Talk:Scientific method/Archive 2

This is an archive of discussions from Talk:Scientific method.

-

Over 90 articles and more than 30 other pages link here. That is one pretty important article. It is my opinion (and therefore it is philosophically defensible) that this constitutes the most important article in the entire wikipedia:


 * All scientific matters are connected to it
 * It's great choice for "what authoritative encyclopedia article would you take with you to a desert island ?"
 * It played nursemaid to Quantum Mechanics, the most powerful theory every developed.
 * It's all about the logic (and the limitations therein).
 * more than any single thing proper scientific reasoning by wikipedians will free us all to write good text.

I would like this article to become authoritative, so that it would give aid and guidance to us wikipedians, concentrate the kooks for easier management, and become an inspiration for all cooperative endevour. Two16

I would like to remove, or at leats rewrite, the following paragraph:
 * Another criticism of the scientific method (as here presented) is that it fails to acknowledge the incalculable impact that mathematics has had on scientific research and direction. A hypothesis about the physical world that is based solely on implications derived from mathematical analysis can hardly be said to be in accordance with the "observational" phase of the scientific method (a purely mathematical property cannot properly be called a "fact" about the physical universe)...

As written, this is incorrect! No scientist I have ever met has failed to acknowledge the incalculable impact that mathematics has had! The above text sounds more like a disagreement with the way that science textbooks explain the scientific method, which may be a very valid criticism. However, working scientists (at least, in the hard sciences) are themselves aware of the value of math. RK 14:06 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * The idea that the physical world can and should be described mathematically is generally attributed to Descartes. It is a philosophical concept every bit as important to the scientific method as the empiricism popularised by Bacon. Saying that science doesn't acknowlege mathematics is like saying fish don't acknowledge water. Perhaps biologists are less aware of mathematics than other scientists, but other than that minor caveat, I say rewrite away. -- Tim Starling 04:34 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

RK, when you say this text reads more like..., I think that's what it was supposed to be. It is not a criticism of the scientific method as practiced, but a criticism of the scientific method as here presented. That is to say, it is warning that the list of steps given is overly simplistic and does not reflect the beliefs of actual scientists.

Incidentally, many of the comments about politics and religions are somewhat misleading, and the explanation of how the stand-off between America and Russia gives evidence that science is a social construct is just plain backwards. I'd like to remove that one, and suggest that the others be looked at.

On another point, the extra verbiage that was added to the article by the anonymous contributor about six revisions ago is poorly written and makes the article worse. Can we just remove it? --Robert Merkel 05:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's the part about America and Russia I was referring to. It's gone.

Removed following commentry on the Feyerabend bit:

"Scientists respond by saying that Feyerabend has constructed a series of straw-man arguments that show little comprehension of what science is and how it works."

Not even the philosophers Feyerabend attacked directly accused him of showing "little comprehension of what science is"! Certainly Popper would not have said such a thing since Feyerabend had studied quantum theory under him. Earlier in his carrier Feyerabend was considered first a "raving positivist" and later a popparian (although he denied this to the last!). In short, Feyerabend had about as much science know-how as you could reasonably stuff into one person.

I'm interested in what the straw-man arguments could have been. Do you have references to someone who said this? Then maybe we could flesh out this "scientists say" generalization with something more substantial.

Also removed commentry on Lakatos bit:

"However, only a portion of this is related to the modern scientific method, as the scientific method (as we knwo it today) did not exist until the late 1700s."

No. Lakatos was talking about modern scientific method and nothing else! --Chris

Reverted following changed to Feyerabend's criticism:

"[Feyerabend] claims that they fail as a descriptive account of the historical record; scientists respond by pointing out that the scientific method never even existed until recently, and that this method is prescriptive, not descriptive. Feyeraben also objects to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that science has no single aim."

Feyerabend addresses both points (prescriptive and descriptive) and this is clear from the very next sentence after the inserted text (in bold). I don't quite follow the bit that goes, "the scientific method never even existed until recently". If it is the mention of the "historical record" that was found confusing then perhaps the words "recent history" would help. Even without this clarification I'm not sure I understand what these unnamed "scientists" were "pointing out". --Chris


 * Oops! When I wrote this in the article, I was mistaken. I confused him with someone else that I had been reading about at the same time, and thus erroneously attributed someone else's views to Feyerabend. Thanks for making this change.  I will be adding some more info later today. Interestingly, Feyerabend has changed his positiomn somewhat since making those statements in 1975. He now is criticising those people who overly criticise the scientific method, and defends the method! I will provide citations and quotes later today (when I am at home, with my sources.) RK 18:01 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You may still have him confused. Feyerabend popped his clogs in 1995. His last (unfinished) book Conquest of Abundance did not show any remarkable shift from the Feyerabend of 1975. The view that "science has no special claim to proving truth, and no more utility than any other way of thinking about the world" pretty much characterizes even the late Feyerabend and is certainly not a misunderstanding.


 * I think you misread; the quote I gave was from from 1992, written two years before his death. RK 17:47 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The only substantial change Feyerabend made to his views in Against Method is in the matter of cultural relativism. Cultural relativists treat cultures as closed systems. But as humans we have the skills to communicate across cultural boundaries. Culture and tradition is created and destroyed all the time. And those cultures in existence have fuzzy and overlapping boundaries. In other words we can defend and assimilate aspects of a culture. Ironically, cultural relativists mutilate the traditions they are trying to defend by denying their members these skills of change and interaction. So Feyerabend abandoned his relativism admitting it had as many problems as some forms of absolutism. But it would be a mistake to say that he abandoned it if favour of some other or better philosophy. If anything this deeped his commitment to epistemological anarchy.


 * Then what does his quote mean? It is not just me; many others read this as an explicit attack on those people who misuse his work to promote anti-science positions. While he never admitted that a scientific method exists, me made sure to make clear that when it comes to making predictions about the physical world, science actually works, and nothing else does.

Take another look at the Feyerabend article you quote from. Does this really mark a change in F's position or is it you who would like to see one? --Chris


 * I think that Feyerabend wasn't admitting change; he was saying that he was misunderstood. It is an important clarification.  RK 17:47 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, Feyerabend was often construed as being anti-science, not only by mystics, but sometimes by otherwise competent philosophers (see for example http://www.csicop.org/si/9703/end.html). This is certainly a misunderstanding that needs clarification.  He may also have been misunderstood as saying that science is purely a social construct.  This clarification is more a technicality and probably doesn't belong on this page. None of this means that he was willing to admit the superiority of science over other ways of approaching reality. Much of his later work tried to show that science is not an autonomous form of reasoning and is inseparable from the larger body of human thought and inquiry.  --Chris''


 * Actually, I do think this needs to be discussed here. Many previous contributors to Wikipedia have an anti-science view. RK 15:31 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the style at the start is poor; it needs a good, punchy opening paragraph that summarizes: This is what the scientific method is meant to be. The idea has a history. Lots of people think that it's good, but lots of people have problems with the idea, for different reasons. The fundamental problem for supporters is accounting for the lack of a unifying method per se, and the fundamental problem of the critics is accounting for the success of science itself.

Moreover I strongly disagree that proper scientific reasoning will free us to do anything; I firmly think that the scientific method is something that defies good definition. This should get some more emphasis

--

I've hoisted up the brief description of the scientific method to be the "punchy opening paragraph". On re-reading, I think the article flows better this way. The Anome 09:07 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--

I feel that the statement of the commonly agreed model of the scientific method should precede the discussion of whether this model is valid, actually occurs in reality, etc. The thing being criticised should be described before the critique. The Anome 10:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but there should be an introduction, for the reader who wants a flavor of the article without the whole thing. The first paragraph was a summary; you have a broad defintion, and then a broad statement of controversy. The defintion alone looks naked. User:Iwnbap --

I took out the crude comparison with religion, but someone has insisted it belongs. I still don't think that it belongs here at all. There is very little that's rational about most religion, so enterring into that subject here is a needless diversion. &#9774; Eclecticology 23:33 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ec, I don't know what you intended to write, but what you actually wrote is totally incorrect. You wrote that "Theoretically one of the key differences between religion and science is that scientists are willing (and sometimes, enthusiastic) to change their beliefs when new facts and compelling logic are presented. In contrast, for the religious believer (as Gallileo found out), the tools of the scientific method must be applied to the rationalization of belief." That's a classicaly non-religious point of view! I don't have a problem with you believing this, but most classical religious believers do not hold such beliefs! Please rewrite this, as I don't understand at all the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that scientists believe that certain religious beliefs might have to be altered by new evidence? That's precisely what I have been saying all along. In contrast, the vast majority of religious believers reject this point of view outright, and hold that science will not change any of their beliefs one whit. Please rewrite to make your point clearer. RK 00:04 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Removed the whole 'religion compared to science' motif. No one managed to bring the subject back around to scientific method so it goes.  --Chris

Removed the following text:

"The scientific method is the only method proven to gain or improve knowledge about the physical world in which we live."

Proven? Not only does this side-step the whole inquiry into what scientific method is, it also makes a claim that almost no one can relate to. If you tell me that any success I have navigating and understanding the "physical world in which we live" is due to my application of the scientific method then you have a lot of explaining to do.


 * It is a proven historical fact that science alone has given us the knowledge necesary to create semiconductor electronics, transistors, vacuum tubes, computers, rockets, spaceships, polymers, synthetic fabrics, laser-jet printers, etc. Science is the only method proven to give results. No measurable results concerning the natural world have ever come from competing claims, such as religion, mysticism, deconstructionism, etc.  No technologies are based on those belief systems. RK


 * This is not accurate. Accupuncture is a technology with roots in another belief system.  &#9774; Eclecticology 20:27 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Ec, please do not contribute to topics of which you are totally ignorant. First off, acupuncture is not a technology.


 * Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. Unless you doubt that there is anything practical to medicine, you should accept that acupuncture is a technology.  &#9774; Eclecticology


 * Secondly, it has been proven that acupuncture has never has been able to do what many of its adherents claims for it. Controlled studies show that some of its most dramatic effects do not exist, and are merely a temporary placebo effect.  Few people disagree that it can produce some actual non-placebo effects in some cases, which can be explained by modern physiology. The religious beliefs behind it have made no difference.


 * What proof, what claims? I see a lot of vague straw man allegations about "dramatic effects".  Dramatic effects are often the easiest to disprove.  The fallacy is in believing that only the ones that can be explained by modern physiology are valid.  Chinese science had very complex philosophical underpinnings; it did not depend on religious bullshit as much as the west.


 * Thirdly, the development of acupuncture (the part of it that works) involved centuries, if not milennia, of trial and error, followed by observation and refinement of the technqiue. That is the very essence of the scientific method.  Just because the Chinese people who developed this technique happened to use religious terminology doesn't take away from their actions!  RK 20:34 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * At least it's a concession from you to admit that acupuncture has developed for millennia. What religious terminology? I just checked one of my references and there was no religious terminology there at all.  &#9774; Eclecticology 21:13 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"No other claimed system of knowledge (such as religious revelations, mysticism, deconstructionism) has ever succeeded in obtaining useful knowledge about the physical world, nor have such proposed alternatives ever actually produced any technology based on their beliefs."

This is pure rhetoric. Philosophies of science don't produce technology. People produce technology. How otherwise could technological advances be made prior to the scientific revolution? --Chris


 * Again, you are objecting to a claim that isn't being made. You are reading way too much into this, and then attacking a strawman. RK 12:50 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Scientific method is very imperialistic. It flows from a Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that dismisses anything from outside that tradition as pagan or primitive. Anything from outside that tradition must be subjected to the evaluative rules of the tradition. The philosophical forerunners in the west and in the far east were blissfully unaware of each other when they were developing the most fundamental of their ideas. Left to their natural devices the two traditions would likely have reached many overlapping results, but there would have been, and there are differences. Insisting that the other is wrong solely based on criteria from one's own tradition amounts to cultural imperialism. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:27 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Ec, your paranoia is out of control.
 * Now we're down to ad hominem arguments to justify your imperialism. :-P &#9774; Eclecticology 21:13 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If I can interject into the Ec/RK debate; you're both stating your points far too strongly.

RK - consider, were the Maya/Indian/Chinese astronomers, or ancient hunters, or Roman architects, etc, following the scientific method? - sure there were elements of empiricism about what they were doing, but it's tenuous to argue that they had any formal conception of the modern scientific method. Broad empiricism should not be enough to build an aquaduct by your argument, or chart and predict the movement of the stars, you need a more constrained scientific method. Further there's good argument to say that much of modern physics isn't scientific if you want to pursue the scientific method, consider gedanken experiments etc.


 * Obviously the ancient civilizations you mention did not deliberately adopt or follow the modern scientific method as we know it today...but neither were all these people ignorant savages. They did have some forms of science.  of the work they did involving the physical world, they did effectively use a version of science; they practiced agricultural, architectural, mathematical and engineering techniques for milennia. They started with trial and error, followed by observation and refinement of the technique.  That is the very essence of the scientific method.  And when they followed this scientific pattern, they achieved actual results in the real, physical world!  The buildings they built actually stood!  The aquaducts actually carried water! Their math actually was logical and useful; their astronomical calculations really did describe, to some degree, stellar and planetary motions!  They used empirical techniques. Ex is just very, very confused. RK 13:13 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I only stated that religious beliefs do not produce results that were useful in the physical world...which is totally in accord with what we have here. Roman aquaducts were not built based on a religious revelation from Zeus.  The astronomical tables of the ancient Mayans were not made by literary deconstructionism, or by mystical experiences. Ec simply is attacking beliefs I do not have; he is demolishing strawman arguments, and making ad homenim attacks about me being a "colonialist". RK 13:13 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * My word was "imperialist" not "colonialist". -Ec

Ec - on acupuncture, there are lots of studies showing that acupuncture has a local analgesic effect, but 1) there's no evidence that it has anything beyond a local analgesic effect, and 2) there's no evidence that meridians exist. Google for "Stephen basser acupuncture" for some good summary articles. Also you've a hard time denying that Maya et. al. above did the things that they did without employing some broadly empiricist techniques, and any argument that they got to where they got without some kind of empiricism and some kind of rationalism is going to be a very interesting challenge. User:Iwnbap
 * My point was not one of getting into arguments about the validity of acupuncture. It was an example of a science which developed completely outside of the Western mainstream.  For the purposes of the present discussion it is sufficient for you to accept that accept that acupuncture has some valid claims, and for me to accept that it has some seriously questionable claims.  We've done that.  There is no immediate need to define the precise boundary between those positions.  &#9774; Eclecticology

Starting with the first sentence I removed:

"The scientific method is the only method proven to gain or improve knowledge about the physical world in which we live."

To make my original objections clearer, here is an argument against this statement which, although equally crude and simplistic, will hopefully highlight any misunderstanding. Take any activity where you would have to "gain or improve knowledge about the physical world". Let's say rock climbing. During this activity I will explore the cliff face (physical world), hopefully make progress and achieve a concrete result (reaching the top). This leads me to say, either that I am applying the scientific method without being aware of it. Or that the removed statement is wrong.
 * The seriously objectionable word in the quote is "only". -Ec
 * Gaining useful skills isn't quite what I meant. But perhaps I can clarify my thoughts: Even people not aware of the scientific method, do indeed sometimes use this method.  The scientific method is something that occurs naturally to many people, even if it is not culturally or officially taught; it is merely a way of thinking. People often have an idea about how something should work; this in many ways can be a hypothesis. People always try things, often with trial and error; this is a very practical form of experimentation.  And trial and error includes control groups, because it includes doing the same thing in many different ways.  This is followed by observation and refinement of the technique, idea or skill. Well, this is the essence of the scientific method. And when people followed this, they achieved actual results in the real, physical world. These are empirical techniques.  Maybe we should rewrite the article to take into account your productive criticism, and to make clear that something "scientific" is occuring pre-modern science!
 * It's a big step forward to accept that there was something scientific happening in pre-modern science. I can't see any evidence that control groups were always there, but that's a less important issue.  There is some sense to the picture of the climber on the rock face using the scientific method.  He can't, however, sit there forever hypothesizing on the rock face; at some point he needs to test his hypothesis, and that could have fatal consequences.  In evolution we never hear about the billions of unsuccessful genetic mutations because they fail while they are still at the microscopic level.
 * "Pre-modern" science implies a value judgement that somehow anything other than modern science is inferior. "Parallel" science might be a more appropriate term.  Some people just can't handle paradox.  This may explain the great 20th century diificulty in attempting to reconcile the wave and particle theories of light - Ec

Now this is obviously not what RK had in mind when he speaks of "knowledge" and "results" above. Could this sentence be replaced by a more sophisticated argument which adds the formalisms to escape such absurdity? Maybe. RK's examples show what "results" he would like to include, namely those where science surely played an essential role. But the examples offered (computers, rockets, spaceships...) don't tell us anything about scientific method. We don't get to learn which version of the scientific method is under discussion. Saying the words "scientific method" while pointing at scientific breakthroughs doesn't get us any further either.
 * Technology is not science; it is a child of science. It can also be a child of pseudoscience.  Parents don't have to be married to produce children. -Ec

I may indeed have been attacking a strawman. The question is, who made him? So, is there a golden hammer in the scientist's tool box? I think this is essentially the subject of this article. --Chris
 * Thanks Chris. I appreciate the removal of references to religion from this article.  Introducing THAT subject tends to unproductively heat up the discussion.  &#9774; Eclecticology 18:23 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph:
 * In recent years a number of prominent literary deconstructionist, French philosophers, and some radical feminists have written essays attacking the scientific method, science in general, as well as the entire field of mathematics and logic. These essays claim that any form of logical thinking is "colonianlist" or "masculinist", and prevents people from gaining knowledge through "other ways of knowing", including feminine intuition and mysticism. (These views are generally rejected by the majority of philosophers, and have little support in the mainstream feminist community.) Scientists hold that these claims are baseless. They point out that it is science alone that has provided information on the mysteries of the atom, the cell, the solar system, and the observable universe. It is science alone that has provided knowledge to develop thousands of technological advances in medicine, engineering, communications, computers, synthetic fabrics and beyond. They hold that no other system which claims to compete with science has ever actually succeeded in actually producing useful information about the physical world in which we live, or has produced actual technologies.

because it is a misleading oversimplification of the debate. I know of no place in which Derrida or Evelyn Fox Keller makes these wholesale criticisms against science and logic; indeed they often rely on logic and the work of scientists -- and make no bones about it. If this paragraph is not referring to Derrida or Keller, then who is it referring to? There is indeed a complex argument about popular conceptions of science, self-conceptions of scientists, and, most importantly, the use to which science has been put. There are also complex critiques of positivist and empiricist epistemologies. But none of these critiques even hint an implication (let alone explicitly argue) that engineers should not rely on the laws of thermodynamics, or that we shouldn't teach the theory of evolution at school -- or that we should abandon logic and empirical evidence altogether. To suggest so is simply to construct a strawman argument in place of an accurate article. Slrubenstein