Talk:Scientific method/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Goldhaber & Nieto ref and Newton's Principia refs

Hi I wanted to get some more input on the recent re-add [1].

The Goldhaber & Nieto source does not even mention the scientific method in the whole paper and the emphasis of the paper is instead on developing a theory on photons and gravitons mass limits with respect to dark matter. The way it is cited, it looks like extrapolation and it looks like a sloppy add for the lead (looks like WP:SYN), which I think should have stronger sources than this so readers can see much more direct or relevant sources on the article topic. If the source specifically focuses on the scientific method, which is the focus of this article, can you provide a quote? The paper looks to form a theory, but it does not really focus in developing ideas specifically about the scientific method. More recent sources which are more directly relevant like "Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh Gauch Jr. (Cambridge University Press) would be better to replace the Goldhaber & Nieto source in the lead.

The same thing with Newton's source. Can you provide a quote where he explain and emphasizes the scientific method? Rules of reasoning are not exactly about a scientific method as we understand it, but are universal things used in any fields of investigation and deriving knowledge. If the source does not say it, we cannot use it for that. If a source links the scientific method to Newton, then that source can be used. Otherwise it looks like WP:SYN.

If there was a person who could represent the scientific method directly, it could be Francis Bacon's "New Organon" or William Whewell's "The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History". Since those works focused on how to secure knowledge and and directly focused on such discussions. What do you think? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Goldhaber & Nieto is a review paper, in which a specific scientific question is surveyed from a perspective of decades of work on experiment and theory to attack that question. It does not shrink from methodological considerations, but even includes the philosophical considerations needed to advance progress toward an answer. I trust that shows us there is a spectrum of approaches to methodology, in the sense of George Polya's 'old mathematics professor' response to 'What is the difference between a method and a device?': "A method is a device I use twice." (from How To Solve It). In other words, usage defines method.

Now how does this tie in to the viewpoint of Francis Bacon or William Whewell. Bacon viewed science from that of a visitor to a New Atlantis where he watched practitioners advance their art in service to their country, as befits a Lord Chancellor. Whewell, as a practitioner, generalized from his own specific methods for measuring the tides, to science in general, in order that others might apply his specific experiences to their specific domains of definition and investigation. The commonalities include knowing 'what is known?', 'what is not known?', 'how might this be proven?'. I trust you see my point: when Socrates practiced elenchi (Socratic method), others identified it.

Francis Bacon's contribution was a rejection of Aristotelianism, his New Organon. That does not mean all contributions to science or to methods for advancing science need to be commensurate with Bacon or Whewell. When Newton listed Rules for reasoning, they were an advance in method. When investigators read some result, and improve it, that may be an advance in science, in method, or both, through usage.

I have an obligation to attend to, but I will return to complete my reply. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Some comments on the two sources cited.

• From a quick look, the Goldhaber and Nieto paper does not appear to formally address their concept of scientific method, although perhaps one could infer their concept from the practice described in their paper. However, that inference would be Original Research and inadmissable on Wikipedia. If you could emend the citation to cite a specific passage where they address their scientific method, the citation might be acceptable.
• Newton's Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy (especially Rule 4 on Experimetal Philosophy) provide a clear outline of Newton's concept or scientific method, and so is a much more significant contribution to the article than Goldhaber and Nieto's paper. In my opinion, discussions by philsophically minded scientists like Newton's should bear most of the weight in this article, equally with discussions by scientifically minded philosophers like Popper, Bacon, and Aristotle. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I plan to select a quotation from "How to test a theory", which is Goldhaber and Nieto part I A. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi User:Ancheta Wis, appreciate the reply. But I have to agree with User:SteveMcCluskey on the Goldhaber and Nieto. Sure they engage in some philosophical stuff about testing and theories but the whole paper is not focused on that topic at all. It is on developing a theory on photons and gravitons with respect to dark matter. So the focus of the paper is not really relevant to the article. Not only that but why is that the first source on the article when it does not address or focus on the subject of the scientific method. Many books on biology talk about how science works (many text books have introductions on this), but they do not merit being cited in the lead of the article because as a whole they are not focused on the scientific method at all. I originally was confused about Goldhaber and Nieto because I was looking for a source on the scientific method, but when I clicked on I saw that it was mainly about dark matter. The sources should formally address the topic of the scientific method in the lead. It is what most readers will see.

With respect to Newton, I agree that he made some more solid contributions about natural philosophy (aka science) in terms of methodology and how we could work on it, but then again we have a long history of that with Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, and many others in detailing aspects of experimentation and fusion of mathematics in natural philosophy. Francis Bacon (and Aristotle too in his "Organon") and William Whewell made solid contributions to how to acquire knowledge and these seem more relevant to the lead than do Goldhaber and Nieto. Now with Newton, I think that his rules of reasoning are more about science in general than the scientific method per se and the PDF you provided observes "Newton was not really dealing with philosophy as we think of it today. He was laying down some basic principles for physics that seemed reasonable and necessary in order to understand his laws." So it looks like the method is not really the focus of his work, but merely a supportive section for understanding his work. I suppose he could be mentioned as a contributor to the scientific method, but his work was not focused on developing a scientific method. On the other hand, Whewell and Francis Bacon did in fact focus on "methods". Bacon more clearly so. His "New Organon" reads like a manual for an inductive method which is noted in some models of the scientific method. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Goldhaber and Nieto is a review paper. They have no "axe to grind". They review the state of the art in assessing just how to get to mass limits. It's not about dark matter 'per se', but ranges widely over the whole of physics. If I detect a specific interest, it is about mass dispersion. Thus their introduction "How to test a theory". They provide a gamut of techniques/methods to estimate the masses of these particles, the photon and the graviton. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I plan to follow the suggestion of SteveMcCluskey by emending the citation to rest on part I.A: "How to test a theory", in Goldhaber & Nieto. The plan is to emphasize their role as philosophically-minded working scientists. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it is a review paper that only touches on theories, not the scientific method, but focuses on phenomenon in physics, I don't think it belongs there and is not really good source for the article either way. It certainly does not belong in the lead in the first sentence. If there is no quote on the scientific method or elaboration aside from philosophical claims of science, it borders on it being original research or synthesis since it is stretching the source to make claims that it does not explicitly make (on the scientific method). That is why me and User:SteveMcCluskey have requested actual quotes from the paper on the scientific method. Now, if the source had a section on the scientific method explicitly, then maybe it would be ok. But testing a theory and the scientific method are not the same thing nor are they synonymous. Considering that superior sources are available like "Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh Gauch Jr. (Cambridge University Press), these belong in the lead. What do you think? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful to refer you to History_of_scientific_method#Mention_of_the_topic. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, The statement that leaps out at me in Goldhaber & Nieto part I.A 'How to test a theory' is their #3:

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.

Goldhaber and Nieto (2010) point out that a scientific explanation that is interconnected with other phenomena reinforces the underlying model. What I have in mind is the discovery of a binary neutron star merger in 2017. The merger was accompanied by a gravitational wave chirp (indicative of an inspiral) which was detected by the two gravitational wave observatories as GW170817, as well as by a gamma-ray burst GRB 170817A, and an optical transient together with the creation of heavy elements, which was predicted in 1995, from the destruction of the neutron stars (within a few seconds of their merger). This fits in quite well with Goldhaber and Nieto's criterion #2 (fecundity) as well, as well as with criterion #1 (unexpectedness). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary: the concept of 'proving a predicate by experiment' (scientific method) has existed for at least one thousand years, dating from Ibn al-Haytham's Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء) (in which he shows how to prove that light rays travel in straight lines — the predicate being known at least one thousand years before him). Scientific method was codified in the nineteenth century by William Stanley Jevons' three-stage method (the name for the method dating from the seventeenth century, bestowed by Francisco Sanches), and further clarified in the twentieth century by insistence that the public prediction stage precede the public test (experiment) stage, to avoid charges of tampering. Goldhaber & Nieto (2010) listed their three criteria on testing a theory, fulfilled by gravitational-wave astronomy in 2017 (named Science Breakthrough of the Year for 2017), an application of general relativity (1915). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw that section on the history, but it was not really useful for the discussion here, unfortunately. The concepts of using various methods to arrive at empirical knowledge is of course really old even going back to Aristotle's "Organon" and well before that too. But what is being looked at is the fact that Goldhaber & Nieto do not engage in explicit discussion of the scientific method. Their criteria for testing a theory is not a discussion on the scientific method because the little section of "How to test a theory" is not really extensive at all, nor does it even mention the scientific method nor does it even focus on it at all. Indeed, if it were to mention the scientific method in the article it would be a different story, but it clearly does not. The "How to test a theory" section only references things relating to changing consensus on theories based on availability of evidences and even references Kuhn's work, which is also about changes in views held by scientists as explanations for certain phenomenon - theories, not methods or hypotheses. It actually would be odd if a paper like this were to review the scientific method since all scientific papers use, broadly, aspects of the scientific method by default. It would be redundant.

The issue here is the same. Does the source discuss the scientific method explicitly? No. Does the source have a reasonable amount of discussion on the scientific method? No. It focuses mainly on determining mass limits of particular substances of matter wit competing theories and evidences and barely touches on theories, which is not the same as the scientific method at all. Even the conclusion emphasizes mass limits and says nothing about theories or the scientic method. Having said, this this source clearly does not belong in the lead at all and for sure it is WP:SYN to force a source to make claims it never did. This is why I asked for a quote, which you have yet to provide. If you cannot produce a quote from the source then it will have to be removed from the lead at least. A more appropriate source on the scientific method for the lead would be "Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh Gauch Jr. (Cambridge University Press) or other similar books since those are focused on the scientific method. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Good citation for CAS

I have created a named ref for Crutchfield's review of Complex Systems (see the article history). This pdf reviews Complex Systems, which may be useful for citing some of the conclusions about this topic. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So the Crutchfield ref could additionally be used thus: <ref name=Crutchfield /> in the article. 16:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

edits concerning history section in body, and looking at "overview" section

I noted some edits to the history section, and I made some logical adjustments: I reversed the sequence of the two remaining paragraphs because that seems obviously more logical, and I move the history section earlier in the article. But this leaves some issues open:

• Within the history section, the doubts of Feyerabend etc are noted twice in a short space, and I would also say vaguely. I think that should be refined. I also note this is discussed in more detail in other sections.
• There is an implication in the history section that Baconianism was not accepted until late in the 19th century, which seems quite wrong to me, or at least needing some refining. The 18th century Enlightenment was surely very Baconian?!
• When we place the History section in a more logical position before all the other more detailed sections we see that to some extent it overlaps with the Overview section. In general the article suffers a bit from repetition, which I suppose has come from editors working on small sections in isolation. I suggest careful moving of bits between those two sections, or even a merging. Personally I think it is better to have a separate history section, as "overview" is a vague term and not necessarily covering what that section does right now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you moved the section up, which makes sense to me for background purposes. History and overview are distinct things so separation makes sense too. I will try to unite Feyerabend in this section, but feel free to add on. Yes Baconianism grew in popularity the 18th century too. Will try to clarify point. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lead paragraph

I propose changing the lead paragraph from:

The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".[1] Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.[2][3] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[4]

to:

An empirical method of knowledge acquisition, which has characterized the development of natural science since the 17th century, involving careful observation; formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental testing and measurement of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

My proposal would retain citations 1 and 3; remove citations 2 and 4; and add this citation:

Scientific method, n., Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.), 2014, OED Online, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/383323 (subscription required), retrieved May 28, 2018.

Rationale:

(a) Whenever possible, we should not begin an article with a dictionary definition.

(b) I drew on the article content, and the more detailed OED entry, to write the proposed paragraph. Consequently, it provides a more accurate synopsis of the article content and a more comprehensive explanation.

(c) The 3rd sentence in the current lead paragraph is superfluous.

(d) The 4th sentence of the current lede attempts to define "scientific", not "scientific method".

(e) The 4th sentence also includes an undefined phrase, "specific principles of reasoning". The fourth citation seeks to explain those "specific principles of reasoning", but the multi-step reference is confusing:

(i) "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton transl 1999, pp. 794–96, after Book 3, The System of the World. ["Newton transl 1999" links to:]

(ii) Newton, Isaac (1999) [1687, 1713, 1726], Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-08817-4, Third edition. From I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, 974 pages. [The book title links to the Wikipedia article:]

(iii) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Finding pages 794-96 of the 1999 English translation is no easy task since it is a recently published book one must purchase. Better to link to Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica#Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy, although that section does not describe the "specific principles of reasoning" in a clear, correct, concise, and comprehensible manner.

(g) The 2nd reference, a link to the ScienceMadeSimple.com website--and the quote from the site--provide a simplistic discussion of the topic.

If you (the editors reading this Talk page section) agree with my proposal, but you believe my proposed paragraph would benefit from further editing (I am sure it would!), please have at it here or after we (hopefully) replace the current intro.

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Newton's rules of reasoning (in English translation) are

1. Occam's razor
2. Newton then applies this razor to ascribe the same causes whenever the same effects are seen
3. More subtly, if the effects are invariant, the observed qualities must be universal
4. The inferences (about mass and matter, in the case of Principia) from 1, 2, and 3 are to be assumed to be true, until proven otherwise

Thanks for lifting up the level of discussion. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you so much Ancheta Wis! :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your contribution has reminded me of Newton's Hypotheses non fingo, translated into contemporary English: "I fake no hypotheses". So Newton's 4 rules of reasoning then yield a pretty good summary of his scientific method: use observations to drive experiment to see which hypotheses survive. (The surviving hypotheses become candidate invariants in a theory.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I really like your "translation" of the Newton's 4 rules. When you have time, perhaps you could weave them into the article in an appropriate spot. :O)

Good discussion points. One thing to consider: I can not think of a good citation off hand, but I believe a common thread in all the diverse attempts to formulate scientific method involve (whether they say it or not) being sceptical about the human ability to understand what is going, and methodically so. With Descartes they speak of "methodical skepticism". Bacon wrote about how people are attracted to lies. It might well be the most crucial and radical difference compared to say early Greek natural philosophers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think in any case the above is an improvement, will you go ahead with it @Markworthen:? I think there are refinements which can be made, but it definitely a better foundation to build on for the reasons you mention.

• Just coming back to my point above, which I think should be somehow used, it is arguable that the concept of scientific method goes back to the first Greek natural scientists (or natural philosophers). Certainly the word's application to a careful and planned pursuit of knowledge is Aristotelian Greek. Basic assumptions underlying classical scientific method were already some of the ones which came back in modern time: a minimal metaphysical assumption that nature ("Nature" or indeed the natures of things) works regularly and predictably according to humanly comprehensible "laws" which can be investigated by careful observation. (So it was from the beginning, even before modernity, both empiricist, focused to some extent on observing physical things, and rationalist, assuming and looking for "laws" which can be theorized about.) What Bacon and Descartes added sounds simple but was massively important when we compare to what Aristotelianism had become, and led for example to Newton: 1. be skeptical by default and do not trust human neutrality in observations 2. avoid all metaphysics (apart from the assumption that nature is regular of course).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank so much Andrew Lancaster - A good education for me. ;o) I attempted to include your point in the new intro paragraph, which I posted a few minutes ago. Note: On article pages (but not Talk pages), I am unable to use the text editor ("Edit source"), which results in some limitations. I have a ticket submitted to Phabricator to see if other people have experienced a similar problem.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Image

[[:File:Photo_51_x-ray_diffraction_image.jpg|thumb|right| (Q:) What is the structure of the gene? (H:) Hypothetically, a helix, (D:) whose Fourier transform would be an X. (E:) Watson sees photo 51, an X-ray diffraction pattern. It is the Fourier transform of DNA's atoms, showing a helical framework. (A:) Watson then shows that DNA's base pairs are equi-shaped rungs forming a helical ladder. The pairs are the genetic code for our life on Earth. See: synopsis of scientific method]] I nominate Photo 51. It is scientific data for the objective basis of the molecular structure of DNA, and its role is described in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A generic image like this would be ok with me. I personally, think no diagram image would be good enough though, since many models of the scientific method are available. Generic images or images of historical figures would be ok. Maybe even images of general science tools would work too. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Might we gain consensus on this? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally favor an original image over a diagram. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

References

I think the image is ok. Does not have much to do with a scientific method, but it is ok. Beakers and lab people would work too like this one [2]. Kind of hard to get an image of a person trying to solve a problem because that is what thinking and the scientific methods actually are. As long as we move away from diagrams almost anything will do. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

See Scientific_method#DNA_example, a synopsis of scientific method. The DNA bullet points, as a synopsis of scientific method, have been in the article for 13 years now, since 12 May 2005. They illustrate the hypothetico-deductive method, and Photo 51 is central to Watson's memoir (Footnotes 41-46). The 4 steps of hypothetico-deductive method were actually in this article, before another editor moved it to the sub-page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, far from being generic, the photo is historic: "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race."—(James Watson (1968) The Double Helix, p.167 —It is footnote 46 in this article, Scientific_method.) That is the reaction of a scientist who has prepared for something his entire life, and finds it. Other people also find this photo historic. It is the logo of a university. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a small touch, but if a reader were to click on one of the bullet points in Scientific_method#DNA_example listed below, the reader could read more about each step, as it had happened in the DNA story:

• Question
• Hypothesis
• Prediction
• Experiment
• Analysis

There are little blue links at the end of each section to follow, and the reader can get a sense of the never-ending cycle in scientific method. This synopsis has been in the article for 13 years now. 12:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The example looks synthesized from multiple sources since the sources does not make explicit claims about the scientific method and DNA. Wikipedia editors made up that example and chose that particular rigid sturcture of the method, not a reliable source. DNA was done by many individuals and none of them followed any particular sequence or methods. But you can use the image. It better than an arbitrary diagram. Perhaps simplify the wording and you are good to go. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the synopsis depicts the thought process: "What is now known, and what do we not know about the explanation, now, at this current moment?" Godfrey-Smith 2003's Hypothetico-deductive method is the citation for the sequence of the synopsis, and the footnotes actually occurred in that historical sequence. But the article states clearly the steps can occur in any order, as in the pieces of a puzzle, as you note. The steps of scientific method traditionally are taught verbally from teacher to student (that point is in Gauch) and could be viewed as mnemonic or rhetorical. The rhetoric is apparently needed for teaching or persuasion. It is observable that successful scientists are master rhetors. Watson's teacher was Salvador Luria; Watson was schooled in Chicago, with a natural history background. Crick's background was in physics, the same as Lawrence Bragg. Franklin's background was similarly rigorous, but in chemistry.

The historical accident that Franklin and Gosling ran the experiment, with no expectation about the result, and that Watson recognized as an application of Crick's Fourier transform of a helix, was persuasive enough to convince Bragg, the very next day, January 31, 1953. Watson and Crick were authorized to resume model-building. (Crick was annoyed at Watson for not measuring the photo, which would have revealed the dimension of the unit cell of the helix. The rest of the data they got from Pauling The Nature of the Chemical Bond, a present to Watson from Crick.) Watson discovered the significance of Chargaff's base-pair ratios, using concrete models one month later, Febrary 28. Those facts show clearly that tampering with the explanation could be ruled out, in this Nobel-quality result.

For the researchers, what was salient was "What was known, and what remains to know, now, at this current moment?" That was the question seemingly inexorably driving the next step of the investigation. But the DNA story actually occurred in the rhetorical order, without tampering with the explanation by any of the principals. So the time-stamping of the events is the objective witness to the integrity of the result, and to the story, which no single individual principal investigator accomplished on their own. Crick himself admitted he could not have discovered it on his own. Watson readily admits his debt to the other principals, such as Crick's sketch of Fourier transforms for the birdwatcher (meaning Watson). Chargaff admitted he did not understand the significance of his own ratios.

There is now a critical edition of The Double Helix which is available for the skeptic.

I propose "On Friday, 30 January 1953, James Watson sees photo 51, an X-ray diffraction pattern, which he recognized as the Fourier transform of the atoms of a helix, as predicted by Francis Crick. This gave rise to their model of the structure of DNA as a double helix, which explains the role of DNA in the mechanism of life on Earth."

I have an observation here: I tried the sentence above, but you would have called it too long. Then I cut back on the caption and found there need to be multiple parts, at the very least, a 'what', a mathematical statement (functional form), and a functional significance.

At least the rewording provokes additional questions in the reader. So I added a link to the synopsis, and found there are wiki links for a surprising number of terms in the caption. Clearly a community at work here.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Ok. This should be easy then. You said, "Godfrey-Smith 2003's Hypothetico-deductive method is the citation for the sequence of the synopsis, and the footnotes actually occurred in that historical sequence." So if that is the case, then summarize his sequence for the link between DNA and the scientific method and that should be the caption. I have read about the history of DNA before, but the question is always the same. Does the source make the claims of DNA with respect to the scientific method or not. In the article Godfrey-Smith is not cited for the DNA example. Only for the scientific method. But if you can summarize his footnotes as a caption, that would be good. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I formatted Godfrey-Smith: the mapping is Q=question, H=hypothesis, D=deduction from the hypothesis, E=experiment, A=analysis, etc in never-ending cycle. Godfrey-Smith used numbers for his steps, but the application to DNA is clear. It's in the caption, now. I annotated the English caption with Q,H,D,E,A

The footnote order by date, and place in the method:

Q: 1940s 40

H: Oct 1951 41

D: 1952 44, 42, 43

E: 30 Jan 1953.45, 46.

A: 28 Feb 1953 47.

etc. for the endless cycle

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Looks good to me. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Model of DNA with David Deutsch, proponent of invariant scientific explanations. See synopsis of scientific method

I have been casting for a suitable image that entails photo 51, which is a non-free image, unfortunately. That photo's use is restricted to its own article, and is specifically enjoined from any other kind of display. But there is another image involving DNA that could be used in its place. Rather than the "E:" stage, experiment, the replacement image involves the "H:" and "D:" stages, hypothesis and deduction from the hypothesis. The replacement image shows a molecular model of DNA ("A:" stage as of 1 March 1953), and a researcher David Deutsch proposing a new way to expound an "H:" stage (his 'find an explanation' stage 2009).

---

The topic of "Q:" remains unchanged (invariant), namely "given what we knew before 30 January 1953, explain the physical structure of the gene". Before that date, H, D, and A remained unknown, or TBD (to be determined) with certainty (no one knew yet). On 30 January 1953, Franklin and her student Gosling were at the E: stage, independent of "H:", "D:", or "A:". In fact, on that date, Franklin (and Chargaff) was skeptical of anything Crick or Watson would ever do, because she (and Watson and Crick) knew Pauling's helix hypothesis (mooted explanation) was incorrect: "of course its wrong. DNA is not a helix", and scares Watson away. Watson retreats to Wilkins' office, who commiserates, and shows Watson photo 51, which triggered the cascade of findings leading up to the molecular model of DNA next to David Deutsch.

Photo 51 (E:) corroborates Crick and Watson's hypothesis (H:), Crick's deduction (D:) from H, namely that we are to expect that a Fourier transform of a helix be an X-shape. A: Watson has just corroborated D:. He sees an X-shape, as of 30 January 1953. The Q for 29 January 1953 is now resolved (for one person, James Watson, he can now look for a new cascade of Q H D etc.).

---

After 30 January 1953, the new Q, for Watson, is 'justify the composition of the rungs of the helical ladder'. (The explanation of the rungs of the helical ladder was discovered by Watson 28 February 1953.). A never-ending cycle of Qs and As because scientific method does not terminate; the search just moves to another level of question (a new Q arises after an A is settled.).

---

The new image was not as simple to explain, because it involved 2 cycles of Q H D E A. But Photo 51, as Fourier transform of a helix of DNA, its X-ray diffraction pattern, is not as easy to understand as the molecular model of DNA. (And David Deutsch's views are the start of yet another cycle, not yet discussed in this article. Briefly, tampering with an invariant explanation would not be feasible, if we as a community, were to embrace Deutsch's views.)

Might this image be acceptable? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. As long as we move away from the diagrams. Generic pics like this new one with Deutsch are ok. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"John Stewart Mill"

In the History section of the article, a "John Stewart Mill" is mentioned. I believe it is intended to be John Stuart Mill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjsuarez89 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The change was apparently introduced here. Fixed, Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

The edit made: Revision as of 00:21, 31 May 2018 resulted in a grammatically incorrect sentence. Specifically, the text was changed FROM: "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a debate over ..." TO: "In the late 19th a debate over ..." Sorry, but I don't know the facts well enough to offer an appropriate alternative. 24.84.198.185 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I will revert as a poorly formed, hasty action without enough thought to merit consideration. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The change includes the term "No scientific authorities ...". Just who is granting this authority. More specifically, who is claiming the title "scientific authorities"? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an entangled change. This will take time. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've restored the text " and early 20th centuries" from the revision as of 00:21, 31 May 2018. NiciVampireHeart 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Metascience

I would like to see some talk of metascience in this article. While relatively new, the subject seems highly relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs)

See the references to confirmation bias in the metascience article, which discuss blinding; we would expect blinding to remove bias. In the scientific method article, historically, a search for truth ("As scientists we must be our own worst enemy"—Feynman's paraphrase of Alhacen), balanced by skepticism (Francisco Sanches), gave rise to the scientific method (William Stanley Jevons). The ability to 'think outside the box', and socratic method also seem to be influences on the scientific method. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC) updated 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I don't see the connection between metascience and confirmation bias. Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718: see Metascience_(research)#Physics quoted here:"Richard Feynman noted that estimates of physical constants were closer to published values than would be expected by chance. Physicists now implement blinding to prevent confirmation bias.:

• When a narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe. (Imre Lakatos (1976), Proofs and Refutations).
• Goldhaber and Nieto published a review of their subject in 2010, in which they review the reliability of their physical values. In it they observe that "if theoretical structures with many closely neighboring subjects are described by connecting theoretical concepts then the theoretical structure .. becomes increasingly hard to overturn". Personally, I do not consider this observation to be a defect, as scientific theories need to be clear.

I submit the citations of Lakatos, and also of Goldhaber and Nieto as my reply. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The

Shouldn't this article begin with a The? Has this debate already been had? Isn't it, "The Scientific method is a body of techniques..." Mathiastck 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right at the top of Archive 11, there is debate on the definite article The. --Ancheta Wis 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I vote to include "The" next time :) Mathiastck 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is/are "Scientific Method(s)/Process(es)", and then there is "The Scientific Method" - a more general, abstract model: Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment (repeat): this is "The Scientific Method"...it is more of a philosophical model than a process, as the body to which "Scientific Method" can/does refer(s). Am I right in thinking lack of "the" grammatically puts this method in way similar to the term "kung-fu" which is used without "the". For example, one does not say, "he used the kung fu on me!" I think journal citations showing use of "scientific method" minus the definite article "the" will be shown to be typos. One might see if there is a correlation in typo articles and authors of native asian (especially Japanese) toungue. It is known that the definte article is not used similarly in these asian languages as it is in english, and that new or late-comers to English may publish with this typo. Living and working in Berkeley, I have much experience with non-native English speakers of all types and feel the lack of definite article may in fact stem from native asian speaking individuals both authors and editors...unless of course the spirit of english wishes to refer to the scientific method as we do the kung fu. That does sound cool. 76.102.47.125 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation, Hypothesis and Experiment are the three primary and fundamental concepts in all methods of science. Experiment: Search the internet for "observation hypothesis experiment". Observation: the majority of results are for "the Scientific Method". Hypothesis: I have just used the scientific method. 71.156.103.213 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At the outset of the discussion about this issue, User:Wjbeaty pointed out some of the published current discussion in the field per WP:VER and WP:RS. He said: "Many scientists object to ... the very concept The Scientific Method, and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples:

• D. Simanek, physicist
• J. Denker, physicist
• P. Bridgman, physicist
• R. Feynman, physicist
• W. McComas
• H. Baur, chemist

Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques or body of techniques. When diagrammed it might look something like a sunflower with an identifiable core with a bunch of petals representing various fields of science. Add or remove a few petals, and it still looks like a sunflower. Kenosis 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[Is this the same P. Bridgman who suggested we might see revolutions such as Einstein's relativity earlier if we changed our scientific method: if we payed closer attention to the operations used in measuring (or observing) a phenomenon: if we add operational to the objective and natural requirements of a definition? Bridgman is referring, in the article above, to philosophies of science (IMO), not methodology - on which he has written books and many papers. Geologist (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)]

My modest opinion: I disagree on "The". A laboratory experiment, a computer simulation, a theoretical model: all may be scientific but are far from using a unique and univocal method. One thing is to single out a body of criteria in order to define if a method of inquiry is scientific, and another is to say that there is only one such method. Also (but I might be wrong), I think there is an implicit usage in Wikipedia so as to use "The..." in reference to a book or a specific theory (e.g. "interpretation of dreams" and "The Interpretation of Dreams"). -- Typewritten 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques"

If this article is about a collection of methods, then the title should be Scientific methods. indil (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A redirect already exists. I personally oppose a page move. This article is referenced by thousands of other articles already, under its current title, and is well-known under its current name. A google search shows that the current title is referenced over 4 times more frequently than the plural. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. The rhythm method isn't specific either: some people use calendars, some people count days, others guess. We still follow correct English grammar. I am WP:BRDing. MilesAgain (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done the R so D rather more than you did. This is not an issue of grammar as either is OK from that respect. It is a fundamental question and the balance is on not have the "The" there. --Bduke (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Scientific method refers to the body of techniques..."; perhaps this is a satisfactory solution? Andareed (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes; good. MilesAgain (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the Richard Feynman link given above. He does not use the phrase Scientific Mathod", and far from arguing that it should be removed from grade school textbooks, he seems to be arguing strongly that it should be taught. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. None of those pages seem to insinuate that the problem is the article "the". They seem to contest the idea of the scientific method itself. Then again, I'm very tired, and not at all that attentive to begin with.  Aar  ►  09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  The best discussion on 'the' that I have seen comes from Mark Twain. One could argue this is all a fine point for those who think in English. There are languages that get along without a 'the', after all. But there is a part of English, the subjunctive mood, which is a good basis for the hypothesis and prediction steps of scientific method, and without which I believe it is hard to explain scientific method. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is an issue of grammar. In titles, the article is commonly and correctly used to refer to a body or cluster of similar things: The Elements of Style; The Working Dog; The Racing Motorcycle; The Successful Investor. "Elements of Style" could be okay because "elements" is plural, but neither "Working Dog" nor "Racing Motorcycle" are suitable titles. Likewise, "Scientific Methods" would be fine. But both "Scientific Method" and "Successful Investor" are awkward and off-putting to native English speakers.````KellyArt 11:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a native English-speaker and it doesn't put me off. "Scientific method" in singular form sans expected article seems like a mass noun. The Tetrast (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

But the point is that neither method nor scientific method is a mass noun. Therefore the absence of the article sounds wrong (to many or most speakers). Where is the linguistic argument that native speaker intuition (here, that's a real mass noun, therefore no article is needed) is wrong here? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not referring to the title. Scientific method is fine as an article title, but the way scientific method is used in the introduction without an article is plainly ungrammatical. The body of the article uses "the scientific method", showing how ridiculous this insistence on the absence of the article is. See also wikt:scientific method. As pointed out by MilesAgain, the scientific method is a general term and may be used to cover more than one technique, or variant (or part/substructure) of a basic methodical paradigm, compare also methodology, which is often essentially used synonymously with method. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I have realised that method can indeed be used as a mass noun, but the scientific method is equally possible (and more common, not only according to my own observation but also Wiktionary) and does not imply that there is only a single way of doing scientific research. Also, the article is internally inconsistent in its use of the with scientific method. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been a historical shift in the use of 'definite article'+"scientific method". It was popularized as 'the' in the nineteenth c., but 'the' was eventually shot down in the 20th century. That is the reason that "a scientific method" is attempted usage in the article. I personally shrink from being the bad cop enforcing 'indefinite article'+"scientific method" in this article; you are welcome to enforce this. Note that according to Richard Popkin, when Francisco Sanches (16th c.) innovated use of the idea of a "method of knowing" (modus sciendi in Latin), he apparently published a book in Spanish Metodo universal de las ciencias(the book is now lost) which has no definite article in the title. For citations, see note 49 in history of scientific method, which cites a 1703 reference to the Spanish title. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, back in 2005, User:Adraeus came up with the idea of finessing the controversy over 'the' by simply using indefinite article 'a'. It seems a simple solution. At that time, there were passionate arguments even denying the existence of "the scientific method", which I am afraid will be re-ignited by reverting to the common "the". I admit it is common usage, which simply ignores the arguments from past (or future) editors. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW the absence of "the" sounds extremely wrong to me, and I have never heard it used without "the" in regular discourse. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, I edited the lead sentence to include both versions. I placed "the" first as the more commonly used. For example, it's the name generally used in educational materials available to the broader public - a couple of educational resources I found quickly are 1 2 3 - there are more as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(response to Ancheta) Both versions are still there. It seemed a relatively minor issue to me, which is why I didn't edit it before (plus I didn't think of the compromise of just including both), but then I realized that the perceived awkwardness would reduce ease of reading. There shouldn't be any compromise with accuracy in an encyclopedia, and my impression is that Wikipedia is much better "defended" than it used to be. For example, the Science article seems to have done fine. :-) I've added back the hidden text though, asking for talk page discussion before making changes to the lead sentence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancheta, I do not think that the 16th century Spanish title is of any relevance for 20th century English use. According to my observation at least, in Spanish, especially in headlines and titles, similar to Anglophone Headlinese, you can actually drop articles often, anyway, and in fact, the Spanish Wikipedia article uses the article: el método científico. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancheta's attempt at resolution is a good one, but when I saw this page in Google results it actually drew my attention to a debate which should be pretty insignificant. I respectfully suggest that an alternative way would be to use the formatting to imply both, as in, "The scientific method . . ." This makes the sentence sound correct to those readers who feel it requires it, but bolds only the actual topic of the article. I'm generally reluctant to engage in or follow this type of debate, so if consensus favors my suggestion, please don't wait for me to make the change.--~TPW 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to re-open this can of worms, but much of what is written on this page under the banner of "The Scientific Method" reads like Baconian positivist-inductivist dogma. This model of scientific activity might have been correct in the 16th or 17th centuries - but it is far from correct in the 21st. Modern scientific activity simply does not start with "Observation" (that is the leading fallacy of inductivist dogma). According to Alan Chalmers (a philosopher of science) in "What Is This Thing Called Science?", "inductivism" is defined as the view that "scientific knowledge is to be derived from the observable facts by some kind of inductive inference" - and inductivism has so many problems that it cannot be a valid basis for scientific methdology - let alone _the_ scientific method. So wikipedia looks like promoting a view of science that is fundamentally incorrect. Chalmers argues that inductive generalisations from obervable facts are incapable of yielding scientific knowledge about unobservable entities such as protons and genes. I would suggest that the whole agenda of trying distinguish science from non-science by evaluation of the methods used in the activity is fundamentally flawed. There is no single "the method of science" of "the scientific method". I'd suggest much of this page is moved to a new page entitled "Inductive theories of science", perhaps in a section called "the Baconian theory of science" and that this page is renamed to a much more general topic like "Scientific Methods". Popper argues for a more 'naturalistic' theory of science - based on observation of what scientists do - in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" - and famously comes to the conclusion that scientific activity is not distinguished by any particular method but by the testability (falsifiability) of the theories it produces. 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Glossop (talk • contribs)

@Ian Glossop, Perhaps you might address your concerns with @Whatiguana, who has contributed a graphic attributed to Theodore Garland, Jr. (2015) 'The scientific method as an ongoing process'. It appears that Whatiguana's views are very close to those of Professor Garland, because the upload claim is 'own work'. But we have an implied CC-by-SA here, and I hope we might keep or modify this graphic image, with proper license and attribution, for use in the article. The graphic is addressed to naturalists, who would naturally start with observation, as you point out.

But if you re-examine the article (without the first impression produced from the Garland graphic) you will see that the methodology in the article begins with 'Ask a question', rather than 'Observe'.

Deeper in the article, the 3-step methodology of Charles Sanders Pierce, "A Neglected Argument", begins with 1) 'Muse' (that is, think), in a process of 2) clarification of vague thought, which naturally leads to 3) pragmatic action, in an unending cycle of categorization.

@Sunrise , would you object if the article were to fall back to an article which drops the 'The'? In other words use phrase 'a scientific method' rather than 'the scientific method' in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Yes, I would still object. :-) (And I assume that others who have commented on this issue still would as well!) That said, if any of the above comments can be established as significant (as determined by secondary sources, per WP:WEIGHT) then I certainly wouldn't oppose consideration of new content for the article. Sunrise (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may add one more complication to this perennial topic, this Google Ngram search shows that the/The scientific method became the most common usage around 1980, reaching about 55% by 2008, but capitalized, as you'd expect in a title, the/The Scientific Method stayed below 43%.

It seems to still be a marginal case, which may be one factor underlying this long debate. That being said, for historical/philosophical reasons I object to the implication that there is one single scientific method and oppose adding "the" to the title. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe there are two things here. One is the broad notion of scientific methodology. It's uncontroversial that there are many methodological positions and thoughts about method in science. One substantive and controversial position w/r/t scientific methodology is that there's one general scientific method. I think this article is about the latter. If it is, then it should be careful to note that not everyone agrees that there's a single scientific method. If the article is about scientific methodology in general, then it should present a variety of positions on the topic (including those that dissent from the view that there's a single scientific method). I don't see how data about whether or not people use "the" in front of "scientific method" tells us much unless we know what they're talking about: the proposed single general scientific method, or about scientific methodology in general.128.91.19.22 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 I feel there should be at least a minor reference to Emotion. The Scientific Method is based on measurable science. Emotion, being unmeasurable, has no place in The Scientific Method. I feel this method important as I hear, more and more, people attempting to use Emotion in their "Logic." I could not find this in any archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.123.13 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

Request that the sentence "We beg to differ." be removed as it goes against the principle of neutrality. Opcarvalho20 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I took out the examples and that long quote, as the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article below. None of those examples are mentioned in the body of the article. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not a problem here, as the attribution makes it clear that it is Nola and Sankey's POV, not Wikipedia's POV. Moreover, Nola and Sankey's POV was well justified in the cited chapter. However, a different issue entirely is the fact that the cited chapter by Nola and Sankey is now twenty years old, so the reader might ask whether that chapter reflects the current state of the issues. For now, I changed the citation from Nola and Sankey's 2000 chapter to their (greatly expanded) 2007 book, I reworded the sentence, and I added publication dates to clarify the temporal context. I also moved the content in question out of the lead and into the section that already mentioned Feyerabend. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

When did it become popular to teach the method as a sequence of steps?

Currently the popular way to teach the scientific method (in the USA) is to present it as sequence of steps. When did this fashion begin?

In searching Google books, I haven't found an example of it being presented a definite sequence of steps in the 1800's or early 1900's.

Of course, one can say that Francis Bacon presented an orderly method, but my question concerns the modern presentation - observation, hypothesis, experiment etc. The number of steps described varies between 4 and 10. The typical USA secondary school student learns the scientific method as a sequence of steps.

Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Remember that talk pages are not a general discussion forum, but I will add an answer in case this discussion leads to a useful addition to the article. There were earlier examples in Great Britain and Europe, but in the USA John Dewey's book How We Think, first published in 1910, is an example from the early 20th century that influenced primary and secondary education. For further discussion of this issue and other references, see, for example: Blachowicz, James (June 2009). "How science textbooks treat scientific method: a philosopher's perspective". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 60 (2): 303–344. doi:10.1093/bjps/axp011. JSTOR 25592003. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Matthew J. Brown noted that Dewey's account subsequently tended to be oversimplified by others:

Most careful readers of Dewey's views here agree that it would be a mistake to think of the phases as linear steps, or absolutely distinct categories. [...] For Dewey, specifying a pattern of inquiry means specifying a set of functional relationships to be satisfied, although not an algorithm or set of temporally arranged steps for doing so. The misreading may further tempt readers today because of some superficial similarities with the cartoonish version of "The Scientific Method" as a step-by-step recipe taught in grade school. In fact, that cartoon probably itself derives from a drastic oversimplification of Dewey's own work (Blachowicz 2009). Dewey is clear that this is a mistake: "The five phases, terminals, or functions of thought, that we have noted do not follow one another in a set order" (LW 8:206), but rather, each movement forward in inquiry bears on or has consequences for the other phases. It more closely fits Dewey's descriptions to think of them as repeated, reciprocal functions or as "concurrent and interdependent activity-modes" that work in "parallel streams" and in "nonlinear interaction" (Dorstewitz 2011, 208–9).

— Brown, Matthew J. (Fall 2012). "John Dewey's logic of science". HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science. 2 (2): 258–306. doi:10.1086/666843. JSTOR 10.1086/666843. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Biogeographist (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See further discussion of this issue at Talk:History of scientific method § When did the modern (USA) presentation as a sequence of steps begin?. Biogeographist (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible updates to Definition and Uncertainty sections

The statement "The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies on the use of an artifact, such as a particular kilogram of platinum-iridium kept in a laboratory in France." is of course not true anymore (see Kilogram). SI base units are all defined in terms of internationally agreed values of fundamental physical constants (see SI base unit). Most derived units are defined mathematically in terms of base units; some include the agreed values of other physical constants, but no artifacts are involved (see SI derived unit).

The statement "For example, electric current, measured in amperes, may be operationally defined in terms of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail." is IMO misleading, as it describes a method that was relevant in the 19th century. An example that might plausibly be chosen today would be better.

In science (as in any endeavor), cost is important. Measurements with smaller uncertainty are usually more expensive; a scientist chooses a method with sufficient accuracy (or in some cases precision) for the experimental results to be meaningful. Some examples measuring electric current: If the experiment requires only two significant digits, the operational definition might be "what my ammeter reads", also checking it against another meter in the lab. For four digits, I'd send the meter to a commercial calibration lab, perform the experiment, then have them check it again to ensure that it hadn't drifted. Six digits, rent specialized instrumentation. Eight digits, somehow perform the experiment at a metrology lab that can trace the measurement to physical principles. While a description like this is far too verbose for this article, there should be some way to convey the idea that an "operational definition" is chosen to be adequate for the task at hand, at reasonable cost. Jinrikiwiki (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Article is misleading, poorly organized, and overrated

Introduction is repetitive. It also reflects the misleading and omitted aspects of the rest of the article.

Conceptual problems:

CP1. Ignores important concepts such as "theory" and "regime".

CP2. Inadequate (almost non-existent) treatment of analytic, experimental, and numerical models.

CP3. "Complexity" is mentioned, but should not be. It has its own article, and is simply one area of science.

CP4. The section on relationship between mathematics and science is very vague. The table is hopelessly misleading.

CP5. No discussion of the methods of modern, "big science".

CP6. No discussion of the interactions among science, society, and politics.

CP7. Should there be a discussion of the nature of "soft sciences"?

Vocabulary problems:

VP1. The word "model" is used ambiguously, referring both to the scientific method and to models used within science. The former use should be replaced. The "scientific method" is not a model.

VP2. The word "law" is used inconsistently and without any systematic introduction.

Organizational problems:

OP1. Sections contain overlapping material.

OP2. Some sections are hobby-horses, i.e., too minor to appear in an article at this level.

Quality Rating:

I would rate this article as C or lower.

The article should be rewritten, starting from a draft by a small panel (5–7?) of scientists, teachers, and laymen.

Wcmead3 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work with panels, nor based on qualifications, people being assigned tasks etc. There have been attempts to make wikis which do work that way and they never work as well as Wikipedia. In practice we can best help this article by making concrete editing proposals whenever we have one. It can be slow and frustrating, especially if there are major structural changes to make, but normally it more or less works. Probably you know all this already, but anyway, it would be better if you explained opinions in more concrete detail, aiming to convince rather than scold. (Remember there is probably no editor who will feel responsible for the article.) For example: which sections are over-lapping; which are hobby horses? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I Agree with Andrew Lancaster   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Andrew Lancaster, except that the feedback of Wcmead3 did not strike me as "scolding", just underdeveloped. I prefer this definition of scolding: "to criticize (someone) severely or angrily especially for personal failings". Scolding is what people do on my talk page when they opine (usually always wrongly, of course!...) that I am behaving badly, not what they do when they are giving good-faith feedback about content.

With regard to the vocabulary issues mentioned:

• VP1: I see no problem with using the word "model" in two different ways, though I did find one instance of the phrase "the model of the scientific method" that I agree was poor, and I removed it;
• VP2: The word "law" is hardly used at all in this article, so I don't see exactly what the problem is with that word. Note that Scientific law is a separate article. Biogeographist (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I could have found a better word. My response should be understood as wishing for more concrete details. I do not see the post of Wcmead3 as useless. Some of the points seem like useful leads, while others are hard to work with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

CP5–CP7 listed above are likely outside the scope of this article.

• CP5: Big Science is a separate article; discussion of its methods would belong in that article with a link in this one.
• CP6: The "interactions among science, society, and politics" are poorly covered in Wikipedia but would belong in Science and technology studies, the lead of which currently describes STS as "the study of how society, politics, and culture affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture."
• CP7: Hard and soft science is a separate article; at the most general level both hard and soft science use the scientific method, understood as the development and testing of hypotheses, but as far as I can see Wikipedia does not have a good overview anywhere of methodic variations across the hard and soft sciences, which one would expect to find at Methodology, but no luck. Perhaps someone will come along with a desire to improve Wikipedia in this respect, but given Wikipedia's poor current coverage of this issue I am not sure where we would look to find a currently active editor who would be an expert on it. Biogeographist (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding a more formal approach to anomalies and exceptions as per cognitive development

Before inserting changes to the main page, I will propose to the community some ideas.

There is extensive work on scientific reasoning that appears in the child cognitive development literature (e.g. Barbara Koslowski's "Theory and Evidence" and much more recent work on inquiry based science teaching) that is explicit about the role of anomalies and exceptions. I believe a section entitled "Anomalies and Exceptions" belongs in the "process" section either just before or just after the subsection on "Formulation of a question". The nature of anomalies and exceptions driving rejection of established theories and new experiments is critical to scientific reasoning, and it is hinted at throughout the current article, but without naming it properly. For example, in the description of Kevin Dunbar, these are called "bugs" or "errors", when plainly he is referring to anomalies. Likewise in the section about Peirce, they are referred to as "inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements and the like". while I doubt that Peirce used the terminology "anomalies" in the early 20th century, there is no other explanation of the pragmatic method that follows Peirce in that section, and he plainly is referring to anomalies, so I think they should be mentioned as such.

Likewise, I think it would be useful to at least mention the term "covariation" or "covariance", as this is really what scientists use (rather than induction). Covariation is especially important in protein function studies based on molecular biology. Induction implies a high N number, but often a powerful prediction (N = 1) is enough to nail down a theory (e.g. the discovery of Neptune).

Finally, I think it might be useful to mention the idea that scientific reasoning is fundamentally a method of "bootstrapping" (again this is Koslowski's term) between theory and covariation. This explains why philosophers of science regularly report that "anything goes" or that there aren't "any universal rules" to the scientific method (Feyerabend). The key feature is that bootstrapping will be unsound unless it is accompanied by the scientific motivation driven by anomalies. It is the combination of bootstrapping with anomalies that makes scientific reasoning both robust yet difficult to describe deductively.Relleh22hctac (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This proposal allows a more recent perspective beyond Peirce's, and Feyerabend's views, from the past quarter-century. There seem to be additional secondary sources to summarize the progress by Kevin Dunbar —Jonah Lehrer (12.21.09) Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up as well as Barbara Koslowski Theory and Evidence: The Development of Scientific Reasoning? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

The sentence "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another." is confusing and seems to contradict itself. Should it say something more like "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they generally follow similar principles."? Or something flowing more naturally into the next sentence "...are all based on deriving predictions from hypotheses..." etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.250.150 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

New research sidebar

I think the inclusion of the new research sidebar would be of use for this page, potentially placed underneath the current science sidebar. Jamzze (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC) {{Research}}

"Invariant scientific explanations."

There is a photobox of a physicist which notes his support of "invariant" explanations, yet there is no point in the article that addresses what an "invariant" explanation is or why it would be supported.

The article should change such that either:

1: There is a new section about "invariance," and his photo be moved there. [This is the edit that was made]

or

2: His photo be removed from the article.

VectorizeEverything (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Newest edits, since reverted

Per WP:BRD I am asking for justification of the attempted edits. They reflect changes that seemed to be Aristotelian, then empirical, re-capping thought on the subject. There have been hundreds of editors working on this article from the beginning of the encyclopdia; it may help to study the archives of this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We need citations. John von Neumann (1956) noted that even after Aristotle's musings, "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" (von Neumann, Collected Works 6 p.101). Ancient Greek is a very subtle language, but what they did does not suffice. Although the Ancient Greeks (who worded their thoughts on science at their leisure) defined the study, it has taken our successor civilizations to get past them, and to build on their work. (Francis Bacon saw this.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific point of view presented as generally accepted.

The following sentence in the lead presents a point of view as if it was generally accepted:

If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed.

This says that general theories always come after specific hypotheses, as if science adopted or must adopt a bottom approach from observations, to specific hypotheses and then to general theories. The reference provided is a slide show, which clearly supports this bottom-up approach. However, this specific empiricist view is far from being generally accepted. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dominic! The Popperian objection!

First, about the source: The slide show is by a biologist, not a philosopher of science, and it is posted on what looks to be a UC Riverside biology department website. So this could be a slide show for an undergraduate biology course. No doubt there is biology research that proceeds roughly like this. The problem with citing it here (aside from the principle that slide shows are usually not good sources because they are usually self-published) is that it is taken out of context: a slide show for an undergraduate biology course is not a comprehensive overview of method in all sciences. Of course, one would not want to make the same error with a different field by taking a source about method in physics and implying that it is applicable to all sciences. So the objection that this source is inappropriate is a good one.

Second, about the sentence: Note that the sentence you quoted says "may be"; it does not say that all science takes a bottom-up approach. But you are welcome to propose an alternative that would be less susceptible to that misinterpretation. Note that the word "empiricism" as used in this article (for example, in Scientific method § Overview) does not refer to inductivism but to the general principle of empirical testing. Biogeographist (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked more deeply and the entire paragraph is based on this source. Here is a table with sentences from the paragraph and corresponding sentences from the slide show, the order of occurrence being preserved.

Garland's slide show versus the paragraph in current lead

Slide's show	Paragraph in the lead
The scientific method is an ongoing process. The process usually begins with observations about the natural world.	The scientific method is an ongoing process. The process usually begins with observations about the natural world.
Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear	People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear,...
Some people think further and develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are.	and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are.
The best hypotheses, from the standpoint of science, are those that lead to testable predictions.	The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways.
In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Sometimes, mathematical or physical models are used to test predictions.	The most conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data.
(see below)	The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways.
Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection.	Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection.
This evaluation and modification of the original hypothesis then leads to the development of new predictions.	(see above)
Eventually, with enough verified support, a general theory may be developed, sometimes unifying a large body of evidence.	If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed

I know that the text is not strongly in contradiction with any philosophy, but that is only because the empiricist view (starting from observations to maybe eventually get to general laws theories), which is clear in the slide show is less clear given the context of the article. But, a wikipedia article should not present a vague view that is in the middle. Neutral point of view does not mean a point of view in the middle. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please propose an alternative source. Biogeographist (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, in your last paragraph, you used the term "general laws". This term is not used in the source. Garland used the term "general theories", which he defined as "a set of interrelated ideas, well-supported by evidence". This is a vague definition (what are these ideas? how does one interrelate them?) that doesn't specify what kinds of theories there are, or how theories are different from and related to laws, models, explanations, etc. So we shouldn't presume that Garland's general theories = general laws. They could be more like explanations than like laws or models. The source doesn't tell us.

Here is a little more information that I found about the Garland source: It is listed in this list of lesson plans and lectures of the Institute for the Development of Educational Applications as a "lecture" "for high school or college" (of course, it's not a lecture, just a set of slides as far as I can see). It was added by Whatiguana in this March 2015 edit, and Whatiguana even updated the URL of the source very recently in this February 2021 edit, so Whatiguana apparently likes this source, and I would be interested to hear their opinion in this discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, here is a source by two biologists that supports my claim above that there is biology research that proceeds roughly as Garland describes (though this is not a defense of using the Garland source, since the vagueness and lack of generalizability of the Garland source still disqualifies it): Dhar, Pawan K.; Giuliani, Alessandro (March 2010). "Laws of biology: why so few?". Systems and Synthetic Biology. 4 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9049-0. PMC 2816229. PMID 20186254. The reason why bottom–up approach is preferred in biology is due to the presence of the large variety of context-dependent data types. ... In biology, it is difficult to conceive the existence of (1) components with predictable behavior, (2) non-decomposable components similar to the elements of a periodic table and (3) universal biological constants equivalent to those of the physical constants. In essence there is no 'standard trajectory' in biology—every biological decision is optimal in a given environmental context. However, due to complex nature of biological organization it is difficult to think of a universal law or a theory in biology connecting all the levels, from atoms to ecosystems. One should look for generalizations at various levels instead. To find such generalizations it is useful to develop novel measurement technologies that capture the dynamic nature of biological systems and more importantly catch emergent properties arising from a group behavior of interacting components. Biogeographist (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Biased Language: 'want'

(Quick apology for formatting I've never done this before, I believe this is the right place but I'm not entirely sure, tell me if it's not).

I believe there is a particular passage from the 'Hypothesis' section of 'Overview' that contains charged and biased language. It is thus:

Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, that the drug does better than chance.

There are two ways I find this passage lacking. The first, that which researchers 'wish' to do is not important and could conceivably be contrary to what the 'goal' of the research is. Whereas the process of research can be affected by researchers' wishes, the point of, frankly, the entire article is what is actually done in the process. Second, it is trivial to arrive at situations where the 'goal' of the research is not to invalidate but in fact to validate the null hypothesis, but again this is inconsequential. Whether the researchers' goal is for the null hypothesis to be validated or invalidated should not have bearing on how the process is conducted. In short, the question is 'is the null hypothesis true or is the alternative hypothesis true'. It is not 'how do we show that the null hypothesis is false and the alternative true'.

When first I read this I thought it should be deleted, but the section of 'Hypothesis' is fairly light on content and could do with a better definition of the null and alternative hypotheses.

I am no statistics major but here is a possible definition from the page linked, some of which could replace what is currently written:

Null and alternative hypotheses

Statistical inference begins by recognizing that research questions can be stated in terms of a choice between two very clear and mutually exclusive options. One option holds that the predicted difference between comparison groups does not exist out in the real world (the population). The only reason that the two group means are different from each other is chance. This first option is known as the null hypothesis. The other option is that the predicted difference does exist out in the real world. There is a reason (other than chance) why the two group means are different from each other. This second option is known as the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis is almost always the outcome that the researcher predicts will happen. For example, if the researcher predicts that younger adults will make more errors than a group of older adults the alternative hypothesis for the test of this idea is that "the mean number of errors for the younger group will be significantly higher than the mean number of errors for the older group". The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis in this situation is that "the mean number of errors for younger adults is not significantly greater than the mean number of errors for the older group".

User:ElAjusco 03:53, 26 May 2021‎

ElAjusco Ordinarily, I do not edit another editor's post. In this case you clearly state the formatting is new to you, and I believe we both want to repair the article, so I have touched your contribution on this talk page. It's important not to directly use Pierce's text in the article itself, so I propose the following repair, which uses subjunctive mood to be rid of the Researchers normally want ...:

Candidate version: A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about a given statistical population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a course of treatment cures the disease in the treated population. A null hypothesis conjectures that the statistical hypothesis is false: that the treatment does nothing and that any cure of the disease in the treated group is caused by chance. Researchers might expect that the null hypothesis be false. An alternative hypothesis, to be falsifiable, must show that a treatment does better than chance. To demonstrate this, a portion of the population (the control), is to be left untreated, while another separate portion of the population is to be treated. t-Tests could then specify how large the treated and the untreated groups are to be, in order to infer whether some course of treatment has resulted in a cure. Strong inference could alternatively propose multiple alternative hypotheses, treatments A, B, C, ... so as not to introduce confirmation bias in favor of a specific course of treatment (ethical considerations could be used, to minimize the numbers in the untreated groups, e.g., use almost every treatment in every group, but excluding A, B, C, ..., respectively as controls).

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC) (I signed my post by typing --~~~~)

Modified candidate version (Strikethrough for deletion, underline for addition): A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about a given statistical population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a course of treatment cures the disease in the treated population. A null hypothesis conjectures that the statistical hypothesis is false: that the treatment does nothing and that any cure of the disease in the treated group is caused by chance. Researchers might expect that the null hypothesis be false. An alternative hypothesis, to be falsifiable, must show say that a treatment does better than chance. To test this, an experiment is designed in which a portion of the population (the control), is to be left untreated, while another separate portion of the population is to be treated. t-Tests could then specify how large the treated and the untreated groups are to be, in order to infer whether some course of treatment has resulted in a cure. Strong inference could alternatively propose multiple alternative hypotheses, treatments A, B, C, ... so as not to introduce confirmation bias in favor of a specific course of treatment (ethical considerations could be used, to minimize the numbers in the untreated groups, e.g., use almost every treatment in every group, but excluding A, B, C, ..., respectively as controls).

Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference restructuring

@User-duck: What is the end state that you are aiming for with your recent edits to this article's notes and references? You seem to be doing some major restructuring, but given the article's current state I am not seeing where you are going with these edits. Biogeographist (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: The only "restructuring" is separating the notes.

A variety of things;

1. Started with eliminating CS1 errors/warnings/messages concerning SFNs. These change at whomever's whim. It is one thing to have warnings about "long volume name", etc. and another to not offer any remedies.
2. Separating notes from references. Notes do not belong intermixed with references, especially long ones. Good way to hide unsupported statements, there may be some, if you want to check.
3. Consistent ref and cite formating, Using templates helps greatly. Also, quotes from sources should be after SFN. Sometimes difficult to tell notes from quotes.
4. General maintenance. Have encoountered several source cites with dead URLs. Combining refs and cites are part of this.
5. Unreferenced sources should be "Further reading". Absolute determination cannot be done until all references are checked.
6. Maybe re-title sections: "References" -> "Sources"; "Notes" -> "Notes" & "References"

Have not figured out the Collected Papers source ref/cites yet.

Wikipedia talks about consistency but it is difficult when they enourage diversity.

There is a "CS1 maint: postscript" message that I have not tracked down yet, I suspect a template but will take some time to find.

Thanks for interest. User-duck (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm glad you mentioned re-titling sections; it looks a little strange currently with two types of notes together with no separation. All the examples listed at Template:Efn#Example articles have separate sections for different types of notes. That's the number one reason why I couldn't ascertain exactly what you were doing. Ideally all short citations would be separated from long citations as well, as in the example of Chinese room listed at Template:Efn#Example articles. Biogeographist (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The reformats are affecting the footnotes. When I use NavPop to read the footnotes, for example (Lakatos 1976) I can no longer read the note at the same time as the text. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I can no longer read the note at the same time as the text: That is always true with shortened footnotes; they require clicking on the author-date citation to jump to the full citation and then using the back command to return to the previous spot in the article. If you are opposed to this, then the alternative is to remove shortened footnotes and the extra reference list and put all full citations in standard footnotes. Either way, some restructuring would be required to reach a uniform citation style. This article did not previously have a uniform citation style, and per the WP:CITE guideline "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" is generally considered helpful, but if there is disagreement then consensus should be established about which style shall be used. Biogeographist (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have learned that <ref name= someName group= Note> can be used to separate notes and refs, and NavPop can still be used for readable links and footnotes; I just now used your efn suggestion for notes, in the article. Named refs such as my snippet above can reuse citations, like the harvard-style sfn's currently being added. I have found that the {{rp| etc.}} can also be used for ref/note page numbers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

OED requires sign-in

Would any editor object to omitting the Oxford English Dictionary citation? It asks for a sign-in. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any other reason to omit it? It seems to have influenced the form of that paragraph, and if it has, it would be better to retain the reference. If you just need to know what it says, it defines scientific method as: "A method of observation or procedure based on scientific ideas or methods; spec. an empirical method that has underlain the development of natural science since the 17th cent." In smaller print it elaborates: "The scientific method is now commonly represented as ideally comprising some or all of (a) systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation, (b) induction and the formulation of hypotheses, (c) the making of deductions from the hypotheses, (d) the experimental testing of the deductions, and (if necessary) (e) the modification of the hypotheses; though there are great differences in practice in the way the scientific method is employed in different disciplines (e.g. palaeontology relies on induction more than does chemistry, because past events cannot be repeated experimentally). The modern scientific method is often seen as deriving ultimately from Francis Bacon's Novum Organum (1620) and the work of Descartes. In the 20th cent. Karl Popper's idea of empirical falsification has been important (cf. Popperian adj.)." The typical OED list of historical references follows. "scientific method, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2021-08-21. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) Biogeographist (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Kuhn 1961 p.166 citation

I have been trying to follow Kuhn's citation using JSTOR, because it states incorrect sentences, according to scientific method. The problematic sentence which alerted me is "The route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward" (Kuhn 1961 p.166). Reformulating proposed hypotheses is of course the subject of the article.

The sentence can be refuted with a trip to the hardware store, where you can buy a voltmeter for $11 (the price of the instrument is only part of the cost, of course). It can also be refuted by Feynman's trick of using a simple example problem domain (mentally) to follow a researcher's hypothesis; when the simple example domain (a thought experiment which you keep to yourself) deviates from the mooted hypothesis, just inform the researcher. Kuhn's article is also outdated; he states General Relativity is untestable (Kuhn 1961 p.168) which is refuted by the LIGO, and tests of general relativity, not to mention the global positioning system.

What I propose is to re-use the citation (pp.164-165) to reinforce the concept of error (the difference between expected and actual values, i.e. random variables) which uses Mackay 1969's reference on uncertainty limits, and strike the paragraph citing Kuhn 1961 p.166. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Kuhn_1961_p.166_citation

I have been trying to follow Kuhn's citation using JSTOR, because it states incorrect sentences, according to scientific method. The problematic sentence which alerted me is "The route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward" (Kuhn 1961 p.166). Reformulating proposed hypotheses is of course the subject of the article.

The sentence can be refuted with a trip to the hardware store, where you can buy a voltmeter for $11 (the price of the instrument is only part of the cost, of course). It can also be refuted by Feynman's trick of using a simple example problem domain (mentally) to follow a researcher's hypothesis; when the simple example domain (a thought experiment which you keep to yourself) deviates from the mooted hypothesis, just inform the researcher. Kuhn's article is also outdated; he states General Relativity is untestable (Kuhn 1961 p.168) which is refuted by the LIGO, and tests of general relativity, not to mention the global positioning system.

What I propose is to re-use the citation (pp.164-165) to reinforce the concept of error (the difference between expected and actual values, i.e. random variables) which uses Mackay 1969's reference on uncertainty limits, and strike the paragraph citing Kuhn 1961 p.166. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Myth and belief

One of the sections of the article newly cites Robert Nola, who was drawn into the controversy over Mātauranga Māori, which is the corpus of belief, pre-European colonization. The argument is that the Māori guides to navigation across the Pacific are a posteriori, and hence empirically derived. I propose to incorporate the argument, as part of empiricism, into the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference no. 1: Isaac Newton's name spelled incorrectly

The relevant part of the first reference is:

Newton, Issac (1999) [1726 (3rd ed.)]. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

This is incorrect because his name is spelled as Isaac and not Issac. It is also not how they spelled his name in that edition.

the scenfifc method has been here for 1500 year helllo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.246.136 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

These citations are from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), which covers the motion of the planets. Biology is another branch of science, which is not addressed by the Principia, but rather part of what Newton termed the ocean of truth which lay around him, undiscovered and unexplained. "I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in the now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." —Newton (1747) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Biology

Chpter no 2 understanding the concepts question/answer 39.36.63.69 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You might start with How to solve it by George Polya, including his "express the problem in your own words", which is part of step One: Understand the problem. That is, ask questions of yourself, and seek their answers (this search is a never-ending process). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can't understand the first question, find a second question, related to your problem, that you can answer. Repeat this process until you get to something that you can re-state to yourself, in your own words. That would be a signal that you understand it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"DNA experiments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DNA experiments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 19#DNA experiments until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Science

Good evening For your assignment activity ( Science)

Answer the following questions in your Science Activity notebook.

Activity 1 Title: Scientific Investigation

1. . What is Scientific Investigation?
2. . How important is Scientific Investigation in the empirical nature of science?
3. . What is Scientific method?
4. . Enumerate and discuss the steps in scientific method.
5. . Differentiate Observation from Inference. 2001:4453:243:5000:8035:133B:1320:7B6C (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How to answer this? Dezendenur (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

See How to Solve It --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A section above has more about this. I found a video clip as well. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

In practical application, the scientific method provides a methodology whereby only verifiable, reproducible empirical experiments subjected to doubt/skepticism lead to a justifiable approximation of reality <Pelzek> 73.208.238.84 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, as a scientist it always amazes me how today we seem to conveniently leave out "controlled experimentation". We leave it out now because biologists and climate scientists would have to omit half their work.

Control in experiments is critical for internal validity, which allows you to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. 204.133.30.36 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Remember that this is a forum for discussing the content of the article. Do you wish to propose a change? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference correction

Text "In particular, Paul Feyerabend, in the 1975 first edition of his book Against Method, argued against there being any universal rules of science;[17]" points to incorrect reference. "Against Method" is currently reference [139] Feyerabend, Paul K., Against Method, Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, 1st published, 1975. Reprinted, Verso, London, 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.122.18 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have read the citation given, it is most likely a better secondary source, which is what we prefer. CV9933 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thought experiments

"the truth consists of hard-to-vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world" --David Deutsch#Invariants is already cited in the article.

If a thought experiment were to become the basis of a science, it would need to be invariant. That's a high barrier, compared to a real experiment. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thought experiments are important, especially in physics. I don't say they all what's required to pass as a theory, but they are the beginning of a theory. E.g. Newton knew the speed required to bring an artificial satellite in orbit. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Tricky thing is that just as there's no science as to what counts as science (see the Demarcation problem), there's no science as to what counts as the scientific method — which is really just so much more of an attitude of rationality and openness to evidence that we just "know it when we see it". Otherwise the articles on science and its "method" would be easy to hammer out — things would either be correct or incorrect, not debatable. The consensus for school children does not mention mind experiments explicitly as valid. But the consensus among science philosophers and historians is obvious: Einstein isn't the only one who figured out quite a bit in his head long before anything was proven on paper (let alone in the physical world). For example I think it wasn't until the 1960s or 70s that we could finally do our first experiments to validate relativistic time by flying some atomic clocks around for a few hours and then comparing them. Clearly, the work was already considered real science long before the experiment was conducted. Destrylevigriffith (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The scientific method is for establishing new knowledge (to the extent that predictions are possible in the new, unknown domain). In a nutshell, that's the demarcation problem. If the prediction/explanation has to change to match observation, the explanation fails (is shown to be in error), as stated in the article. Conjecture/ hypothesis is welcome, of course, but has to be tagged as such. When a scientist changes his explanation to match the observation, this is tampering. The article explains this point (e.g. researchers are to sign and date their contribution as part of their protocol; have separate teams for explanation versus experimentation, etc.). We don't yet know how to do this for an experiment conducted entirely in one's mind. There is room for physical, communicable experiments, not involving neologisms. Digital twinning is far from thought experiment, as yet.

One thousand years ago, Alhacen (Ibn al-Haytham) made your point, that scientists are not free from error, and proved several points (in optics and in space science) to be in error, using experiment (it's in the article). So an open question in science has to be recognized as such; the science at that point remains a model, only a concept. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My point: thought experiments are a tool in the scientific method. They are of course not the only tool. Evidence is needed to test their assumptions. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)