Talk:Scientific method/Archive 5

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


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

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


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


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


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

Good. BTW, I did not delete the material, but moved it into Interpretations of the scientific method. I see no reason why it cannot be subdivided further, and perhaps some of the most central content moved back into this article, as &#9774; Eclecticology did. But let's indeed try to keep this article focused on the core of the scientific method. There is quite enough to fill a whole article on that topic alone, without detailing other paradigms IMHO. And the stuff about judicial uses is not central enough in my opinion, since there is much more to be written about all of the stages of the scientific method per se. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:22, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

A second axis of ambiguity and/or controversy is whether by "the scientific method" we mean how an individual scientist operates when he or she is proceeding correctly or whether we mean how the collectivity of scientists operates (e.g. one person "observes" and another "hypothesizes" etc). I suspect more people believe in the latter than in the former, but I think the former is the most popular meaning among believers in the scientific method, which I assume includes a lot of the general public. 168... 17:11, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 168..., thank you for identifying yourself as principal author of The question of how science operates ... The tone of this paragraph is political (in a good sense). Since historically, scientists have labored under the aegis of a political power (like the King to which Isaac Newton promininently dedicates Principia Mathematica). And, historically, the scientists are neutral (as Wikipedia attempts to be) as a a survival tactic by the scientists (and Wikipedia). Not having political training, the tactic of labelling an action as junk science in fact marginalizes a scientific finding, which is a political result (hence economic, philosophical, etc.), I find the motivation mystifying, because it is not scientific, but political. Where does a discussion of political power belong in this process? It is a definite fact of history, so where does the 2nd paragraph belong, really. In a discussion of political power of the scientific method? I truly do not know. But you probably have some concepts about this. 169.207.88.107 12:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

BTW I do agree with your removing peer review fro the list of steps. One way of looking at that is as just another form of hypothesis testing and evaluation. &#9774; Eclecticology 10:30, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)

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

One recurring problem with this article is that real-world descriptions keep getting edited, and replaced with highly idealized methods that distort what scientists actually believe, say and do. Then people complain that everything is too neat and theoretical, and not real world! Well, the article was more accurate. Let's prevent these problems by making the descriptions more accurate to begin with. As such, I have restored the following material that somehow keeps getting deleted. RK 21:07, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there is no one "scientific method" that all scientists follow as an algorithm. Real world science always allows for creativity, genius, inspiration and new ideas to enter at any stage in the scientific process. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists describing a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. What differentiates science from non-science is that such creativity is tested against experimental results.


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


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


 * IOW Scientific Method is whatever the "science studies people" say it should be, and logical consistency should be a secondary consideration. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)


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


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


 * This seems like a good argument in support of my position. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)


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

With regard to recent edits, why remove Popper, Feyerabend and Lakatos, but include Kuhn? Simple American parochialism? If the former should be removed, so should the latter. Banno 10:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Kuhn belongs because Kuhn is the original advocate for the perspective the scientific method is what scientists do in practice and not or not only "THE scientific method."168... 15:15, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 168, this suggestion appears to me to be clearly false. It is incorrect to suppose that, for example, Popper was being purely proscriptive in his advocacy of falsificationism; rather, he intended to set out the way in which scientists do in fact work, in the same way you ascribe to Kuhn. Popper makes this pretty clear in the introduction to LSD, when he speaks of wanting to understand &#8220;the riddle of man&#8217;s knowledge of the world&#8221;. Nor is it correct to say, despite his protestations to the contrary, that Kuhn was not an advocate of a particular way of doing science. Banno 11:15, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I believe Kuhn originated, or at least he is the most famous representative of the populary contemporary outlook among scholars, that scientific progress and its direction are about more than just logic, but also politics.168...15:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Although I think that there is a strong rationale for including references to the others, it assumes bad faith, at least initially, to say that leaving only Kuhn was based on American parochialism.
 * My apologies; the &#8220;parochialism&#8221; quip was an, apparently misplaced, attempt at humour. Banno 11:15, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The rationale for keeping Kuhn seems to be more based on his apparent support for the narrow POV of scientism. Roger Bacon is far more important than Kuhn, for this subject, but his work does not emphasize the revisionism that the advocates of scientism would like in this subject.  &#9774; Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)


 * I don't think I understand what you mean by "scientism." 168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Ec, please stop using ad homenim attacks on those who learn about the world we live in though science. Your useage of the ad homenem attack term "scientism" is offensive, untrue, and hurtful. You might as well accuse all scientists of being god-hating materialists who want to rule the world. Both charges are frequently made by many people, and both charges are equally true. RK 21:07, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Scientism, according to the OED, is the "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques". As do many other professionals, scientists can engage in a kind of religious navel-gazing that inhibits free thought.  Circular arguments are very typical of this disorder.  Arguments that suggest that non-scientists' views are somewhere between inferior and heretical are another symptom.  The "god-hating materialism" that you attribute to scientists is not an essential to the more metaphoric religion of scientism.  God is not an essential defining element of generalized religions.  You may very well find the term "scientism" to be offensive and hurtful, but the charge that it is untrue would be more difficult to sustain.  &#9774; Eclecticology 10:38, 2003 Nov 5 (UTC)

I disagree with the last edit of the intro paragraph. It used to read


 * The scientific method is the way scientists investigate the world and produce knowledge about it. Colloquially the term usually refers to an idealized, systematic approach that is supposed to characterize all scientific investigation.

The objection in the subject line of the edit by Eclecticology was "They are scientists because they use it,; not the reverse." I don't think that objection sticks to this intro, a) because the intro doesn't claim that they are scientists "because" and b) nobody is a scientist "because" they follow the scientific method. At least in the common sense of the word "science" is a profession, and people are scientists if they do certain kind of activities in a lab, and even they work non-methodically and produce junk science (which is called junk science because it's produced by scientists, who don't cease to be scientists because they worked unscientifically). The scientific method makes you scientific, not a scientist.

The new sentence also loses the word "colloquially," which was there to indicate the important point that in fact most experts DO NOT suppose "an idealized, systematic approach" characterizes "all scientific investigation." The sentence substitutes "usually":


 * The scientific method is a way to investigate the world and produce knowledge about it. Those who use it may be called scientists. The term usually refers to an idealized, systematic approach

These feel like overwhelming objections to me and so at least for the moment I'm going to revert. 168... 16:40, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I see why someone might feel a need to make the point that the scientific method is what makes a person scientific, but I think that the original wording implicitly fulfills the same need, which I think ultimately is just to show that something essential to science rides on this concept of method we are about to explain. Providing an additional and more abstract statement about this essentialness pushes the intro toward long windedness. 168... 17:46, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * In a sense 168... makes my point. To say that "the scientific method makes you scientific, not a scientist," is puzzling, and creates confusion. It suggests that the two terms derive from different interpretations of "science", and that they differ by more than what would simply be implied by the suffixes.  We can use either a strict or broad interpretation of "science", but we should certainly avoid mixing the two in the same sentence without explanation. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Since language is far from wholly logical, I think it's the wrong approach to be looking at suffixes and analyzing how the paragraph might be understood by a robot. Do you really dispute that "scientist" connotes a professional and that readers encountering the first sentence will interpret it another way?168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Language may be far from wholly logical, but in the absence of implanted neuro-computer interfaces it will have to do. It's not the suffixes that I'm disputing, but whether they are attached a root with the same meaning.  "Professional" may sometimes be a part of the connotation of "scientist", but it is not a part of its denotation.  The risk that readers will interpret "scientist" as a professional is very real.  A person doesn't need to "do" science for a living to be a scientist.  &#9774; Eclecticology 22:39, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Inluding laboratory technologists and practitionars of junk science in the definition of "scientist" is certainly giving a broad interpretation of the word.... &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * I didn't include lab techs and perhaps I should have said bad science instead of junk science, since I'm not sure how you're taking it, but my point is that people commonly understand "scientists" foremost as a kind of person, e.g. as an "expert." You don't cease to be an expert because you're sloppy or performing inexpertly on a given day.168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Bad science and junk science can still be defined with reference to science. Where I was going was in reference to this bit of sophistry: At least in the common sense of the word "science" is a profession, and people are scientists if they do certain kind of activities in a lab, and even they work non-methodically and produce junk science (which is called junk science because it's produced by scientists, who don't cease to be scientists because they worked unscientifically).  Under this definition lab techs are scientists, even if they do nothing more than pour a substance from one test-tube to another.  Reference to "experts" does not help us to define science.  &#9774; Eclecticology 22:39, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Please do not label my point as "sophistry," which implies bad faith, of which there was none, and besides misrepresents my point as less than pertinent, which it certainly was. You misunderstood my definition, reading necessary conditions as sufficient conditions. 168... 06:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * but that begs the question of just who we mean when we say that the scientific method is "the way scientists investigate..." Simply stating it that way suggests all scientists, including technologists and practitioners of junk science, and that it is the only way rather than simply a way. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * the full phrase is "the way scientists investigate the world and produce knowledge about it." Your point is a good one but I don't think your change fixes the problem. In fact, I think there's no perfect fix here that will avoid long-windedness or wishywashiness or bold assertions that shouldn't be made without offering evidence. So I think we're forced to resort to delicacy, which is what I tried to use in crafting that first sentence. I believe the word "and" goes a good distance toward rescuing it from the inaccuracy that you say it is committing. Though it begs the question of what "knowledge" is, the "and" implies that if a scientist is not producing knowledge, he or she is not using the scientific method. 168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even addressing the "produce and investigate" aspect. Saying that it is "the way" would require more evidence than "a way"; the latter merely implies that it is not the only way.  A better, more generic and more "delicate" replacement for "scientist" mught be "investigator".  I share your concern about the latter part of the sentence, but did not intend to tackle that problem at this time.   &#9774; Eclecticology 22:57, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * "the" requires less evidence than "a" when one understands "scientific method" to mean roughly what most students of scientific method understand it to mean--which is "whatever scientists do to achieve progress." "the" is supposed to enable the sentence to be read as accurate by people who use the term that way as well as by believers in "the scientific method," who I believe believe that "whatever scientists do to achieve progress" = "the scientific method." Using "scientists" in this sentence does not exclude non-scientists, and a subsequent sentence now says explicitly that "the scientific method" is a paradigm for all kinds of investigation. 168... 06:53, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I am far less committed to preserving the added sentence saying that the use of the scientific method may define what a scientist is. What it does is simply make it clear that the science is more important than the scientist.  I perhaps tried to be too succinct in the previous subject line.  The word "because" may have been too simplistic.  My intent was really to pull the explanation of the term out of the circular argumentation. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Circular? Again I think you are overanalyzing and/or are analyzing more than the vast majority of readers will. The method is in the end, even for the idealists I suspect, something we extract from what scientists do, and in any event in scientists' activitities is where we see it. The approach of the intro is to be concrete, not circular. "The scientific method makes you scientific" is quite circular, and doesn't do a good job of bringing readers into what people think of when they they say "the scientifc method."168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If what we mean by "scientific method" depends on what a scientist is, and what we mean by "scientist" depends on what scientific method is we have a circular argument. If I happen to be analyzing more than most readers that's of no consequence.  I would prefer a clear definition that does not depend at all on who scientists are. &#9774; Eclecticology 00:39, 2003 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * There is no avoiding circularity if we are to acknowledge what most science studies people mean by "scientific method." 168... 07:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I found the use of the term "colloquially" to be uninformative. Following the OED it would refer to a term used in an ordinary or familiar conversation, not formally or literary.  &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly.168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * By whom? Does it mean everybody except the scientific scientists?  Is the usage by unscientific scientists and philosophers of science to be termed "colloquial"?  Is the use of the scientific method by investigators in subject areas not usually associated with "science" to be nothing more than a colloquial application of the expression?  &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * "Colloquially" excludes the formal speech and writing of experts or scholars of the scientific method, such as sociologists and historians and philosophers. In the sentence in which it appears it is meant to address the fact that more than one usage of the term "scientific method", and that the sense the sentence is describing predominates among non-experts and non-scholars. It doesn't say that no experts or no scholars ever use it in this way. The consruction might be taken to suggest that such experts and scholars would be in the minority of those using the word "scientific method," but I believe that's a demographically accurate implication.168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * It seems hardly appropriate to have colloquiality determined by demographics. "Colloquially" suggests a usage by the uninformed common man, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether you are excluding the usage by the philosophers of science from the "scientists'" usage or from the colloquial usage.   &#9774; Eclecticology 00:39, 2003 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * I just don't see "colloquially" as ambiguous at all. As I posted elsewhere, I can see why you might perceive it as a slight, even though the word is fair and accurate, but I can't understand how you can see it as ambiguous. Anyway, I posted an edit in which the word does not appear. 168... 07:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I would certainly not agree with a definition of the scientific method that is limited in its use to an exclusive subset of scientists. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you came to the above point. Besides, I take you to be implying that one is only a scientist when one is practicing the scientific method, which is certainly a subset of people for a subset of the time.168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * In a strict sense yes. At any given moment, of course, his entire energy may be focused on only one of the steps in the method.  Even the time spent fund-raising for the necessary equipment can be considered a part of hypothesis testing.  &#9774; Eclecticology 00:39, 2003 Nov 1 (UTC)
 * The scientific method is primarily a method, and as such available for anybody's use. On this basis I am restoring my edits.  &#9774; Eclecticology 18:27, 2003 Oct 31 (UTC)


 * The "scientific method" is a disputed concept that means different things to different people. I think "an idealized, systematic approach that is supposed to characterize all scientific investigation" clearly expresses the concept you want, that it is a method, and that formulation does not exclude people. The second paragraph says the scientific method is even a paradigm for activities outside science. But there are more phenomenolical or historical concepts of the scientific method that are more akin to "whatever scientists do," and so it's important to mention the scientists. To me what all of this implies is that your edit--as you justify it above--is POV, and if only for that reason the article is better off without it. 168... 19:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that someone else's arguments are POV while implying that your own are not debases the value and credibility of your arguments.


 * You are right that the "idealized, systematic approach..." is closer to my vision of the scientific method. It avoids dependence on who is doing the science.  Your characterization of this approach as colloquial creates the illusion that it is somehow inferior to that which would be imposed by the elitists of science.


 * In the course of looking at this problem I visited the article on the French Wikipedia where the definition is based on the works of Fred Kerlinger. It seems far more workable, and I suggest that we adopt it here.  &#9774; Eclecticology 00:39, 2003 Nov 1 (UTC)


 * I have a POV, but my argument wasn't POV. The intro as it was was carefully balanced to represent two POV's and you are arguing in effect for a tilting of that balance in arguing for your edits. I can see why you might feel your POV is slighted by "colloquially" and yet the statement is accurate and not misleading. As I said before, it doesn't say "only colloquially." You proposed "usually", which is accurate but misleading in a way that helps a POV. If you can come up with something fair and better than "colloquially" to describe who uses "scientific method" or how the term is used in the idealized sense, then by all means propose one. 168... 07:15, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(Imported from archive 5 for context) By bringing back some deleted older content and trimming the idealized scientific method down to what is traditionally meant by "the scientific method" I have made the article more like what I think a balanced two-meaning "scientific method" article should be. The two meanings are "the scientific method" and "scientific method in practice." 168... 06:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As it stood, the first paragraph won&#8217;t do.

It asserted that the scientific method is the way scientists investigate, yet also claims that most scholars do not think such a method exists. What conclusion should a casual reader reach?

I also hope this new intro avoids some of the POV arguments. But then maybe not. No doubt I will be told. Banno 20:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a very unusual reading of the first paragraph, which said that it's the reality of a single applicable idealization that people doubt ("However, most historians, philosophers and sociologists regard the actual operations of science as more complicated and less orderly than the idealized method implies"). You seem to have ignored my request that you describe in what way the intro was biased, by the way. That request was at the bottom of the page, right after your last post and where a lot of the recent correspondence has been taking place.168... 20:56, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I&#8217;m not ignoring you. I have other things to do. I placed my comment at the end of the thread about the first paragraph. Sorry for confusing you. Banno 08:15, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, the confusion I worried about was that others, seeing you logging in up here, might not notice that you had thus far put off answering a reasonable question down below, which is the sort of information people might use in an anonymous forum like this to decide whether a poster has been speaking forthrightly or has been using bluffs and rhetoric to advance an unstated agenda. Incidentally, "the thread about the first paragraph" was still alive all the way down to your post about bias and can be seen in my post immediately above it. This is why I read your assertion of bias as referring to the first paragraph. But judging from your cryptic elaboration below it seems to have been instead about the the fact that the article mentioned Kuhn, while mentioning no other science study type scholars besides Popper. Anyway, I hope we've worked that out by removing the philosophers (besides the recent addition of Bacon).168... 23:02, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This discussion is really about the technical inadequacies of the talk pages than anything else. An unambiguous way of dealing with threads would solve the problem. Banno 21:09, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some material sent to /Archive 5

Perhaps we should just make scientific method a disambiguation page with links to two articles. scientific method(idealized) and scientific method(in practice).168... 16:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Or we could move this article to The scientific method, and call the other whatever else you want. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)


 * Really? Then I'd like to call it scientific method.168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's necessary. Rather, the article itself could distinguish between the actual process of scientific discovery and the "method" of tying everything up neatly so that it conforms to the "steps". --Uncle Ed 16:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article should distinguish between descriptive and proscriptive methods. Banno 08:38, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * What the argument really seems to be about is whether the view of the philosophers or of the scientists should have priority. I don't accept the view that there are two definitions, but even if I do there remains the question of which comes first.  &#9774; Eclecticology 20:51, 2003 Nov 4 (UTC)

I don't see that as the question at all. You may not like the intro sentence I wrote or you may not understand it to mean what I mean it to mean, but it is supposed to be a statement consitent with both perspectives on scientific method. I keep objecting to your changes of it because I see them as turning it into a one-perspective sentence. Perhaps there is no 2-perspective sentence we can agree on and one perspective by necessity must come first. But the order is not the question. The question is more whether we can describe each perspective fairly and accurately and without doing injustice to the other perspective. That includes statements about what people and how many of them use it to mean what, and it also includes avoiding assertions about how science works without attributing them to one of the two schools of thought.168... 22:19, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The article as it now stands has a clear bias towards a particular view of scientific method. Might I suggest that instead of attempting to develop a compromised article that is acceptable to all, or separating the view points into other articles with obscure or pedantic titles, we attempt to articulate exactly where the point of difference is &#8211; after all, if we find it a topic worth discussing, won&#8217;t the reader as well? Banno 11:15, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you want to eliminate bias, it would help if you could say exactly how it's biased.168... 15:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don&#8217;t really know how to answer this question. If you cannot see that removing comment about all except one philosopher of science biases the article, there is little I can do for you.Banno 19:00, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I cannot see that mentioning only one philosopher of science per se argues for one particular view of scientific method, especially given that the article explicitly described two views. 168... 20:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've proposed a new intro which takes some inspiration from Bannos intro. Bannos intro itself I didn't like at all, however, because a)it made the subject of the article about idealized method, b)it implied that "scientific method" has only one meaning and c) the first sentence described the SM as how scientists "understand" the world, which to me wrongly suggests that the method no so much about about doing and discovering as about how we think about the world. 168... 22:01, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Interesting comments. Point by point:


 * a) Idealized scientific method
 * I agree with 168 that the subject of the article should not be idealized Scientific Method(whatever that might be). Do a search for Idealized scientific method on Google and guess what comes up first? Is it appropriate to use a term in an encyclopaedia article that is hardly in use outside that article?
 * So we would agree, no doubt, that your first sentence is inappropriate, since it sets up the article to be about idealised scientific method?&#8217;


 * Actually, your research makes me rather proud for having coined this succinct and clarifying distinguishing term We certainly were having trouble understanding each other before I thought of it.168... 20:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * b) What other meaning, apart from 'the process used by scientists to understand the world', does the term scientific method have? Certainly no other is presented in the present introduction&#8230;


 * I explained my objection to "understand" already. 168... 20:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * c) By all means, if the word 'understand' offends you, pluck it out. Perhaps 'to make sense of&#8230;', or 'to discover how the world works'. Banno 19:00, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * My own last proposal was that we forget trying to create a dual perspective introductory remark. 168... 20:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New changes:
 * Removed 'The', and references to idealised scientific method as discussed above
 * changed to prediction and evaluation for consistency with rest of article
 * linked to sociology of knowledge
 * Removed 'Among scholars there is much more sympathy for idealized methods viewed as prescriptions for how science ought to be done.' Which Scholars? Who would dare to tell sceintists how they ought to do science?

Banno 20:06, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Removed redundancy and hopefully made purpose of second paragraph clear.


 * Banno, you yourself used the word ought yourself in this intro you proposed: "There are different descriptions of how scientists work. Some are...intended to advocate ways in which scientists ought to work." This is just the prescriptive vs descriptive distinction which you proposed (astutely I thought) that we should make. With your professed skepticism about the scholars I was referring to, are you saying Popper has no advice for scientists? The fact that scholars abstract and articulate rules for how science ought to be done does not imply they do so to lecture scientists or that, if they did lecture them, they would be telling them something they didn't already in some sense know.168... 20:30, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Yep. You are right, I hadn&#8217;t thought it through. Any methodology must be proscriptive. I take back the comment about distinguishing "ought". Banno 20:42, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kuhn
I've removed the material on Kuhn. My apologies if this causes offence. My aim is simply to construct a better article, not to gag the author. Perhaps the author (168?) would like to move the material to the article on Kuhn himself?

I strongly recommend that the article not contain any material about particular philosophers, historians or sociologists, and instead contain a more extensive set of links to other articles. Why?: Banno 20:18, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * This will prevent many of the claims to bias
 * It would be far better to keep discussion of the pros and cons of individual methodologies to the articles on those methodologies
 * The links will provide a outline of the debate itself


 * I think it's silly to remove mention of Kuhn, but I brought some of his observations back in without bing back his name. I also removed the article's paragraph on Karl Popper, who would have been the only philospher of science in the article otherwise.168... 00:55, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Secularity
Since there has been a misspelling in view the actual progress of science as more complicated and haphazzard, what about replacing the phrase with

view the actual progress of science as non-secular

My motivation is that the first 3 paragraphs are commentary about science, and not about the scientific method per se. 169.207.85.87 21:34, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the spelling mistake. I don't understand your other points at all though, so you might wish to elaborate.168... 00:46, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The authors of the [secular] discussion, which they divided into secularism and secularity, caught some concepts which seem to fit with what you are implying. First of all, the scientific method arose during the enlightenment, which was a secularizing force for Western civilization.
 * And the term secular trend is a mathematical term for a series of data which varies all over the place, but which has a general sense of direction, such as upward or downward. That appears to be part of the objection to the actual messiness of the scientific method in practice.
 * Finally, a non-secular viewpoint opposes a secular (e.g., worldly, rationalistic, etc.) viewpoint, which was cataloged nicely in the [secular] discussion. Thus I was attempting to capture what you seem to be implying in the 1st 3 paragraphs of the scientific method, which is that there is a non-secular component to the scientific method, or perhaps in the links at the bottom of article?. That is explosive, in my view.
 * If there is not a non-secular component in the scientific method, then the discussion does not belong on this page, but perhaps on the science or philosophy of science pages, or within the links.

169.207.85.203 01:43, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not paying any attention to the links at the bottom myself. I also don't buy that non-idealities don't belong in an article about how "scientists investigate and construct an understanding of the world." 168... 03:35, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Thus, in the sentences "Most historians, ... view the actual progress of science as ... haphazard. ... Scientific progress cannot be either explained or prescribed as a single ... process.", it appears that there is some component of scientific progress which lies outside that process. Am I mis-stating? I don't believe anyone would deny that chance or Fortune has something to do with progress. 169.207.85.203 04:18, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You wrote "that process." What process is that?168... 04:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't find the quotation marks necessary, but I can live with them. The bolding struck me as adequate. You will also note that I had changed "processes" to "principles", and was also about to change "characterizes" to "underlies". The intent of the latter change was to make the use of the very unhelpful word "supposed" less necessary. The more I consider the phrase "is supposed to", the more meaningless and evasive it seems to become.

Although I haven't yet thought it through, it seems that the number of steps in the method could be reduced. In a way "hypothesis" and "prediction" are two ways of saying the same thing. Similarly, "test" and "experiment" also have similar meanings. "Evaluation" can be considered a sub-part of the experimentation. &#9774; Eclecticology 08:50, 2003 Nov 9 (UTC)


 * It only takes the space of a few words to trot out the elements of the prototypical scientific method, and because of how easy we're all finding it to misunderstand what each other are referring to with the words "scientific method" I strongly advocate putting the whole thing there in the intro up front. With regard to your specific points, yes, I regard "test" as equivalent to "experiment," and so I regard "evaluation" as what comes after. It provides the loop closing option of forming a new hypothesis. 168... 06:23, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * "Principles" just doesn't make sense to me in a sentence characterizing the scientific method as a method, because a method is how you do something. You can't split an atom with a principle. 168... 06:28, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * "Supposed" is necessary because "the scientific method" is just an interpretation of how scientists work--of the meaning of what flesh and blood people are doing when they tilt a test tube or scratch their heads and think. It's a description and an abstraction and so long as "the scientific method" means something in particular (as opposed to a place holder word meaning "whatever is going on out there, that is what I am talking about") it is liable to be wrong and in any case its accuracy is both disputed and unprovable.168... 17:02, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course "suppose" is ambiguous. According to the OED it is to
 * "assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge,"
 * "be required to do something because of the position one is in or an agreement one has made."
 * I wuuld also question the latest reference to highschool students. Is there evidence to support this?  For our purposes, what does it matter what highschool students are taught? The scientific method will remain what it is without regard to what is taught in the highschools.  Some schools even try to make a good case for creation "science". :-)  &#9774; Eclecticology 05:23, 2003 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is much evidence to support this. Many scientific societies (for physics, biology, etc.) have done surveys of junior high and high school textbooks in the USA. Most of them are found to be severely flawed, and sometimes totally misleading, in regards to their description of the scientific method. Practicing scientists say these books distort what scientists actually believe and practice, by over-simplifying the scientific method into some kind of mechanical algorithm.  I don't understand why you viewed this comment as "advocacy", and why you removed it. What kind of inappropriate POV advocacy did you infer from this statement? RK 22:00, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article is that the introduction is based on an overly simplified version of the scientific method; it sets up a straw-man carcicature of science, and then sets it up to be criticised. Most of the criticisms made are not of the scientific method, as understood by most scientists, but rather are only criticisms of the everyday misperception of the scientific method that most laypeople have. RK 22:00, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * What sentences in the intro do any injustice to your perspective or to any facts? You know it's no straw man to bring up that many people take "the scientific method" too literally, because you testified to the prevelance of this perspective yourself below. Also I'm sure you know that there are people (to borrow Feyerabend) who are just "against method." 168... 02:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was aware of the ambiguity but "suppose" is accurate no matter how you read it, and its overtones hint at the view of the scientific method as prescriptive.


 * I would still differ with you on that accuracy, but since I find your alternative of "considered" to be more acceptable, that point is mute. &#9774; Eclecticology 08:37, 2003 Nov 10 (UTC)

The point about schools is to put out in the open what I believe is the cause of a lot of our disagreement and misunderstanding. There's nothing controversial whatsoever about the scientific method depending what one wants to say it describes. The statement about students gets away from asserting a vague "colloquial" naiveté and attributes it to a specific and common misteaching of the method. Evidence to support it? I guess just my own vague memories of 9th grade biology and lots of offhand remarks I've heard in my lifetime from others. Were you taught otherwise?168... 05:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't recall any mention of scientific method in high school, but then I graduated in 1962. The reality of education is that the quality of teaching science and everything else is highly variable from one school district to the next.  That's what makes me feel that the highschool reference opens up a can of worms that we are best to avoid.   &#9774; Eclecticology 08:37, 2003 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * There is tons of evidence. I have read and reviewed many high school science textbooks, and have read professional evaluations of them from various scientific socieities. While textbooks have gotten better and better at discussing newer breakthroughs and technical details, most are still horrible at discussing the philosophy and method of science. In fact, I have never seen a good junior high school textbook on this particular subject, and outside of books for Advanced Placement students, I haven't seen any decent discussions of this subject for high school books either. Most science textbooks can't even lonk together connected ideas properly. Please read some of the reviews at AAAS Project 2061:


 * American Association for the Advancement of Science - Public school info

Re: my reversion of most of RK's intro edits. As I remarked in the heading to my edit, one big objection I had was the for me simply wrong assertion that the method "below"--which if you scan below you see is the classic "observe, hypothesize, etc etc" format--is realistic and accepted by nearly everybody worth mentioning; whereas the idealization of the preceding remarks in the intro, which scholars regard as naive when taken literally, is something else. These two methods are one in the same. The intro made no sense to me at all except (as RK said was his fear) as advocacy for the view that the classic scientific method captures the essence of science. Here's a couple other sentences from the edit that cause me cognitive dissonance.


 * That is not what I meant. What I meant was that the understanding of the scientific method that most laypeople have is not the actual scientific method. The scientific method is not some mechanical recipe. At every step of the way there is flexibility, room for interpretation, inspiration, genius and even luck. It is a general outline that one follows, sure, but a general outline is different from a mechanical algorithm. And this subtle but important difference leads to the problem: Some criticisms of the scientific method, it seems to me, are not criticisms of the real scientific method, but are rather criticisms of the simplest understanding of the subject. Its like people who know little about computer programming criticising books on how to program, because they have missed the subtle and important points about creativity and flexibility, which occur at every point in the process. RK 22:10, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Whatever healthy attitude you may have about scientific methodology, "the scientific method" indeed refers to some kind of recipe, decontextualized from history and culture, which is supposed to capture how science works. "Flexibility, room for interpretation, inspiration, genius and even luck" are not elements of a method. Be flexible when? Seek inspiration and find luck from where? Am I doing this wrong if I'm not a genius? 168... 02:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Historians, philosophers and sociologists regard the algorithmic and mechanical model of the scientific method as naive..."

No they don't. What they find naive is certain assertions about how it relates to reality and the way science progresses. e.g. I suspect some consider it astute from a logic of science point of view and with regard to a subset of scientific decisions.


 * Sounds good; please feel free to elaborate slightly. I'd like to see a bit more. RK 22:10, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * that it applies as a recipe "literally and all the time." Let me restate my request for elaboration to you: What sentences in the intro do any injustice to your perspective or to any facts?168... 02:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"...some hold that no form of scientific method exists, although this position is controversial and rejected by the great majority of working scientists."

The issue is not existence. These scientific methods are descriptions. Descriptions exist. The question is whether they apply and how much and to what extent what they apply to is the essence of science. It is unfair and misleading to single out skepticism about method as "controversial." Depending how strong a point you want to make about method, you would find majorities among both science studies people as well as scientists ready to reject it.


 * Yes, that is what I meant. When people claim that the scientific method doesn't actually apply to what goes on in science, that is denying that the scientific method really exists (or denying that it really is being used).  By any definition of the method I am familiar with, the scientific method does exist and I have personally seen it followed, and have used it myself. What probably doesn't exist is the straw-man oversimplication of it that leavs out all the real-world elements. RK 22:10, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * We really should agree on how to talk about this or we won't get anywhere. "The scientific method" can refer primarily to one of two things. 1) to a generalized description of what scientists do or 2) to more or less whatever real historical scientists do and have done to make knowledge advance. Most people use those words in sense 1, and their generalized description will minimally include elements such as observation, hypothesis, etc.. Anyone who uses "scientific method" with the intent to refer to both a particular description and to what scientists actually do (i.e. sense 1 and 2 at the same time) is making an implicit assertion that the description is accurate. But there has been no articulation of a scientific method whose accuracy is not regarded by a large group of scholars as having been thoroughly disproven or at least cast into doubt by historical and sociological case studies. So just to use "scientific method" in a certain way is to shut out or sh-t on that point of view. I think we really should all agree on the sentence "nobody doubts the scientific method exists." To me it's very clear that this article is foremost providing a generalized description of science (sense 1). Descriptions exist. What people doubt is that any adequate non-historical description can be proposed and/or they doubt the accuracy of descriptions that have been proposed so far and/or they doubt a description is accurate literally and all the time. 168... 07:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think those real-world elements leave you with either a prescriptive method or a universal description of how science operates and progresses (if you don't believe me, then write out your method so we can see it, and then we'll see if we can find a case study it can't superimpose on). I think they are just words one sprinkles in as necessary to ease the match between theory "the method" and practice (the real, historically contingent social world). 168... 02:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Public school students...." I changed to "Highschool and younger students" since who pays for the education doesn't matter and I believe "public school" means "private school" across the pond. 168... 05:45, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is people's problem with the quotes around "scientific method" in the first line? If you accept the "refers" construction of the sentence, you have to accept the quotes or the sentence makes no sense. As I put in the subject line of a recent reversion: It's the words that refer to processes considered characteristic of scientific investigation. Pie does not refer to dessert. Pies are inanimate and unsentient. "Pie" refers to a dessert. I don't see how anybody can disagree about this. 168... 03:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 168 is correct. But the result is that the introductory sentence is about the phrase “Scientific Method”, not about the Scientific Method. Also, I find it hard to see what the clause after the conjunction adds – the acquisition of new knowledge occurs in ways other than applying the scientific method.
 * Try defining "Bigfoot" without using quotes or referring to who believes in it.168... 21:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * What? How would that help? Are you attempting to solve the problem of the first sentence, or just looking to earn points in some imaginary contest?
 * “The scientific method is a series of processes that are considered characteristic of scientific investigation” is less obtuse, but does not escape the circularity of defining the method as what scientists do, then defining scientists as those that follow the method - see scientist. Banno 20:45, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * See discussion of circularity above. Circularity is not a crime, and indeed it's unavoidable here. Look up "true" and "fact" and "real" in the dictionary and you'll be circling pretty tightly. And where do you think the idea of the scientific method came from? Horse racing?168... 21:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Your comments come across as patronising. I hope that was not your intent.
 * Incidentally, you might be interested in the philosophical tools used by J. L. Austin.
 * Circular definitions are indeed valid, but not particularly useful. If your intent is to provide an encyclopaedia entry that does more than show of your pedantry, then come up with a useful sense for the key term. Personally, I’d be happy to replace the article with a redirect to philosophy of science.