Talk:Timeline of the history of the scientific method

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes & Queries

JA: 1700s & 1800s, No time for science, Ma, too busy revolting. Jon Awbrey 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a reference to : 2000 BC — First text indexes , please? I am unsure as to what it refers to. DanielDemaret 11:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started this list based on the one in this article which I found insightful and worth expanding. So I dont know where some of the entrries come from or if they are correct. Originally based on list at Speculations On The Future Of Science by Kevin Kelly.

I put Hero in here myself, but I am not 100% he belongs here. He is certainly notable, but if one does not allow engineering sciences into sciences, perhaps his documentations are inventions are not what one was after here?DanielDemaret 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed him as, although he undoubtedly made great inventions, his work was not a method. If we start to include every scientific advance the list will be enormous and confusing. I earlier removed the telescope and microscope for the same reason. Although they are important scientific tools they are not in themselves a method. Lumos3

I came to this article from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_scientific_method in which a section is written about Roger Bacon; it seems his works should be listed in the timeline as well. Thank you. Catha2008 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. please improve if you think fit.Lumos3 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1687 to 1920

Why is there a gap in this line between 1687 to 1920 ? There must have been some development in scientific method in that period. Lumos3 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This gap is closing but is there still nothing notable between 1753 and 1926? Lumos3 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alhazen

I have removed the scientist Alhazen who no doubt achieved great things but his entry does not fit the theme of innovations in scientific method. If this timeline becomes a history of scientific achievement then it will become hopelessly cluttered and confusing. If anyone can say how he added to method then please reinstate. Lumos3 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta study

the link for meta study is of a epidmeiologic experiment, not related to thomas kuhn at all. -capi

This is correct. Kuhn's name should be removed. I'm uncertain whether 'meta study' qualifies for the list.

The first edition of Kuhn's popular book, at least, contained no contribution to scientific method, but was a sociological analysis of science, nicely comparing universities with monasteries, & such. 'Meta study' appears a method of abstracting statistical experiments, so similar features can be isolated & compared. In this sense, it seems comparable to 'factor analysis' or the 'generalized correlation coefficient' (which is projective and uses no metric).

Much of science uses exploratory as well as confirmatory statistics (this despite Popper's restriction of science to 'falsification', whose methodology is equivlent to that of 'verification'). Many branches of science have adopted non-parametric statistical methods. Such methods, commonly used during induction, would certainly qualify as important methods of science, but I don't believe they contribute to the refinement of the scientific method. If these statistical methods are discarded, so (IMO) must 'meta study' be discarded. Geologist (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Popper affected Scientific Method?

This article addresses scientific method, that used by actual scientists, as opposed to scientific philosophy. The list was very educational, except I don't think 'Popper' replaced the clarity offered by C.S. Pierce, A. Einstein, P.W. Bridgman, & other scientists who found a need to identify concepts as scientific after the subject suddenly became more abstract. Induction & verification are still the everyday methods of most scientists (IMO), because their definition of truth is not the absolute, philosophical truth of philosophers*.

Which has had more effect on the everyday work of scientists? Popper's proof that induction is not deductive, and verification of absolute truth isn't possible; or Einstein's illustration that there was a very good reason why the concept of absolute time could not be expressed in terms of objective and operational language? Despite some errors by the Vienna Circle of philosophers, perhaps the 'positivism' as used by Einstein should be substituted for 'Popper'.

Chemists who founded thermodynamic theory used caloric theory long after it had been 'falsified' (without Popper's help), because it was simpler to use & its predictions usually 'close enough'. Even today, 'statistically' valid rules or laws are used more than accepted theories for daily 'back of the envelope' calculations needed to explore momentary ideas or check for blunders in the application of accepted theory. Geologist (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peirce

Many of Peirce's contributions were credited to later writers, especially Fisher and Popper. I gave an earlier reference for his trichotomy of deduction, induction and abduction (hypothesis, retroduction). I list his randomized experiments, which were credited to much later authors, previously. Fisher and Popper are now credited with popularizing and developing these ideas, where before they received sole credit (anachronistically).

Others

Maybe some social sciences and even artistic research should be added. Despite the name, I believe it has scientific underpinnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.205.219 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the"

The title of this article, and much of the content does not use the phrase "the scientific method". I see most of the talk on this page does the same. Is this common lingo within the meta-field? The scientific method page mostly does use "the", with the notable exception of the history subsection (which is what led me here). Tfocker4 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that the word the is included in the page title. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Is it not repetitive to say "Timeline of the history"? It's the timeline of the scientific method or the history of the scientific method, not the timeline of the history of the scientific method. -Mati Roy (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]