evolution of knowledge by Kuhn, T. S., published in 1996, titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Trying to find my copy (they say three moves equal one fire, and we just moved)...
 * Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To All Editors: This contribution opens up a way to discuss the role of the framework of a scientific theory in a concrete way. After I draft an approach for working in the contribution, I will be asking for the specific page number in the http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.939 article for each specific use of the citation --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC):
 * 1 - "striking, even implausible, prediction is borne out by experiment or observation"-- The reason that a 'striking, even implausible, prediction' is so useful is that it overturns the researcher's hidden assumptions or mental picture. For example, if one's mental picture is for a static universe in which a solar system eternally revolves, then it is reasonable to posit a Newtonian-style world. But if a theory predicts that matter will be subject to gravitational collapse into a black hole, as Chandrasekhar predicted, that theory was promptly decried by Arthur Eddington (of GR prediction/verification fame). Of course, Chandrasekhar was vindicated by later observation, and the limitation of that specific Newtonian structure as an absolute framework was exposed.
 * 2 - "fecundity" -- The reason that a fecund idea would be so rewarding is that formerly unexploited fields can be opened up. For example, currently the double helix structure DNA is well-known knowledge, with applications in everyday, practical application, as well as its history of being a basis to explain other mechanisms, and even to found very large industries. But its basis was the ideological commitment of Francis Crick to the materialist ontology: a physical structure was the basis for the role of DNA.
 * 3 - "connectivity" -- when a concept has been shown to be valid in some framework, such as in the use of mass nouns like mass, charge, and spin, then the level of abstraction serves to compress concepts which were formerly seen as unrelated into the same namespace. One example of this level of compression of concepts is the atomic theory, which Newton so fruitfully exploited with his corpuscular theory, lasting from 1687 well into the twentieth century, and which is still vital today, of course. Another example of this kind of compression is the internet meme so fervently believed by young students today -- that the Answer is to be found on the Internet somewhere, nevermind thinking about it too hard. Of course, when cracks in the framework are thus exposed, then the limitations on the concept or the implementation can be surfaced, reworked, and otherwise criticized.
 * "strong ground rules" -- when a mass noun has a zero or some other bounding value as a theoretical basis, then it can be designed for in future experiments. For example, when Einstein's GR was published, the Royal Astronomical Society was able to deduce a consequence of GR which was then planned, funded, and watched for, and of course observed. That is, the ground rule served to reify the theory -- for which no exception has yet been found. This is an indication of its strength (and also its weakness, as still being subject to the narrative fallacy).
 * (If somehow an online copy of the Rev. Mod. Phys. article, or at least access to the article might be secured, then it might be possible to work in just how the authors have related this to their proposed values or approach to learning the mass limits of the photon and graviton, for example.)
 * --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have set an e-mail address in my User preferences. Think I may be able to help. shoot me an e-mail through the Wikipedia user interface and I'll see what I can do about RMP access.
 * Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Animated gif not animated anymore?
Is it just me or do others see it? The animated gif of the galloping Muybridge race horse is now frozen when I view it in IE and Firefox alike. But it still appears as animated on its image file page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muybridge_race_horse_animated.gif. Maybe there's a new policy about inline animated gifs, but I didn't find it. They do use a lot of bandwidth - the large version on the image file page is over half a megabyte. Maybe it's just some change in how Wikimedia software handles images. Image use policy says that thumbs of animated gifs sometimes have problems. If the inline image looks frozen to others and there's no way to repair it, then maybe "Click on image to visit animated version" should be added into the caption. The Tetrast (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What was notable to me was the falsification of 'flying gallop' by precisely this frame. I saw this frame first on the Bing version maybe 6 months ago, and then on Wikipedia's article, and then it reverted to the animated one, and now it's back to the static frame, several months later. For what it's worth, the static frame is exactly the frame needed to falsify 'flying gallop'. Joseph Needham cited the flying gallop as one of a number of influences from China (including the Mongol era) which travelled to the West. From the point of view of a reader, there is no longer any observational bia or fear on the part of the hypothesizer that one has been misunderstood through not seeing this frame in real time. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle matched up to Al Haytham
The introduction section has only a short sentence in regards to Aristotle. The section on Al Haytham in the introduction has quite a large paragraph or two. Why did someone add Aristotle's picture to the intro? I believe the Aristotle picture should be removed. It's not deserved in that section. Faro0485 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems
No discussion of problems, only extenal links to some of them. In particular;

1) a problem with formulation of the "Initial Hypothesis" can be a barrier to progress, is pretty important and is not mentioned at all. The point is that because the choice of initial hypothesis is more-or-less arbitary, and because it determines what experiments are done to test it, a lot of time has been spent (arguably wasted time) working to acrue evidence to support hypothesis whose initial formulation was (sometimes unintentionally) expedient, desireable or based on inadequately supported assumptions rather than impartial, objective and in the context of existing scientific knowledge. To put it another way, one only gets the "right" answers if one asks the "right" questions. For example, -tobacco industry research into the health benefits of smoking (hopefully no longer controvertial, should be lots of evidence) -historically various examples of hypothesis based on ego-centric assumptions such as man's superiority to animals, man's position at the center of the universe/all things. -etc

2) The use of statistical evidence of a correlating between occurences of two phenomena as evidence of a casual link between them in the absence of any (adequately supported) hypothesis for a causal mechanism between them or evidence to exclude candidate common causes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.211.4 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Galileo
Galileo was great, but isn't the Kline quote ("Modern science owes its origins and present flourishing state to a new scientific method which was fashioned almost entirely by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)") a little over the top? What was Kepler, chopped liver? For his part, Peirce traced scientific method back to another before both of them, to Petrus Peregrinus, of whose work on the lodestone Peirce hoped to publish an edition with commentary. From Collected Papers v. 8 Bibliography, c. 1893, [item] 4: "The brief treatise on the lodestone by Petrus Peregrinus, dated 1269, occupies a unique position in the history of the human mind, being without exception the earliest work of experimental science that has come down to us." (Peirce may have not known about Alhazen's work - I can't find mention by him of Alhazen under various spellings etc. (Added note: I'm not denying or minimizing Alhazen's contribution; just guessing that Peirce didn't know about it. Further added note: I'm so vague sometimes. My point here wasn't that we should add Peregrinus, it was that Peirce for one didn't think that it all began with Galileo or even with Galileo and Kepler, and that Kline's quote seems a bit over the top).

C. S. Peirce, circa 1896, on Kepler's reasoning through explanatory hypotheses (retroduction as Peirce called it then), Collected Papers, v. 1 link:
 * Paragraph 71: Mill denies that there was any reasoning in Kepler's procedure. He says it is merely a description of the facts. He seems to imagine that Kepler had all the places of Mars in space given him by Tycho's observations; and that all he did was to generalize and so obtain a general expression for them. Even had that been all, it would certainly have been inference. Had Mill had even so much practical acquaintance with astronomy as to have practised discussions of the motions of double stars, he would have seen that. But so to characterize Kepler's work is to betray total ignorance of it. Mill certainly never read the De Motu [Motibus] Stellae Martis, which is not easy reading. The reason it is not easy is that it calls for the most vigorous exercise of all the powers of reasoning from beginning to end.

The intervening paragraphs are worth reading (click on Google Books link above the above paragraph), but it'd be excessive to paste them all into here.
 * Paragraph 74: Thus, never modifying his theory capriciously, but always with a sound and rational motive for just the modification he makes, it follows that when he finally reaches a modification — of most striking simplicity and rationality — which exactly satisfies the observations, it stands upon a totally different logical footing from what it would if it had been struck out at random, or the reader knows not how, and had been found to satisfy the observation. Kepler shows his keen logical sense in detailing the whole process by which he finally arrived at the true orbit. This is the greatest piece of Retroductive reasoning ever performed.

And I'm sure that many of us remember having read that it was found that Kepler had made not a single error in his massive calculations. I'm starting to wonder about the Scientific method wiki's Introduction section - it's starting to invite crowding with conflicting claims about who deserves how much credit. I'm not sure what to do about it. The Tetrast (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC). Added note above The Tetrast (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC). Further added note and that's all, I hope. The Tetrast (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC).


 * The introduction section makes much reference to Ibn Haytham, but little to Galileo, why did you remove it and replace it with Galileo? Galileo's picture if found elsewhere on the article. The picture of Ibn Haytham must be returned to the introduction. Faro0485 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not replace the Haytham image with the Galileo image. Somebody else did that.The Tetrast (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
 * The history of the image replacement by user:Tobby72 is here. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I realized that after I checked the history. Faro0485 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the picture stating "Modern science... galileo... owes...", it's obviously contradicts the introduction section. Faro0485 (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's no doubt why Ancheta Wis said "It is probably best to credit the Galileo caption to its author directly" in the edit summary when she added Morris Kline's name to his quote - so that it's clear that it's an opinion. The Tetrast (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
 * I must say that the quote under Galileo's picture does not match the fact that he does not appear in the "history" section. IMO not only the publishing date is important, but also the impact "factor" (how many copies of a book were made). I'm in favour of removing the quote if someone add in the history section how he used the scientific method in a variety of fields (astronomy, balistic, free fall, the pendulum, ...) effectively giving birth to modern physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.240.188 (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet Francis Bacon has to be included as well; both Bacon and Galileo were reacting to the weight of nearly two thousand years of tradition (i.e. Aristotle's authoritative position, as the systematizer of Plato). Even Alhazen was reacting to the previous knowledge of his time (by critiquing Ptolemy). Since Galileo is well covered in the History of scientific method article, would you settle for a brief sentence, i.e.
 * Francis Bacon's 'experiments of light' might be exemplified by the experiments and observations of Galileo, which were designed to decisively overturn traditional teachings.
 * I guess my reservation is that it puts a revolutionary cast on scientific method as something disruptive, which is only one aspect of a search for truth. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Single Scientific Method as a Misconception
Scientific method

There is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists. This is a misconception promoted by some science textbooks. The hypothesis, experiment, conclusion model of science can be an important part of many scientific fields, especially basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mold. These would include astronomy, paleontology, and, somewhat controversially, climate science and biological evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFShop (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits). This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 32 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit ). Tobby72 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of this page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC).


 * I support the continued semi-protection of the Scientific method article, and this "Pending changes" experiment looks like a good idea for an alternate way to accomplish the same goal. The Tetrast (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
 * It looks like the page has been semi-protected since 2008 (Heavy and persistent vandalism). I just activated the Pending Changes software for the page, as The Tetrast said, above, this will hopefully accomplish the same level of protection as semi-protection while allowing good faith edits from casual editors. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So far the test is going downright strangely here at the "Scientific method" wiki. Though a few were initially approved, every single edit made by an unregistered user has been undone or revised away. Most of the undone edits looked like vandalism. Meanwhile at other wikis (not involved in the test) I've lately seen edits by unregistered users that were good edits and not vandalism at all. If the test continues like this, I'd say that the "Scientific method" wiki should return to semi-protection, it's not worth people's efforts to continually reject pending changes all of which are bad or vandalism (I'm a Reviewer but haven't caught any of the pending changes somehow - the tab never appears in my browser). Perhaps the Pending Changes system would still be good at other wikis, for instance some of the number wikis. The Tetrast (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the test is producing problematic results. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point the pending-changes test at "Scientific method" has been running for over two months. Few if any pending-changes edits have been retained. A few that were initially confirmed were later deleted (for good reason from what I could see). Whether or not the pending-changes system becomes a standing option at Wikipedia, I suggest that we now return "Scientific method" to semi-protection. The Tetrast (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I have just reviewed the history since the change. There are lots of IP edits, sadly I did not see one which was not reverted. I have therefore been bold and gone back to semi-protection.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything similar to Shepardizing in the legal field that exists in the scientific field
In law we always verify to see if law is current, if it hasn't been overturned, distinguished, expounded on, or just even discussed by later studies. I am sure scientists do this as well to verify that the science that they are quoting is still current and valid, but is there a name for this process? Salsassin (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I've ever come across...there are too many branches of scientific research to lump everything together for categorization and review. Each branch has its own publications, its own peer-review or refereeing process, its own network of researchers.  It would make it a bit easier for literature reviews, at the very least, if a given field of scientific research had its particular version of Corpus Juris Secundum or similar, but at the moment, none do. If someone else knows of an exception to this, please pipe up... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A decade or so ago a mathematician told me about the situation in mathematics and it sounded much like what Alan the Roving Ambassador says of science. The mathematician said also that, not at all infrequently, for a given mathematical research paper, there are very few mathematicians with the relevant background to review it; and that, overall, the situation was unfortunate, given that work in one or another little publicized and seemingly disparate, far-flung area amid the vastness of mathematics can turn out to be relevant and helpful to one's own. The Tetrast (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
 * The biomedical research literature PubMed system does routinely update its database to note errata, retractions and corrections (see this page, and PubMed routinely links to related articles that cite any given article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition Section (operational definitions vs. “idealized” definitions)
I would like to suggest an edit of the first paragraph of the Definition section. But given the “status” of this article, it seems fitting to discuss this first. The difference between operational definitions and “idealized” definitions is half-illustrated by the electric current example.

Operational definition: Electric current can found via mass of silver…

“Idealized” / cause-effect definition: Electric current is the number of Coulombs of charge that pass a point (or plane) per second.

Alternatively, the operational definition of an objects acceleration is the quantity of change in its velocity per second. Meanwhile an “idealized” definition is the net force exerted on an object divided by its mass.

Is there any form of consensus regarding how I am framing this? Are there thoughts regarding how this may be integrated into what exists in the article? Leif Nabil 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifisme (talk • contribs)
 * Why not also state the edit itself that you wish to make? The Tetrast (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Leif, you used ostensive definition above, where you discuss 'examples' involving electric current, or alternatively, mass. Both examples involve mass nouns. The definition article lists at least 8 senses or modes of definition. I appreciate your taking it to the talk page, because scientific method, especially for new knowledge, involves thinking at the 'new' level, just beyond the 'unknown' or 'unformed' level. In other words, formal definitions which can use mass nouns are well beyond the 'new' or tentative stage. What I am bringing up is Einstein's 'left side' versus 'right side' distinction in his equations. Things like formal concepts have an imaginative side (or left side) whereas things on the realistic side (or right side) tend to be messy. Einstein preferred the left side (of his equations) because it involves neatness, in contrast to the reality that he ostensibly was describing in his work. The left side versus right side sense also exists in computer software, where variables (left side) can be evaluated (right side). I am raising caution flags because a formal or left side bias for definitions in the article would unbalance the article against reality (which is what scientific method addresses). Ostensive definitions are especially useful here because they emphasize the details which science has to deal with, as well as the high-level generalizations, which tend to slide to the Jussive mood. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Models of scientific inquiry
Some remarks concerning the section Models of scientific inquiry. --Lambiam 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) While the first two subsections are concerned with models used in the philosophy of science to describe scientific inquiry, meta-models so to speak, as is the topic of our Models of scientific inquiry article, the third subsection (Computational approaches) is about models used within science. As such it appears out of place, and also gives undue weight to this kind of model: mathematical models are more prominent in the range of scientific models; the content is more appropriate in the latter article.
 * 2) The article Models of scientific inquiry lists three approaches: 1.1 Classical model; 1.2 Pragmatic model; 1.3 Logical empiricism. The section here omits Logical empiricism (aka Logical positivism) for no clear reason.
 * 3) Without wanting to detract from the importance of Peirce, the relative amount of attention given here to Peirce's "Pragmatic model" appears totally undue. (And not only here, but pervasively throughout the article; in total, I count 54 occurrences of His Name.)
 * 4) The whole section deals with something that belongs to the realm of Philosophy of science and overlaps with another section, Philosophy and sociology of science. I think it is better to merge this section to there.
 * Lambiam, Thank you for your observations. You have kindly highlighted the role of doubt in this method: Alhazen (Doubts Concerning Ptolemy), Galileo (Two New Sciences) and Peirce have all commented on its role.
 * User:Jon Awbrey was the initial Peirce contributor to this section, which has been steadily trimmed over the years. (Whenever I re-read it, I get something out of it.)
 * I believe that one reason that Logical empiricism is not treated equally in this section is that as a philosophical school in retreat, Logical empiricism properly belongs in Philosophy and sociology of science, so your wish in this regard has already been granted.
 * Perhaps the Computational approaches subsection can be viewed as a proposal (hypothesis) for how things could be. Perhaps this approach will become more powerful in the future. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a follow-on, I might mention that doubt can serve as a 'filter', meaning that in the huge volume of inputs that we deal with daily, that which we 'doubt' serves as portent. In this sense, 'doubt' ranks with Newton's seashell on the beach of the Ocean of Truth, along with Lakatos' search for happiness, as triggering mechanisms for the process of science. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ancheta. Add value to a section on another model, don't subtract value from the "Pragmatic model" section, in order to achieve desired balance. Models which have come from philosophers (or in Peirce's case, a philosopher who was a practicing scientist for 30 years) don't need to be in the section recounting past philosophy and sociology of science in a general way, especially as such general philosophical/sociological discussion gets into many things besides basic issues of method and its logic, methodological attitudes and rationales, their links, etc. Peirce's name appears 53 times (maybe I missed one) but 25 of the instances are in 15 footnotes, and 9 more of the instances are in "Further reading" (which has 66 bulleted entries) and are due to four collections and a Misak book (quite a few of P's name's repetitions in footnotes and elsewhere are because his name is in titles of posthumous collections). Besides the Pragmatic model section, his name appears in main text 6 times in "History" and once in "Hypothesis development," and that's it. The "Computational approaches" section is a bit "meta" after the other "model" sections but the transition isn't too harsh; the section is where a reader might expect to find it given the "Models" title and anyway it does appear as "Computational approaches" in the TOC - it just seems a bit short to be a higher-level section. The Tetrast (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Inserted a bit. The Tetrast (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed too, about emphasizing intentional "doubt" as a very central aspect of scientific method (e.g., w.r.t. distinguishing a "barroom theory" or "armchair theory" from a "scientific theory", as they are so commonly confused in public debates). The reasons for my agreement with this are already given in some of the accumulated archives of this talk page. Offhand I imagine Peirce would have appreciated this small concession to his somewhat prophetic insights articulated over a century ago.\ ...Kenosis (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added the role of 'doubt' to Tesseract2's latest contribution to the article, for which Thanks. (Yet it's a a paraphrase of Peirce: Theory1 ->Doubt theory1 ->Falsify theory1 ->Bounds to belief in theory1 ->Strengthening of a larger theory2.) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Further reading entries
According to WP:FURTHER, the further reading section should contain "publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content." This will eliminate a number of entries, e.g. Bacon's Novum Organum, Born (1949), Brody (1993), ... pgr94 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I bumped into you there when I replaced the Peirce books. I should waited for you to finish. Sorry about that! Anyway, I'm all done. The Tetrast (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC).
 * No problem - at least as far as I can tell. pgr94 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have finished moving refs out of the further reading section. Two points:
 * the publications I moved into the references section appear as a bulleted list when they should appear as numbered items. I don't know template usage well enough to do this - perhaps someone could come along and tidy up. Ignore this, I have since looked at some other articles.
 * Some of the further reading entries look like primary sources but are not specifically referenced within the article. My understanding of the purpose of the further reading section is that it should be more for introductory texts and textbooks while primary sources reside in the references.
 * pgr94 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that they should have the same numbers as the footnotes referencing them? (I ask since I notice that you knew to use the number sign to make a numbered list in your comment.) As regards intro texts, I'd wait for the other editors to comment on that. If they remain silent, then I guess go ahead and be bold. Meanwhile, I was just thinking that the Peirce entry should be moved out of "Further reading" section and into the list of references, so I just did that. The Tetrast (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Pgr94, There could be a Notes section, a separate References section, and the Further Reading section;
 * The Notes section could have the and no other entry, because the MediaWiki software generates the numbering automatically,
 * the separate References section would then have the hard-coded entries such as Bacon, Born, Brody, etc., but retaining the alphabetical sort. That way the harvnb references which are used would still have their footnotes balancing the respective references.
 * The Further Reading section would have the remainder of the entries.
 * Might this fit the guideline according to your understanding? If so, then you might as well Be Bold. I can clean up afterward if you have further questions about the usage. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Pgr94,I see you already did the work, so I created the separate References heading, and noticed that Bynum was in the 3rd list, so I moved it up one list. I am actually surprised that Poincare, Science and Hypothesis is not quoted directly, so we could fix this. Please feel free to beat me to it. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. pgr94 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder how others feel about the suitability of the remaining texts in the further reading section. Here are my opinions (in italics after each reference) - does anyone agree/disagree?
 * Bozinovski, Stevo, Consequence Driven Systems: Teaching, Learning, and Self-Learning Agents, GOCMAR Publishers, Bitola, Macedonia, 1991. What's the connection with this article?
 * Chomsky, Noam, Reflections on Language, Pantheon Books, New York, NY, 1975. What's the connection with this article?
 * Giere, Ronald N. (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science, vol. 15 in 'Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science', University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1992. Cognitive science wasn't mentioned in the article, why mention it now?
 * Newell, Allen, Unified Theories of Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. idem
 * Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo (ed.), Language and Learning, The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980. What's the connection to this article?
 * Popper, Karl R., Unended Quest, An Intellectual Autobiography, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1982. Wouldn't this belong in the article on Popper instead?
 * There's perhaps a few more I'd consider trimming, but the above is already a start. pgr94 (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Pgr94, I believe that the Further Reading section contains good faith contributions by editors who got value from these entries. Although I did not contribute these remaining entries, perhaps I might speculate just why they were added:
 * the Bozinovski and the Piattelli-Palmarini entries are likely about 'learning': 'learning' is a large part of 'socratic inquiry' (elenchus), a parent of scientific method.
 * I found a publication that ties together Piaget and Chomsky: the thread is about the representation of concepts. Piaget had a more developmental viewpoint, pointing out that thinkers may be unready to progress to the next phase in the understanding of a concept (A.S. Neill's Summerhill a boy's school had the same point: there is no use teaching mathematics to boys if they are unready for it); in contrast, Chomsky's viewpoint is that thinkers have some innate mental structures. Obviously, in education, the teachers must somehow structure ways to bridge the gap between student and subject. (Stanislaw Lem autobiography referred to it as 'the war between students and education'.)
 * the Giere and Newell entries are likely part of the computerization thread for scientific method, where the hope would be that a computerization of scientific method might amplify human thought somehow. Very little of it is in the article, I suppose because no spectacular results have occurred yet. My personal opinion is that 'taste' is a missing element in this effort and without it, a large body of dull, unsurprising, and unused theorems would result from an automated scientist. On the other hand, if a computerized scientist could be 'directed', ... who knows?
 * Popper is the sleeper in this list: he is the intellectual progenitor of Feyerabend and Lakatos, who I am studying in response to a request on this talk page. Popper changed his position several times in his career, as I have learned over the years, from contributors to this article.
 * other entries have understandable positions, such as the debunkers, the good-faith editors, the spammers, the trolls, etc.
 * --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thanks for your explanations Ancheta. I am not questioning the importance of these texts at all. There's no doubt there are some very important books.  However, this is an article that introduces/explains scientific method to the layman and there are various other Wikipedia articles that expand on this high-level exposition.  So I'm suggesting we trim the "further reading" section to the main textbooks and pop-sci introductions.  The other books should be incorporated (if they aren't already) in articles more closely aligned in subject matter.  Otherwise we risk ending up with a directory of every book on scientific method.  And that will be very very long... pgr94 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pgr94, then you might as well Be Bold. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I worry a bit about limitation to the main textbooks and pop-sci introductions. Unfortunately I'd be pretty challenged to draw up a comprehensive list of the most important original works on scientific method. However, if there are such lists elsewhere, we could link to them under "External links". The Tetrast (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I looked around a bit and found that the Internet doesn't seem to be overflowing with scientific method reading lists. I found one that was part of an old course description. Maybe I just didn't figure out how to search effectively for them. But if others here have been seeking and not finding them, maybe there actually is a lack and need of such a thing, in which case another possibility is to start a "Scientific method bibliography" wiki. I hope I'm not uselessly complicating things with these ideas, I'm trying to make choices easier. The Tetrast (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, reading lists are a good place to find texts. But the bibliography idea sounds daunting but don't let that put you off. pgr94 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See for example:  (and there's another 14 pages!) pgr94 (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions for textbooks. I think that they have a table of contents that would make them suitable for further reading. Please note, I am not judging whether these are good books or not, for all I know they might be full of errors; other books with similar content might be better. What do you think? Disclaimer: I have only read the last of these books. pgr94 (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (Paperback) by J. A. Cover, Martin Curd [ http://www.amazon.com/reader/0393971759?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt#reader-link ]
 * Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Barry Gower. [ http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Historical-Philosophical-Introduction/dp/0415122813/ref=sid_dp_dp ]
 * Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Peter Godfrey-Smith [ http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Reality-Introduction-Philosophy-Foundations/dp/0226300633/ref=sid_av_dp ] (currently cited as a primary source)
 * A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method, Stephen S. Carey [ http://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Scientific-Method/dp/0534528430 ]
 * What is this thing called Science? by A. F. Chalmers [ http://www.amazon.com/What-this-thing-called-Science/dp/0872204537/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284968249&sr=1-1 ] (already in further reading section; added by myself)
 * One title from the type of text you may be looking for is already in the references (thanks to Kenosis): 435 pages
 * Another title, already in the references, was written specifically for philosophy students:.
 * --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science
There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Shmuel Sambursky
I owe Shmuel Sambursky (1900-1999) an article. From what I know, he was educated in Europe, in physics, and emigrated to Israel in 1924. He taught at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in physics, where he taught generations of students about science and about Greek and Southwest Asian history. He was known for his quick sense of humor. He was an expert on the Stoics. He was dean of the faculty of science in 1957 and he established the department of history and philosophy of science.

I possess his book from which the Alhazen quotations stem, and from which I quote, as the original editor who inserted them. I cannot vouch for the Gorini source, as I do not possess it. They must have come from another source, not from me. Based on that, I am deleting the tags which question this source, for which I vouch. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Ancheta's choices above. The Tetrast (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC).