Talk:Scientific method/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chris day
imported>D. Matt Innis
(another formatting change - gray box removal)
 
(106 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
{{subpages}}


== Alternative article: [[User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method]]==
== An observation on 'method' article ==
I can see why the 'scientific method' article is so controversial.  The frequent citation of Peter Medwar in this particular version is a classic sign of Popperian devotion.  Still, any article purporting to state what is the scientific method will open a can of worms.


I finished the prototype of my alternative article, which is here:
The various different theories of 'scientific method' remain highly debated, as is the basic question of whether there is any one such method.  I should think that an historical account presenting the different major traditions of thought -- induction, deduction, abduction (pragmatism), hypothetico-deductivism, the current 'empirical' trend of just describing what scientists do  (etc) -- together with the contrasts between positions would be useful, in providing readers with a basic understanding of what has been said and what is currently disputed.  That is, how about simply describing the debate?


[[User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method]]
I wonder if the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) might be willing to allow links or abridged excerpts?  That way we might, in fairly little space, be able to describe the alternatives and allow readers to pursue further.


I think it is:
Nick Rasmussen


1) Much better structured.
Thanks Nick and welcome.It's certainly true that Popper has been a huge influence on scientists in the UK, (hypothesis-driven science has been the key word in Research Council guidance on grants for a long time now), and a lot of that has been indirectly through Medawar. One of the things to be aware of is that there is a separate article on[[History of scientific method]] - hence this was conceived as focussed on the scientific method in current practise.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:11, 9 March 2007 (CST)


2) Much more textbook like (I had courses in philosophy of science)
::Please see the copyright statement for the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: <http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#c> The encyclopedia project has the right to distribute it on the web or prepare derivative works, but the individual authors have the copyright in their individual articles. They do not use a GNU or GFDL license. There is no way we can incorporate text from there beyond fair use, unless both the authors and the encyclopedia release it into the public domain. I do not think that likely. What we can do, is refer to it for a more formally academic  treatment of many of our topics. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 04:19, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


3) Much more unbiased.
:::The current article is not really about "the scientific method" as much as the Methodology of Science. By the latter I mean, the ways scientists go about practicing their profession.  


4) Much more focused on the important things.
:::By the former, I mean a short (4-step) procedure used by scientists to confirm or refute a specific discovery.  This "method" is more of a checklist, to ensure you've done your homework.  


5) Much more informative for the laymen, who want to get some quick information, what scientific method consist of.
:::Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
:::#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
:::#The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
:::#The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
:::#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.
:::Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]


I suggest to take that article and continue from that article. I suggest that we incorporate from Gareth' article step by step parts, if they are really important and missing from my article.
:::For me, the most important part of this 4-step process is where it recommends drawing conclusions from the hypothesis. The scientist then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.


It is however much worse in spelling and style, since I am not a native English. So please copy-edit it, moreover, reformulate the sentences!
:::Logically, it works like this:
The apripriate references are also missing, but those can be obtained from Garet's article.


I just think that my article is a better framework.
:::*Hypothesis: the moon is made of green cheese.
:::*#If this is true, then the spectrum of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
:::*#Astronomer X did a spectral analysis of moonlight and found that it did not match green cheese.
:::*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.


--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 07:43, 6 March 2007 (CST)
:::If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the criteria used by medical researchers to determine whether a particular germ causes a disease. Such factors as:
:::*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least antibodies indicating its presence)?
:::*Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a threshold?


Matthias, the difficulty with starting a competing article is that you in essence ask other contributors to replace what they have worked on with your work. Who will make that decision?  I'd rather not, because I have no interest in alienating other contributors. Besides, the only ones who ought to make the decision are philosophers of science, and we don't have any such philosophers active right now (that I know of).  No philosophy editor is going to become active only to say, "Your work is out, and your work is in."  So we have no way, no mechanism, whereby the hard work of one contributor can entirely replace the hard work of another contributor.
:::I think this was used in determining whether ''e. coli'' bacteria in water makes people sick. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


Sorry to say it, but the only thing we are set up to do, right now, is to collaborate--not to replace. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:06, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Ed, all due respect, your understanding of the scientific method makes sense, and sounds good- but is off, whereas Gareth's is extremely sophisticated, and despite that-(or maybe because of it) sounds wrong. Everything you are saying is smart and well written, - but at least after "Logically, it works like this:", it is also completely incorrect. (Ouch!! sorry, I mean it with a giggle, but still, it's true) In fact, the lack of the ability to confirm that the spectral analysis of green cheese matches that of moonlight in no way proves that the moon is not made out of green cheese. It could be that the spectrographer was inexperienced and read the machine incorectly. It could be that some artiifact interefered with the reading. It could be that the type of green cheese that the moon is made out of gives off a different wavelength than green cheese on earth. Negative evidence never is proof. The proof for a germ causing a disease that you list is also naive, and unfortunately has been used by many physicians to mistreat patients- despite good intentions. Please understand,I am not trying to put you down- I just think that this point is at the very heart of this article. You are presenting a common, perhaps even majority view, which is actually incorrect. In the scientific method, the logic has to be proveable- the proof has to be positive. Again, if a person is found with a disease and the germ and antibodies are not found, this in no way proves that the disease can be caused without the germ. What it shows is that the presence of the germ cannot be proven in that person with current methods. It actually happens all the time. Sometimes, with more sophisticated tests the person can be shown to have evidence of the germ. Of course, it may be that the person does not have the germ, but that cannot be proven by the lack of a positive result. Koch's postulates, that are used to prove infectious cause of disease work differently, by positive evidence. Anyway, it is really possible to have a false negaitive and sometimes, that will be found in every single case. For eaxmple, it is very hard to culture spirochetes, and so an attempt at culturing the organisms for syphilis and Lyme diseas will always, unless extremely special methods are used that are only avaiable in a couple of research labs, come up negative-even when only people who are infected are cultured. In other cases, a culture or antibody test to identify an organism will not be positive, but still the organism is there, and the negative result is due to some glitch in timing (the person was infected 3 days ago, and although most infectede people show antibodies, this person has not yet begun producing them) or the specific way the test was done (the culture is usually positive, but in this case the culture plate was left out of the incubator too long). I say patients have been mistreated because sometimes doctors have depended completely onthe results of lab tests without really thinking about the limits of proof, and in this way denied antibiotics to those with Anthrax, and transfused blood from high risk patients if the antibody test for HIV was negative. All these tests have limitations and no test that fails to show a result is proof, ever.PS-I made the same mistake in [[Pseudoscience]] when talking about narcotic drugs that are found to be "not addictive" and stood corrected, myself. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 10:43, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


== Bayesian inference ==


Thanks Mathias. There is a clear difference of style and intent behind the two versions. I'm not going to comment on the content, but what motivated my version was the wish to produce an article that is readable by a lay reader, in requiring no specialised prior knowledge. It was not intended to be exhaustive (the length does not allow this), but intended as a sampler, an introduction to some of the issues, in the way that [[Biology]] is not remotely exhaustive, but is provocative for the reader in its own, different way. It was certainly intended to be anything but a textbook chapter. I've restructured it in light of the comments aired about this version. I think one way forward might be to add a "See also" section that directs readers to the type of specialised issues that you allude to in your article.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:28, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Somewhat ironically, I just stumbled across [[Probability]] yesterday, and today I just stumbled across this article. It seems that the familiar (and misleadling) truism that "you can't prove a negative" is causing a lot of (potentially) unnecessary angst. If you don't accept Kolmogorov's axioms or, at least, ''some'' axiomatization of probablitly, then any mathematical analysis is going to be meaningless. B ut if I observe that on 100 cloudless days it does not rain, I actually am collecting quantifiable information on the likelihood of rain on a cloudy day (assuming I also pay attention to how ofen it rains, and how often it is cloudy!) Of course, this doesn't really address the epistemologic issues raised here, but it does seem to me that arguments about "negative" evidence being unable to support positive assertions are basically fallacious. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 11:57, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


Gareth: You know my opinion. Your article is a non-organized collection of some of your favourite ideas, philosophers, examples and citations. It has no structure. It is not a textbook chapter, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Your article is a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article.
Popper's attack on Bayes was founded in logic: a universal statement of the form "All swans are white" is logically equivalent to the statement "all non-white things are not swans". Thus if you accept that you can infer the truth of the first statement by mere observation of white swans, you must equally accept that you can infer its truth by sufficient observation of non-white things that aren't swans. As few will accept that observing that blades of grass are green would ever be good grounds for believing that all swans are white, Popper concluded that it is logically invalid to infer a universal from any finite set of observations. More generally, he declared that to do so is unwise because there may be any number of different possible explanations for any finite set of observations. Accordingly he argued that instead we propose a hypothesis and seek to disprove it, not to support it.


--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Medicine, as Nancy says, at its best proceeds in exactly this way: diagnosis is made not by observing symptoms, as many different diseases produce similar systems. Instead, diagnosis proceeds by a process of ''exclusion'', by considering possible causes, and seeking by further tests to exclude them as actual causes. What survives this process is regarded as the most likely diagnosis.


Larry:
In science generally, confirmatory evidence of the sort you describe is not looked on favourably. There are many reasons for this, but one is simply that we often see what we wish to see, and tend to report that which is consistent with what we would like to believe and disregard that which is consistent. Knowing this weakness in ourselves, we distrust it when we see it in others.
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


1) You say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing.
But the point is- a negative test, by itself, does not exclude the diagnosis. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:05, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


2) I cannot collaborate with this article, since IT'S BASIC STRUCTURE IS BAD.
Indeed, doubt is eternal. (Well, until the pathologist gets there anyway).[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 13:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


3) So as I see what happens here that if something is started and a lot of effort was made then whatever wrong the direction is, you do not dare to correct the mistake. THAT IS BAD.
"Negative" evidence needs some defining I think. Negative evidence in the sense of the failure to observe an expected effect is generally considered weak for many reasons (lack of evidence is not evidence of lack being one reason). It is certainly not possible to show absolutely that there is no effect from any measurements, only that the effect may be smaller than the ability to detect it. However as Nancy says, science is full of examples of false negatives caused by a wide variety of factors.  


4) What is with my effort. Shall I just throw out my article? You did not say that "do not do this other version, we will trow it out anyway".
However experiments to exclude a cause are not negative evidence in this sense. For example, if a child of otherwise normal proportions and in good health is growing only slowly, the physician might suspect a disorder in the endocrine regulation of bone growth. One cause of dwarfism is a congenital failure to synthesize growth hormone, and a blood sample may well reveal that growth hormone is absent. However this is now known to be unreliable, with a high incidence of false negatives, as growth hormone is secreted not continuously but intermittently. In fact this is not the only explanation - another is that it is the receptors for growth hormone that are absent, and a third is that the signal from the hypothalamus - the growth hormone releasing factor - is absent. So there are at least three plausible hypotheses for the failure to grow. The physician can begin by attempting to exclude each in turn. If you give the child an injection of GRF, then this should elicit a release of GH if GH is being made by the pituitary. In this case if there is an observed release then the hypothesis of a lack of GH production is excluded - excluded by positive demonstration. However again the failure to see GH secretion may be a false negative, in this case either because the defect may be a lack of GRF receptors, or an excess of somatostatin, which is an inhibitory factor that can override the actions of GRF. The first can be excluded by challenging with a different GH secretagogue, say ghrelin which acts through a separate receptors. A response to secretagogue will exclude a lack of GH production, leaving a specific defect in the GRF receptors as the remaining likely cause.


5) I could slowly replace everything according to my article, but
The point is in all this the logical process is to exclude plausible hypotheses systematically, rather than to try to verify one in particular.


a) Why is that better?
Having said that, in science all paths are open and all are taken. Nevertheless many of the most influential experiments in science are designed in the following way: from a generally accepted theory and a given set of observations draw a conclusion A, find a different explanation for the set of observations, B. Design an experiment where A implies one outcome and B a different outcome. Do the experiment to disprove either A or B. The surviving hypothesis is not "proved", it merely survives while the other falls.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
b) It is a lot of quarel.


6) My suggestion is the same: let us take my article as a basis, since its STRUCTURE is better, and put into my article Gareth's work.
::Gareth, I myself (let's stay in context and not read the last thing and jump to conclusions) am not given to philosophical discourse. Please read Ed's example of disproving the moon is made of green cheese, and my reply. If you disagree with my reply, please let me know. I know that I can learn from you. If you don't, you might say so- so as to avoid leaving that impression here. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 08:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT)


:::Sorry to get sidetracked, I fully agree with your reply to Ed. The thread above was really addressed to Greg's comments on Bayesian inference and negative evidence, not a qualification of your response above.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:46, 16 May 2007 (CDT)


The question is: shall we replace the furniture of a good building with some good pieces of furniture from a wrong building, or vice versa? Or just destroyout the good building, and keep the bad one with some good pieces, but wrong structure?
It's interesting that you use medicine as an example, too, because this seems to me to be the model ''par excellence'' of Bayesian inference. Think about it: a patient presents with difficulty breathing. Is he a smoker? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of emphysema somewhat. does he have any (known) allergies? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of an allergic reaction. Is he over 40? Yes. Well, that makes heart disease a more likely possibility. His blood pressure is 170/110. Oops. Now, that really does make heart disease looke more likely. You get the idea. (Caveat: I'm not a doctor, so I make no claim that this scenario is realistic.) Like Nancy(?), I'm really less interested in philosophical discussions than I am in a practical understanding of scientific inquiry, and Bayesian inference seems to me to have the advantage of plausibility (no one would go about testing the hypothesis that all swans are white by examining every non-white thing they can find to see if it is, in fact, not a swan) and the added advantage of being practical from an implementation standpoint (i.e., programs can be written to implement Bayesian networks). [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 16:50, 16 May 2007 (CDT)


{{nocomplaints}}
The logical problem is that the Bayesian ''should'' consider examining every non-white thing they can find to see if it is, in fact, not a swan. Except for one thing, for Bayesian processes to work you have to attach values to the prior probabilities, and this is impossible in the swans case. Trouble is it is also impossible in most cases. The example you give is one where there might be rational grounds for attaching probabilities, but these are exceptions rather than the norm. I wouldn't dispute that scientists don't often reason in the way you describe, but I think they do so to generate hypotheses which they can then subsequently test. You don't draw conclusions on circumstantial evidence unless you have to and when this is the best evidence you've got. Doctors of course have to make a best guess sometimes, but in acting on it they are still in effect testing their hypothesis in that they wouldn't draw a conclusion prescribe a treatment and then discharge the patient - instead they follow up, checking to see whether their hypothesised diagnosis is disproved by the effects of the treatment on the patient.


--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)
To what extent medicine is in fact scientific is a different issue. I think what makes the scientific approach different from the medical approach is the goal - for a doctor the overriding concern is that the patient gets better, and explaining an illness is merely a route to finding a treatment that works, and it doesn't really matter why the treatment works, or even that the improvement is in fact because of the treatment. A scientist would probably prefer to decapitate the patient if that was needed for a critical experiment to better establish the real cause of disease, but this is generally frowned on in medicine.
I think one index of how scientists feel is in the kinds of comments that referees give when rejecting manuscripts: phrases like "mere correlation", "circumstantial evidence", "circular reasoning", "no mechanistic explanation", "failure to exclude alternative explanations", "no clear hypothesis", "merely confirmatory evidence", "lacking a critical test" and "purely negative evidence" are very common grounds for rejection, if not always fair. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:40, 17 May 2007 (CDT)


I have to chime in here after watching this proceed for so long.  The wikipedia article is not better.  It is different.  In my opinion it is actually very confusing to read. Yes, the CZ version reads like a magazine article, is this is critiscism or a complement? Why can't we have both?  We desperately need a more approachable article than the one on wikipedia. I am certain that most of the people that read this article will be high school students, therefore a magazine-like article is good from that perspective.  I don't see why an extension of these themes cannot be explored at a higher level in sister articles?
== Math workgroup ==


With regard to you first comment, "''you say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing''". This does not make sense. Yes, there was an article imported from wikipedia but authors are encouraged to write their own. Gareth started with a blank sheet of paper not a wikipedia article. Maybe you had significant input to the wikipedia version, if so it would be good to work with Gareth incorporating some of the better ideas. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 11:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Does it really belong in Math Workgroup? Inspired by recent discussions on ID (or on its appointment to Bio Workgroup), I think that no mathematical training include problems of this kind. Mathematicians are not working on this, are they... Neither they can approve it, nor prevent from approving some mathematical parts (are there any?). Actually, even some portions relevant to statistics, IMHO,  belong rather in Philosophy than in Math. IMHO, a math editor can act here as an author only. Paradoxically, from a point of view, Math is not considered a science at all ;-) While the topic is of my personal interest, I suggest deleting Math Workgroup tag. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 01:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


Matthias, I agree with what Chris says re "this is what Gareth has done": no, he started over, and that is behavior that we on CZ want to support. And he did this before you arrived on the scene.  Now, if you leave it up to me, we won't replace our article (it isn't Gareth's, it's CZ's) with yours.  The fact that you took the trouble to write another article is impressive and praiseworthy but it should not obligate us to use it, or to create a new process whereby someone can write a new article out of whole cloth and simply expect to replace the current one.  As to your complaints about the current article, they are ''your opinion.''  If you think, for example, that "its basic structure is bad," then you can explain exactly how its structure needs to be improved, and perhaps the current article can be supplemented with material from yours. You worry about "a lot of quarrel" in this case, but for us simply to replace the current article with an article developed by someone else, who just happens to claim that it is better, when neither party is an editor in the relevant area--well, that would create a huge amount of ill-will, and would set a dangerous precedent, which I want to avoid.
== natural phenomena ==
From the article: "Scientists propose hypotheses to explain natural phenomena".
Does not this (inadvertently I am sure) imply that only "natural science" is real science? [[User:Daniel Demaret|Daniel Demaret]] 02:15, 13 January 2008 (CST)


I will ask you, please, instead of simply dismissing another excellent contributor's work, actually to argue and explain your points, and allow us to engage in a dialectic, or else leave the article alone entirely. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:18, 6 March 2007 (CST)
:Thanks :-)[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:36, 4 February 2008 (CST)


Chris:
== Is the "scientific method" pseudoscience? ==


1) As I remember an encyclopaedia doe differ from a magazine very much. It is closer to a textbook article. So this is a criticism
Growing up in school I always thought that the scientific method was how you develop and test theories... is it actually a load of bunk? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:09, 4 February 2008 (CST)


2) Our goal is to create a good encyclopaedia, and for this purpose a Wikipedia article is not less worth than any other contribution. Who wrote the article is not an factor.
: Some of us (try) to do that (to adopt a "philosophical" approach). But if you look at what most scientists actually do - well, they do all kinds of things, and quietly, they often think that what some of their colleagues do is close to pseudoscience. It works from both sides, data collectors often treat theory with contempt (the current line in denigration is that hypotheses encourage a biased view of data), some theorists think that data collection is mindless (that data without theory is garbage), people with different ideas regard each other with scarce concealed suspicion about their sanity, intellect or honesty - sometimes even when the ideas are scarcely distinguishable to an outsider. It's competitive; maybe it has to be. But I don't think it's bunk, not at all; it's just that human elements are important. :-) [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:33, 5 February 2008 (CST)


== Proposed change to lead-in ==


3) "you can explain exactly how its structure needs to be improved". I explained it and I even demonstrated it. See my article.
Gareth and others: The link to "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" in the lead-in does not work.  I found an apparently stable link. I also made a few wording and formatting changes. Let me know if the following acceptable:
<br>
<br>
Scientists use a '''scientific method''' to investigate phenomena and acquire [[knowledge]]. They base the method on verifiable observation &mdash; i.e., on [[empirical]] evidence rather than on pure logic or supposition &mdash; and on the the [[reasoning|principles of reasoning]].<ref>[[Isaac Newton]] (1643-1727) [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newton-princ.html The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy] Excerpts in: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Source:  [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html Modern History Sourcebook]</ref><ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/newtonspmathema00newtrich Full-Text: Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (c1846), including BOOK III. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY]</ref> Scientists propose [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] to explain phenomena, and test them with [[experiments]]; they also formulate [[Theory#Science|theories]] that encompass whole domains of inquiry, and which bind supported hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes.


The technological achievements of the modern world have led many to conclude that the success of science stems from the methodological rules that scientists follow. Not all philosophers and scientists accept that conclusion, and some deny that science has a genuinely methodological process at all.


4) "but for us simply to replace the current article with an article developed by someone else, who just happens to claim that it is better, when neither party is an editor in the relevant area--well, that would create a huge amount of ill-will, and would set a dangerous precedent, which I want to avoid."
<references />


Simply to keep things how they are, because you have no editor is a more dangeorus precedent. As I see Citizendium is not better organized than WIkipedia. You just forked Wikipedia, I do not se what for.


In Wikipedia it was at least possible to change something along the majority opinion. Here I see that it is not possible to change something. Things remain the same because of lazyness.
: Great, but don't hesitate Anthony, you've absolutely no need to check with me. Glad you're interested.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:21, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


You are creating a dangerous precedence, causing me to leave this projecct.
== QM is in apparent contradiction to GR ==


The article states "quantum mechanics is in apparent contradiction to general relativity".  I have never heard before that QM and GR are in contradiction. It is common wisdom that GR is difficult to quantize, but that is something else. There is a formulation (by Dirac) of QM which is in agreement with special relativity (i.e., the Dirac equations are Lorentz covariant).  As far as I know, GR does not posit a basic principle, such as Lorentz covariance, that is violated by the laws of QM. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


I just remind you that I am more of a specialist in this area than Gareth. And you simply throw out my work.
== Einstein refuted Newton's theory of gravitation ==


That is exactly the opposite than the goal of this project: you encourage people to disregard specialists. You do it yourself.
I think "refute" is too strong a word. When the NASA sends probes into outer space they still use Newton's gravitational law, not Einstein's. Einstein extended and refined Newton's theory, but for all practical purposes Newton's theory is still correct and applicable. (Until recently General Relativity did not have ''any'' practical applications, this has been changed by GPS, where apparently GR corrections are needed for high precision positioning).--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 11:56, 6 March 2007 (CST)
== Blog post on the topic -- feedback welcome ==


I have drafted a blog post addressing about half of the question [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:OpenScientist/What_would_science_look_like_if_it_were_invented_today What would science look like if it were invented today?]. Feedback would be welcome. I will join you for this approval by the end of the month. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


== external links ==


{{nocomplaints}}
I just noticed that there are a bunch of external links in the text of this article.  They seem to link to good sources, but I think most should be internal links, while the others are probably more appropriate as footnotes.  --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


please the topic WAS and IS scientific method. I fail to see anything related to that topic.
: Is there a rule for using (or not using) external links ''in'' the text? My personal opinion is that they should be avoided and transfered to references and/or the subpage. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As I am very virginal to the principle of the scientific method, it seems to me it is (I believe) about:
observations
reproducible observations
explanation
verification and falsification
please stick to that topic and stay clear from side ways and side turns that are not directly related.
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 13:21, 6 March 2007 (CST)


{{nocomplaints}}
::Yes, avoiding them is the rule, even though I cannot track it down right now. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


This is no Miss Universe contest, or Idol
==  The technological achievements of the modern world ==
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 13:02, 6 March 2007 (CST)


===Outsider's View - Zach ===
I have taken out the following paragraph and paste it here for your consideration:
I'll admit to not being an expert on the scientific method, but I have to say that I find Matthias's article easier to read, however looking at many of the factual changes that Gareth added to this version, many of them are both factual and organizational improvements.  I think Matthias's intro is too long.  I would limit it to a maximum of 1/2 or maybe 2/3 its current line-count.  On the other hand, I think that Gareth's version goes a bit over-board on the quotes.  Quotes are great when they reinforce a point, but we don't need 1-2 in each section if they don't really help the article that much. I like how both articles have good coverage of the elements of the method, but I think that Matthias's version has it split slightly better into sections.  I also think Matthias's version has a lot of better coverage in sections 2 and 3 that are missing in the current version of the current article.
<blockquote>The technological achievements of the modern world have led many to conclude that the success of science stems from the methodological rules that scientists follow. Not all philosophers and scientists accept that conclusion, and some deny that science has a genuinely methodological process at all. </blockquote>


I think that we need to get over the idea of this being "someone's" article.  It's not.  It's the group's article.  I think there's enough merit to the alternative version that I think it would do well as the core around which we could add stuff from the current article.  I think the layout is good, and while it has obvious spelling/grammar issues as well as a lack of sourcing, it's still a good article, and I think that with some work in combining the two, we can have a lot better article overall.
For me, it raises a number of questions, starting with Did the achievements lead to the conclusion? Is this justified? Are the "some" deniers philosophers or scientists? --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


By these comments, I obviously mean no disrespect to any authors or contributors.  I'm just trying to provide another point of view on the (apparently contentious) issue. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Speak to me]]) 19:44, 6 March 2007 (CST)
:The first part is an argument often associated with TS Kuhn - he sought to understand what scientists actually did, not what philosophers thought they ought to be doing, and argued that because science was in fact successful, the rules by which they operate must have some merit, even when they involve dogma and conservatism. Certainly not all philosophers have accepted that success follows from any rules - Paul Feyeraband conspicuously denied that there are any common or consistent rules by which scientists work.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. So this confoirms my claim that at least there are some people, who agree that my article is better organized. If this is so, this also confirms my claim that my article is a better startpoint, since its structure is better. The better parts of Gareth's article can be incorporated in my article better, then the other way.
== Approval or not on the 20th ==


--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 03:37, 7 March 2007 (CST)
I, as the Constable who has been approving all the articles for the last 5 months or so, absolutely will NOT approve any article in which the Editor's approval date is not the same as the last edited version. In other words, if an Editor says, we will approve the version of June 20th, and then other people make edits as of the 22nd, it is simply too complicated for my simple mind. Please work it out with Joe Quick or Matt Innes, but don't count on me for approving it. I've said this before, although not quite as bluntly, and it is now my policy for the future. I am just a simple Constable, not an Editor, and I refuse to take part of any Editorial decisions about which versions should or should not be approved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:As far as I could see, it has been common (though not universal) practice to (1) use the initiation of the approval process to invite further comments, updates and perhaps edits or approvals from other editors, (2) to adapt the date of the approved version shortly before the approval, such that these additional edits would be included in the approved version. Ideally, this leads to the approved version and the last edited draft version having the same time stamp. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


==Text book/encyclopedia/magazine==
::Your assessment is correct, Daniel.  When an editor places the ToApprove template, he/she is asking others (authors and editors) to come and check it out, make last minute changes/discuss content/make copeyedits, etc..  It is up to that editor to change the approved version as we get closer to the approval date.  The editor may choose not to include those edits, however. Keep in mind that other editors in the appropriate workgroups can remove the tag if they feel that something represents their workgroup improperly.  In other words, that time is used to get more eyes on the article and fine tune it.  We don't want to impede that process, so keep going - in fact, we encourage you to make changes, please.


So which one are we? A bit of all three?
::Having said that, since Paul has made [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Scientific_method&diff=100516832&oldid=100508255 content edits], it would require that we have two more editors in order to approve this article under the three editor rule. At this point, others can still sign on, but when the time comes to approve, if there aren't three, then constables can't approve it. I hope that makes sense.
::[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I have started this section since I think the following comments from above need to be addressed before we discuss content.  
:::I have just extended the approval date again, so that a third editor can be found and has time to read the piece before approval. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::"''an encyclopaedia does differ from a magazine very much. It is closer to a textbook article''"


::"''Our goal is to create a good encyclopedia, and for this purpose a Wikipedia article is not less worth than any other contribution''"
::::Okay.  I assume that you are going to be the second, so don't forget to put your name in there, too!  Then all that needs to happen is that I see somewhere on this talk page that all three of you agree to the version that is in the metadata template... (so don't forget to check that, too, when you are ready).  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


To me the whole problem here is more about presentation than content. Matthias, do you really think we serve the world better by replicating a text book style or britannica?  Why can't citizendium do its own thing? Accuracy is critical but i see no problem in experts cherry picking their favourite examples to present in a more essay-like format. Just out of interest, why do you think CZ should be more like a text book?  In your opinion is there room for more magazine-like commentary, and if so, how should the interface between the text book and the magazine look?  
== Should this book be added to biblio, discussed? ==


With regard to CZ being disorganised, this is clearly the case. We have too few editors, policy and style pages are still in flux, approval system is still being worked through by trial and error. And many more issues.  However, this is a pilot and we have to start some where.  Is it frustrating?  Yes, it can be. Will it get better?  Yes. You cannot make a difference if you don't hang around. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 13:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method<br>
:I just started a thread in the forum that may be better for discussing this topic in depth. See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,629.0.html  [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:15, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Henry H. Bauer<br>
University of Illinois Press, 1994<br>
ISBN0252064364, 9780252064364<br>


I thought CZ is a free enyclopaedia and not a free magazine. I thpught CZ is a Wikipedia fork, which aims for better content and better organization, but for the same thing: namelly a free encyclopaedia. But maybe Larry did not define this clearly, and I was misslead. I do not see any reason in doing a free magazine.
[http://tinyurl.com/mm5aeo Google book preview]


For me it is obvious that high quality is a more important aspect for CZ than enjoyability (I do not know the best phrase).
Henry H. Bauer, professor of chemistry and science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.


I do not see any reason just to try to create something else, while you even do not know, what is that else. I do not contribute to a project, without a clear concept. --[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 03:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Also: [http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/77xzw7sp9780252064364.html U Ill. Press Release] - description


:Matthias, I'm not trying to suggesting that we create something else but I think an encyclopedia can be enjoyable too. This is a modest goal but essential to attract new readers and teach them to love knowledge. Kids have a very short attention span, but once you have their attention who knows what could happen. For me, one of the goals is to get their attention, so readbility and enjoyability are essential for CZ to be worthwhile. My highest priority, however, is accuracy and this is where wikipedia can be very weak, at least in my field of biology. With respect to quality, why do we have to lose enjoyability to achive a high quality product? Wouldn't something that is accurate AND enjoyable be of the highest quality?  [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 05:30, 7 March 2007 (CST)
[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


To be accurate: my argument was this:
== Formatting ==


#My article has a better quality in repsect to neutrality, structure, completeness, and so on. In short is more textbook like.
Since there were plenty of external links in the text, I have started to convert them into references. I also started to clean up the intrawiki links, but both actions have yet to be completed. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
#Gareth's article may have several other virtues, but his article is worse in these repsects.
#Quality is more important than the other virtues. So a textbook like article is better than a magazine like.
#So if we have to chose a basis, then the textbook articleis better then the magazine like.


Since you agree in all the premises, you have to accept the conclusion. The other things you write about were not a question. I did not write that we shall disregard enjoyability, I sayd that it is secondary to high quality.
:It looks like all the external links in the text are gone. I cleaned up the unidentified links in the references too. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


So please try to get my argument accurately, and try to argue accurately! --[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 05:58, 7 March 2007 (CST)
::I'm done with a rough brush of formatting and have added my approval. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


:I don't understand why i have to accept one or the other re: your previous poll and again your argument above.  While you do not write "we shall disregard enjoyability" you do say "''So if we have to chose a basis, then the textbook article is better then the magazine like.''" My argument is that we need to write something that inlcudes the best of both. We need to blend, not throw out one or the other.  [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 06:12, 7 March 2007 (CST)
== A Constable's question ==


== the atmosphere this article breaths ==
Does this article need a third editor or not for Approval? Matt seemed to be saying so above. Joe? Matt? Anyone? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:I am ready for this but want the wiki formatting (particularly of the references) to be brushed before, and couldn't do it all myself. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


is one of middle aged women joining on their weekly gossip meeting  - and the topic this time is the method, uhm method? yes the scientific method. Lets have another sherry shan't we??
::Well, I will wait until I have a formal go-ahead from Joe, the Approvals Manager. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The topic seems to be forgotten in personal debates, arguments are seldom on topic or in place. For those interested it might be new, but confer to the books written by Störig. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 14:57, 6 March 2007 (CST)


==Where to start==
:::I did some cleanup in the references myself but I'm not sure what more still needs to be done.  We have two more days until the approval deadline and I'm off work until Saturday so I can keep working on it, but I'd like some guidance on what you think is most important, Daniel.  Otherwise, I'll just focus on general touch-up. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm interested in contributing to this article, but want to find the top priority area for specific improvement first, especially since a lot of work has been done already. Can anyone suggest a particular part or issue that's the best point of attack, before I move in on the text? I can see there is a lot of solid content in Mathias' alternative document, but the issue is where to we insert some of the additional content in the existing article. I can see that content like logical positive thought and the Vienna Circle are not developed extensively in the existing article, but I think the alternative text needs work on how it presents them.[[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)
::::By the way, Ruth wants to follow how I do the approval and because of her schedule I probably won't be doing it until well into the evening of the 24th. So don't panic if you don't see it being approved during the day.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:Mathias' major problem, after style, appears to be structure. So i agree with you that the major issue, to reach harmony here, appears to be where to insert it. Once we have a structure that we can all agree on, then we can worry more about the content. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 17:46, 6 March 2007 (CST)


== Approval status ==


== TOPIC ==
Okay, I see Daniel has checked in and is satisfied with the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Scientific_method&oldid=100534152 July 24th version].  Are Anthony and Paul also willing to endorse this version?  If so, we'll be good to go for Hayford and Ruth tonight. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 12:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


All remarks should be within the topic. Remember the scientific method is about verifying or falsifying theories by using experimental observations. It is not used to prove experimentally derived experiments to prove something not theoretically defined.
:I have reviewed the latest changes and can heartily approve this first class article. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


Please stay on topic and do not use personal arguments, as scholar you should use the science as argument not the person.
[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 21:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)


== Structure ==
==APPROVED Version 1.0==


The structure is like this currently:
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div>
 
"1 Elements of scientific method
2 Hypotheses and theories
3 The scientific method in practice
3.1 Hypotheses
3.2 Experiments and observations
3.3 Peer review
3.4 The scientific literature
3.5 Confirmation
3.6 Statistics
3.7 Progress in science
4 Alternative views
5 See also
6 Notes and references
7 External links "
 
1, 2 and 3 is redundant. 2 shall be a part of 1, since hypotheses and theories are elements of scientific method. 3 is the same as 1 should be. I do not see any reason to list the elements of scientific method again. Important topics are missing, like philosophycal issues, and models of scientific method, which are important for the philosophycally interrested reader.
 
Why can't we use my structure from [[User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method]], which is better?
 
--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 04:12, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 
== Introduction ==
 
The current introduction is:
 
* Too short
* Not neutral. There is not even a hint that some philosophers do not agree with the nomological-deductive model, and that there are even philosophers, who claim there is no method, or are against method.
 
Why can't we use my introduction from [[User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method]], which is more detalied and more neutral?
 
--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 04:15, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 
==Content==
This is not my article it is CZ's. I have provided content that I can affirm to be accurate and verifiable; I have checked all references to Popper Kuhn and Feyeraband both against the original texts and any interpretation of them against other commentaries. Certainy this tect is selective, selective because of my own particular knowledge; I was taught philoophy at university for example by Popper's biographer, David Miller, so it is inevitable that I know more about him than others. However it would be very hard to escape Popper, as he is a rare case of a philosopher whose work has had a major impact on the thinking od scientists and the practice of science. In part this was through his collaborations with and promotion by Einstein, Medawar and Eccles in particular, and perhaps therefore greater in the UK than elsewhere, but the Logic is phenmenally highly cited and influential. (Incidentally Mathias, your assertion that Popper "followed" Pierce, if it implies derivation as it seems to, is inconsistent with Popper's assertion that he was unfamiliar with Pierce's work until after he had published the Logic). Kuhn's book of course is even more highly cited, and these two dwarf all other texts at least in this measure of impact. Feyeraband selects himself in part for his contrariness to Popper and in part because (I think) his views chime with those probably of most scientists, but I may be wrong in that.
 
Actually I wholly agree with Mathias that the Introduction was unbalanced in not referring to the dissent; this has been a clear misunderstanding because I'd earlier moved Feyeraband from prominence at the beginning to a passage at the end because of an earlier apparently oppodite concern from Mathias, that the article introduced dissenting views too early. I'm very happy to redress this, and have done so.  
 
Popper Kuhn and Feyeraband had one thing in common; they all strongly affirmed that what they were doing was reporting on what scientists actually did. So I do think that scientists have a legitimate interest in and voice in this article. Clearly it is at present consistent with what I know, from my own experience, of the practice of science.
 
I don't think I've ever suggested that the article shouldn't be expanded. Just that I'm not able to write with any confidence on all things. That is why we collaborate, after all.
 
However, I think that Mathias's comments point to an apparent solution; Citizendium does not at present have an article on [[Models of scientific inquiry]] that Mathias' version links to. Creating that article and linking to it from here would address the content deficiency.
 
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:09, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 
Written before reading Gareth above)
:: Looking at both Introductions, I'd say the current one is clearly better in terms of style, simplicity and reader friendliness. I'm not sure that longer is better, and Im not sure its undesirably less than neutral. On the other hand the section (boxed) 'Elements of scientific' method in the alternative seems nicely organised and to be useful addition, although in could be edited with benefit.
:: The complete restructuring of what has been produced so far worries me a bit in terms of rudeness to those who have put a lot in already. Why not try an work up Elements of scientific method box early in the article and see how we go? [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 05:21, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 
Gareth:
 
1) Popper is one influential philosopher of science. You may be well trained on Popper and Kuhn, but that is very narrow. I have a broader training. Beside Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend, Carnap, Hempel, Lakatos, Toulmin, Barnes & Bloor, and a lot of other philosophers are also relevant.
 
2)Your training is very English-focused. Popper had a great influence in the English speaking world, because he was in England and published in English. He is a little bit over-valued in the English-speaking world. You native English tend to forget about the other parts of the world.
 
So I think you have too much attention on Popper and Kuhn and too few on others. Actually, you only have English authors in your article (from the middle ages on). That is too narrow.
 
--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 06:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 
David: Yes, it is becomming better. I still favour my version. areth's is a little bit too brief for me still.
 
--[[User:Matthias Brendel|Matthias Brendel]] 06:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Latest revision as of 20:46, 24 July 2009

This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The concept of systematic inquiry based on hypotheses and their testing in light of empirical evidence. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Philosophy, Physics and Biology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant British English

An observation on 'method' article

I can see why the 'scientific method' article is so controversial. The frequent citation of Peter Medwar in this particular version is a classic sign of Popperian devotion. Still, any article purporting to state what is the scientific method will open a can of worms.

The various different theories of 'scientific method' remain highly debated, as is the basic question of whether there is any one such method. I should think that an historical account presenting the different major traditions of thought -- induction, deduction, abduction (pragmatism), hypothetico-deductivism, the current 'empirical' trend of just describing what scientists do (etc) -- together with the contrasts between positions would be useful, in providing readers with a basic understanding of what has been said and what is currently disputed. That is, how about simply describing the debate?

I wonder if the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) might be willing to allow links or abridged excerpts? That way we might, in fairly little space, be able to describe the alternatives and allow readers to pursue further.

Nick Rasmussen

Thanks Nick and welcome.It's certainly true that Popper has been a huge influence on scientists in the UK, (hypothesis-driven science has been the key word in Research Council guidance on grants for a long time now), and a lot of that has been indirectly through Medawar. One of the things to be aware of is that there is a separate article onHistory of scientific method - hence this was conceived as focussed on the scientific method in current practise.Gareth Leng 11:11, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Please see the copyright statement for the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: <http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#c> The encyclopedia project has the right to distribute it on the web or prepare derivative works, but the individual authors have the copyright in their individual articles. They do not use a GNU or GFDL license. There is no way we can incorporate text from there beyond fair use, unless both the authors and the encyclopedia release it into the public domain. I do not think that likely. What we can do, is refer to it for a more formally academic treatment of many of our topics. DavidGoodman 04:19, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
The current article is not really about "the scientific method" as much as the Methodology of Science. By the latter I mean, the ways scientists go about practicing their profession.
By the former, I mean a short (4-step) procedure used by scientists to confirm or refute a specific discovery. This "method" is more of a checklist, to ensure you've done your homework.
Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
  1. Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
  2. The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
  3. The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
  4. Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.
Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [1]
For me, the most important part of this 4-step process is where it recommends drawing conclusions from the hypothesis. The scientist then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.
Logically, it works like this:
  • Hypothesis: the moon is made of green cheese.
    1. If this is true, then the spectrum of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
    2. Astronomer X did a spectral analysis of moonlight and found that it did not match green cheese.
    3. Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.
If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the criteria used by medical researchers to determine whether a particular germ causes a disease. Such factors as:
  • Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least antibodies indicating its presence)?
  • Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a threshold?
I think this was used in determining whether e. coli bacteria in water makes people sick. --Ed Poor 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Ed, all due respect, your understanding of the scientific method makes sense, and sounds good- but is off, whereas Gareth's is extremely sophisticated, and despite that-(or maybe because of it) sounds wrong. Everything you are saying is smart and well written, - but at least after "Logically, it works like this:", it is also completely incorrect. (Ouch!! sorry, I mean it with a giggle, but still, it's true) In fact, the lack of the ability to confirm that the spectral analysis of green cheese matches that of moonlight in no way proves that the moon is not made out of green cheese. It could be that the spectrographer was inexperienced and read the machine incorectly. It could be that some artiifact interefered with the reading. It could be that the type of green cheese that the moon is made out of gives off a different wavelength than green cheese on earth. Negative evidence never is proof. The proof for a germ causing a disease that you list is also naive, and unfortunately has been used by many physicians to mistreat patients- despite good intentions. Please understand,I am not trying to put you down- I just think that this point is at the very heart of this article. You are presenting a common, perhaps even majority view, which is actually incorrect. In the scientific method, the logic has to be proveable- the proof has to be positive. Again, if a person is found with a disease and the germ and antibodies are not found, this in no way proves that the disease can be caused without the germ. What it shows is that the presence of the germ cannot be proven in that person with current methods. It actually happens all the time. Sometimes, with more sophisticated tests the person can be shown to have evidence of the germ. Of course, it may be that the person does not have the germ, but that cannot be proven by the lack of a positive result. Koch's postulates, that are used to prove infectious cause of disease work differently, by positive evidence. Anyway, it is really possible to have a false negaitive and sometimes, that will be found in every single case. For eaxmple, it is very hard to culture spirochetes, and so an attempt at culturing the organisms for syphilis and Lyme diseas will always, unless extremely special methods are used that are only avaiable in a couple of research labs, come up negative-even when only people who are infected are cultured. In other cases, a culture or antibody test to identify an organism will not be positive, but still the organism is there, and the negative result is due to some glitch in timing (the person was infected 3 days ago, and although most infectede people show antibodies, this person has not yet begun producing them) or the specific way the test was done (the culture is usually positive, but in this case the culture plate was left out of the incubator too long). I say patients have been mistreated because sometimes doctors have depended completely onthe results of lab tests without really thinking about the limits of proof, and in this way denied antibiotics to those with Anthrax, and transfused blood from high risk patients if the antibody test for HIV was negative. All these tests have limitations and no test that fails to show a result is proof, ever.PS-I made the same mistake in Pseudoscience when talking about narcotic drugs that are found to be "not addictive" and stood corrected, myself. Nancy Sculerati 10:43, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Bayesian inference

Somewhat ironically, I just stumbled across Probability yesterday, and today I just stumbled across this article. It seems that the familiar (and misleadling) truism that "you can't prove a negative" is causing a lot of (potentially) unnecessary angst. If you don't accept Kolmogorov's axioms or, at least, some axiomatization of probablitly, then any mathematical analysis is going to be meaningless. B ut if I observe that on 100 cloudless days it does not rain, I actually am collecting quantifiable information on the likelihood of rain on a cloudy day (assuming I also pay attention to how ofen it rains, and how often it is cloudy!) Of course, this doesn't really address the epistemologic issues raised here, but it does seem to me that arguments about "negative" evidence being unable to support positive assertions are basically fallacious. Greg Woodhouse 11:57, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Popper's attack on Bayes was founded in logic: a universal statement of the form "All swans are white" is logically equivalent to the statement "all non-white things are not swans". Thus if you accept that you can infer the truth of the first statement by mere observation of white swans, you must equally accept that you can infer its truth by sufficient observation of non-white things that aren't swans. As few will accept that observing that blades of grass are green would ever be good grounds for believing that all swans are white, Popper concluded that it is logically invalid to infer a universal from any finite set of observations. More generally, he declared that to do so is unwise because there may be any number of different possible explanations for any finite set of observations. Accordingly he argued that instead we propose a hypothesis and seek to disprove it, not to support it.

Medicine, as Nancy says, at its best proceeds in exactly this way: diagnosis is made not by observing symptoms, as many different diseases produce similar systems. Instead, diagnosis proceeds by a process of exclusion, by considering possible causes, and seeking by further tests to exclude them as actual causes. What survives this process is regarded as the most likely diagnosis.

In science generally, confirmatory evidence of the sort you describe is not looked on favourably. There are many reasons for this, but one is simply that we often see what we wish to see, and tend to report that which is consistent with what we would like to believe and disregard that which is consistent. Knowing this weakness in ourselves, we distrust it when we see it in others. Gareth Leng 13:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

But the point is- a negative test, by itself, does not exclude the diagnosis. Nancy Sculerati 13:05, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed, doubt is eternal. (Well, until the pathologist gets there anyway).Gareth Leng 13:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

"Negative" evidence needs some defining I think. Negative evidence in the sense of the failure to observe an expected effect is generally considered weak for many reasons (lack of evidence is not evidence of lack being one reason). It is certainly not possible to show absolutely that there is no effect from any measurements, only that the effect may be smaller than the ability to detect it. However as Nancy says, science is full of examples of false negatives caused by a wide variety of factors.

However experiments to exclude a cause are not negative evidence in this sense. For example, if a child of otherwise normal proportions and in good health is growing only slowly, the physician might suspect a disorder in the endocrine regulation of bone growth. One cause of dwarfism is a congenital failure to synthesize growth hormone, and a blood sample may well reveal that growth hormone is absent. However this is now known to be unreliable, with a high incidence of false negatives, as growth hormone is secreted not continuously but intermittently. In fact this is not the only explanation - another is that it is the receptors for growth hormone that are absent, and a third is that the signal from the hypothalamus - the growth hormone releasing factor - is absent. So there are at least three plausible hypotheses for the failure to grow. The physician can begin by attempting to exclude each in turn. If you give the child an injection of GRF, then this should elicit a release of GH if GH is being made by the pituitary. In this case if there is an observed release then the hypothesis of a lack of GH production is excluded - excluded by positive demonstration. However again the failure to see GH secretion may be a false negative, in this case either because the defect may be a lack of GRF receptors, or an excess of somatostatin, which is an inhibitory factor that can override the actions of GRF. The first can be excluded by challenging with a different GH secretagogue, say ghrelin which acts through a separate receptors. A response to secretagogue will exclude a lack of GH production, leaving a specific defect in the GRF receptors as the remaining likely cause.

The point is in all this the logical process is to exclude plausible hypotheses systematically, rather than to try to verify one in particular.

Having said that, in science all paths are open and all are taken. Nevertheless many of the most influential experiments in science are designed in the following way: from a generally accepted theory and a given set of observations draw a conclusion A, find a different explanation for the set of observations, B. Design an experiment where A implies one outcome and B a different outcome. Do the experiment to disprove either A or B. The surviving hypothesis is not "proved", it merely survives while the other falls.Gareth Leng 03:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Gareth, I myself (let's stay in context and not read the last thing and jump to conclusions) am not given to philosophical discourse. Please read Ed's example of disproving the moon is made of green cheese, and my reply. If you disagree with my reply, please let me know. I know that I can learn from you. If you don't, you might say so- so as to avoid leaving that impression here. Nancy Sculerati 08:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry to get sidetracked, I fully agree with your reply to Ed. The thread above was really addressed to Greg's comments on Bayesian inference and negative evidence, not a qualification of your response above.Gareth Leng 10:46, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

It's interesting that you use medicine as an example, too, because this seems to me to be the model par excellence of Bayesian inference. Think about it: a patient presents with difficulty breathing. Is he a smoker? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of emphysema somewhat. does he have any (known) allergies? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of an allergic reaction. Is he over 40? Yes. Well, that makes heart disease a more likely possibility. His blood pressure is 170/110. Oops. Now, that really does make heart disease looke more likely. You get the idea. (Caveat: I'm not a doctor, so I make no claim that this scenario is realistic.) Like Nancy(?), I'm really less interested in philosophical discussions than I am in a practical understanding of scientific inquiry, and Bayesian inference seems to me to have the advantage of plausibility (no one would go about testing the hypothesis that all swans are white by examining every non-white thing they can find to see if it is, in fact, not a swan) and the added advantage of being practical from an implementation standpoint (i.e., programs can be written to implement Bayesian networks). Greg Woodhouse 16:50, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

The logical problem is that the Bayesian should consider examining every non-white thing they can find to see if it is, in fact, not a swan. Except for one thing, for Bayesian processes to work you have to attach values to the prior probabilities, and this is impossible in the swans case. Trouble is it is also impossible in most cases. The example you give is one where there might be rational grounds for attaching probabilities, but these are exceptions rather than the norm. I wouldn't dispute that scientists don't often reason in the way you describe, but I think they do so to generate hypotheses which they can then subsequently test. You don't draw conclusions on circumstantial evidence unless you have to and when this is the best evidence you've got. Doctors of course have to make a best guess sometimes, but in acting on it they are still in effect testing their hypothesis in that they wouldn't draw a conclusion prescribe a treatment and then discharge the patient - instead they follow up, checking to see whether their hypothesised diagnosis is disproved by the effects of the treatment on the patient.

To what extent medicine is in fact scientific is a different issue. I think what makes the scientific approach different from the medical approach is the goal - for a doctor the overriding concern is that the patient gets better, and explaining an illness is merely a route to finding a treatment that works, and it doesn't really matter why the treatment works, or even that the improvement is in fact because of the treatment. A scientist would probably prefer to decapitate the patient if that was needed for a critical experiment to better establish the real cause of disease, but this is generally frowned on in medicine.

I think one index of how scientists feel is in the kinds of comments that referees give when rejecting manuscripts: phrases like "mere correlation", "circumstantial evidence", "circular reasoning", "no mechanistic explanation", "failure to exclude alternative explanations", "no clear hypothesis", "merely confirmatory evidence", "lacking a critical test" and "purely negative evidence" are very common grounds for rejection, if not always fair. Gareth Leng 03:40, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Math workgroup

Does it really belong in Math Workgroup? Inspired by recent discussions on ID (or on its appointment to Bio Workgroup), I think that no mathematical training include problems of this kind. Mathematicians are not working on this, are they... Neither they can approve it, nor prevent from approving some mathematical parts (are there any?). Actually, even some portions relevant to statistics, IMHO, belong rather in Philosophy than in Math. IMHO, a math editor can act here as an author only. Paradoxically, from a point of view, Math is not considered a science at all ;-) While the topic is of my personal interest, I suggest deleting Math Workgroup tag. --Aleksander Stos 01:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

natural phenomena

From the article: "Scientists propose hypotheses to explain natural phenomena". Does not this (inadvertently I am sure) imply that only "natural science" is real science? Daniel Demaret 02:15, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks :-)Gareth Leng 09:36, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Is the "scientific method" pseudoscience?

Growing up in school I always thought that the scientific method was how you develop and test theories... is it actually a load of bunk? --Robert W King 10:09, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Some of us (try) to do that (to adopt a "philosophical" approach). But if you look at what most scientists actually do - well, they do all kinds of things, and quietly, they often think that what some of their colleagues do is close to pseudoscience. It works from both sides, data collectors often treat theory with contempt (the current line in denigration is that hypotheses encourage a biased view of data), some theorists think that data collection is mindless (that data without theory is garbage), people with different ideas regard each other with scarce concealed suspicion about their sanity, intellect or honesty - sometimes even when the ideas are scarcely distinguishable to an outsider. It's competitive; maybe it has to be. But I don't think it's bunk, not at all; it's just that human elements are important. :-) Gareth Leng 03:33, 5 February 2008 (CST)

Proposed change to lead-in

Gareth and others: The link to "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" in the lead-in does not work. I found an apparently stable link. I also made a few wording and formatting changes. Let me know if the following acceptable:

Scientists use a scientific method to investigate phenomena and acquire knowledge. They base the method on verifiable observation — i.e., on empirical evidence rather than on pure logic or supposition — and on the the principles of reasoning.[1][2] Scientists propose hypotheses to explain phenomena, and test them with experiments; they also formulate theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry, and which bind supported hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes.

The technological achievements of the modern world have led many to conclude that the success of science stems from the methodological rules that scientists follow. Not all philosophers and scientists accept that conclusion, and some deny that science has a genuinely methodological process at all.



Great, but don't hesitate Anthony, you've absolutely no need to check with me. Glad you're interested.Gareth Leng 08:21, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

QM is in apparent contradiction to GR

The article states "quantum mechanics is in apparent contradiction to general relativity". I have never heard before that QM and GR are in contradiction. It is common wisdom that GR is difficult to quantize, but that is something else. There is a formulation (by Dirac) of QM which is in agreement with special relativity (i.e., the Dirac equations are Lorentz covariant). As far as I know, GR does not posit a basic principle, such as Lorentz covariance, that is violated by the laws of QM. --Paul Wormer 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein refuted Newton's theory of gravitation

I think "refute" is too strong a word. When the NASA sends probes into outer space they still use Newton's gravitational law, not Einstein's. Einstein extended and refined Newton's theory, but for all practical purposes Newton's theory is still correct and applicable. (Until recently General Relativity did not have any practical applications, this has been changed by GPS, where apparently GR corrections are needed for high precision positioning).--Paul Wormer 08:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blog post on the topic -- feedback welcome

I have drafted a blog post addressing about half of the question What would science look like if it were invented today?. Feedback would be welcome. I will join you for this approval by the end of the month. --Daniel Mietchen 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

external links

I just noticed that there are a bunch of external links in the text of this article. They seem to link to good sources, but I think most should be internal links, while the others are probably more appropriate as footnotes. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a rule for using (or not using) external links in the text? My personal opinion is that they should be avoided and transfered to references and/or the subpage. Peter Schmitt 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, avoiding them is the rule, even though I cannot track it down right now. --Daniel Mietchen 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The technological achievements of the modern world

I have taken out the following paragraph and paste it here for your consideration:

The technological achievements of the modern world have led many to conclude that the success of science stems from the methodological rules that scientists follow. Not all philosophers and scientists accept that conclusion, and some deny that science has a genuinely methodological process at all.

For me, it raises a number of questions, starting with Did the achievements lead to the conclusion? Is this justified? Are the "some" deniers philosophers or scientists? --Daniel Mietchen 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part is an argument often associated with TS Kuhn - he sought to understand what scientists actually did, not what philosophers thought they ought to be doing, and argued that because science was in fact successful, the rules by which they operate must have some merit, even when they involve dogma and conservatism. Certainly not all philosophers have accepted that success follows from any rules - Paul Feyeraband conspicuously denied that there are any common or consistent rules by which scientists work.Gareth Leng 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval or not on the 20th

I, as the Constable who has been approving all the articles for the last 5 months or so, absolutely will NOT approve any article in which the Editor's approval date is not the same as the last edited version. In other words, if an Editor says, we will approve the version of June 20th, and then other people make edits as of the 22nd, it is simply too complicated for my simple mind. Please work it out with Joe Quick or Matt Innes, but don't count on me for approving it. I've said this before, although not quite as bluntly, and it is now my policy for the future. I am just a simple Constable, not an Editor, and I refuse to take part of any Editorial decisions about which versions should or should not be approved. Hayford Peirce 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could see, it has been common (though not universal) practice to (1) use the initiation of the approval process to invite further comments, updates and perhaps edits or approvals from other editors, (2) to adapt the date of the approved version shortly before the approval, such that these additional edits would be included in the approved version. Ideally, this leads to the approved version and the last edited draft version having the same time stamp. --Daniel Mietchen 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Your assessment is correct, Daniel. When an editor places the ToApprove template, he/she is asking others (authors and editors) to come and check it out, make last minute changes/discuss content/make copeyedits, etc.. It is up to that editor to change the approved version as we get closer to the approval date. The editor may choose not to include those edits, however. Keep in mind that other editors in the appropriate workgroups can remove the tag if they feel that something represents their workgroup improperly. In other words, that time is used to get more eyes on the article and fine tune it. We don't want to impede that process, so keep going - in fact, we encourage you to make changes, please.
Having said that, since Paul has made content edits, it would require that we have two more editors in order to approve this article under the three editor rule. At this point, others can still sign on, but when the time comes to approve, if there aren't three, then constables can't approve it. I hope that makes sense.
D. Matt Innis 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just extended the approval date again, so that a third editor can be found and has time to read the piece before approval. --Daniel Mietchen 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I assume that you are going to be the second, so don't forget to put your name in there, too! Then all that needs to happen is that I see somewhere on this talk page that all three of you agree to the version that is in the metadata template... (so don't forget to check that, too, when you are ready). D. Matt Innis 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this book be added to biblio, discussed?

Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method
Henry H. Bauer
University of Illinois Press, 1994
ISBN0252064364, 9780252064364

Google book preview

Henry H. Bauer, professor of chemistry and science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Also: U Ill. Press Release - description

Anthony.Sebastian 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Since there were plenty of external links in the text, I have started to convert them into references. I also started to clean up the intrawiki links, but both actions have yet to be completed. --Daniel Mietchen 16:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all the external links in the text are gone. I cleaned up the unidentified links in the references too. --Joe Quick 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm done with a rough brush of formatting and have added my approval. --Daniel Mietchen 08:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A Constable's question

Does this article need a third editor or not for Approval? Matt seemed to be saying so above. Joe? Matt? Anyone? Hayford Peirce 18:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am ready for this but want the wiki formatting (particularly of the references) to be brushed before, and couldn't do it all myself. --Daniel Mietchen 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I will wait until I have a formal go-ahead from Joe, the Approvals Manager. Hayford Peirce 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some cleanup in the references myself but I'm not sure what more still needs to be done. We have two more days until the approval deadline and I'm off work until Saturday so I can keep working on it, but I'd like some guidance on what you think is most important, Daniel. Otherwise, I'll just focus on general touch-up. --Joe Quick 21:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Ruth wants to follow how I do the approval and because of her schedule I probably won't be doing it until well into the evening of the 24th. So don't panic if you don't see it being approved during the day.... Hayford Peirce 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval status

Okay, I see Daniel has checked in and is satisfied with the July 24th version. Are Anthony and Paul also willing to endorse this version? If so, we'll be good to go for Hayford and Ruth tonight. D. Matt Innis 12:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the latest changes and can heartily approve this first class article. Anthony.Sebastian 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


APPROVED Version 1.0