Talk:Scientific method/Draft

Scientific method

Current talk page

Archive 1

Alternative article: User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method

I finished the prototype of my alternative article, which is here:

User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method

I think it is:

1) Much better structured.

2) Much more textbook like (I had courses in philosophy of science)

3) Much more unbiased.

4) Much more focused on the important things.

5) Much more informative for the laymen, who want to get some quick information, what scientific method consist of.

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.

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! 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.

--Matthias Brendel 07:43, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.

Sorry to say it, but the only thing we are set up to do, right now, is to collaborate--not to replace. --Larry Sanger 09:06, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.Gareth Leng 09:28, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.

--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Larry:

1) You say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing.

2) I cannot collaborate with this article, since IT'S BASIC STRUCTURE IS BAD.

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.

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".

5) I could slowly replace everything according to my article, but

a) Why is that better? 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.

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?

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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?

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. Chris Day (Talk) 11:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.

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. --Larry Sanger 11:18, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Chris:

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

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.

3) "you can explain exactly how its structure needs to be improved". I explained it and I even demonstrated it. See my article.

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."

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.

You are creating a dangerous precedence, causing me to leave this projecct.

I just remind you that I am more of a specialist in this area than Gareth. And you simply throw out my work.

That is exactly the opposite than the goal of this project: you encourage people to disregard specialists. You do it yourself.

--Matthias Brendel 11:56, 6 March 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

please the topic WAS and IS scientific method. I fail to see anything related to that topic. 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. Robert Tito | Talk 13:21, 6 March 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

This is no Miss Universe contest, or Idol Robert Tito | Talk 13:02, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Outsider's View - Zach

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.

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.

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. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 19:44, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.

--Matthias Brendel 03:37, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Text book/encyclopedia/magazine

So which one are we? A bit of all three?

I have started this section since I think the following comments from above need to be addressed before we discuss content.

"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"

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?

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. Chris Day (Talk) 13:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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 Chris Day (Talk) 14:15, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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.

For me it is obvious that high quality is a more important aspect for CZ than enjoyability (I do not know the best phrase).

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. --Matthias Brendel 03:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)

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? Chris Day (Talk) 05:30, 7 March 2007 (CST)

To be accurate: my argument was this:

1. My article has a better quality in repsect to neutrality, structure, completeness, and so on. In short is more textbook like.
2. Gareth's article may have several other virtues, but his article is worse in these repsects.
3. Quality is more important than the other virtues. So a textbook like article is better than a magazine like.
4. 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.

So please try to get my argument accurately, and try to argue accurately! --Matthias Brendel 05:58, 7 March 2007 (CST)

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. Chris Day (Talk) 06:12, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Because we have to chose a basis. Currently the magazine article is chosen and Gareth tries to make it closer to my article. But the other way is better. Lets take my article and put in ther what is better in Gareth's. In my opinion Gareth's article is still fundamentally wrong. Wrong in structure, wrong in focus.

--Matthias Brendel 06:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)

the atmosphere this article breaths

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?? 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. Robert Tito | Talk 14:57, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Where to start

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.David Tribe 17:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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. Chris Day (Talk) 17:46, 6 March 2007 (CST)

TOPIC

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.

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

Structure

The structure is like this currently:

"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?

--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?

--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.

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? 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.

--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.

--Matthias Brendel 06:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)

I've had a go at the box; if it can be shifted to the right alongside the Contents it might work well? I wouldn't know about how to value philosophers except by their impact. Actually Popper first published in German and it was through Einstein (in German) that he first achieved prominence, but most (all?) of those philosophers you mention published in English and worked in the UK or USA. Certainly I have been selective in describing views that I know to have been influential in science. You're obviously including the USA as English; Kuhn is not English, and of the scientists mentioned, Einstein, Heisenberg, Kekule... ? From 1935 Carnap was in the USA. Gareth Leng 06:17, 7 March 2007 (CST)