Is there a method?

Correct.

The use of the word "methods" in this context means, essentially, any action taken by a doctor in the performance of his duties. The "method" a doctor uses when excising a hemorrhoid is not related to finding the "fundamental Laws of the Natural world".

This is exactly what I was talking about: you appear to be trying to expand the definition of "scientific method", which then makes it more difficult to constrain and enables crackpots to self-label them scientists and claim they are following "a scientific method".

This is totally wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One word you didn't bold and leopold omitted from his restatement of his claim was the word "scientific", which precludes examples of inventions, which aren't discovered nor are they part of the scientific process. It is possible that leopold didn't know if I was talking about the data collection part of the scientific method or the theory/hypothesis generation part, so that's why I re-asked the question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree.* I said:
"Astronomers have a clever, complex set of definitions that make that {moon orbits the earth} POV 'correct truth'...."

You replied:

So please state for me that "clear and easily accessible" definition which makes the moon not orbit the sun when the earth does and yet their trajectories about the sun differ by less than the width of a pencil line when accurately plotted, a large as is possible, on 8.5 by 11 inch sheet of paper.

If you can not tell the "clear and easily accessible definition" that when applied makes the these two bodies on essentially the same path about the sun have only one (the Earth) in a solar orbit and the other be NOT in a solar orbit; then tell me why my saying the definition astronomers use is not, as I said, "a clever, complex set of definitions" basically designed to make that distinction, preserving the ancient POV that the moon orbits the Earth.

A "clear and easily accessible definition" that makes sense as it makes both earth and moon be in solar orbit in essentially the same orbit is:

"Body A orbits body C, IFF body A goes completely around body C and is ALWAYS curving towards body C."

(Note, if you don't know already, IFF means "IF and only IF.") Also, note to be technically correct both body A & C may be orbiting a "massless body" or point "B" called the Barycenter of A&C.

Fact is that the moon is curving towards the earth only for about 15 or < 17 days at a time. (When it is farther from the sun than the earth is.) I.e. then the fact it is always turning towards the sun makes it also be tuning towards the earth. For the period when the moon is less than "half full" it is turning AWAY from the earth in its very slightly wobbling, elliptical trajectory about the sun.**

Stating this in more precise mathematical terms: the curvature of the moon's trajectory, viewed from the sun, is always concave, turning towards the sun and the "center of curvature" is always near the sun and never near the earth but always far from the Earth. (Roughly 1 AU distant from the Earth.)

* And conversely, when the definition is complex and difficult to understand ("not accessible" to 98% of the people), the chances are good it was constructed to preserve a prior POV or at least to confuse the question / truth for 98% of the people. - let them continue to believe what their great grandfather did.

** It is the fact that a moving body is turning towards (accelerating towards) what ever object or point is the dominate force acting on it. It is the sun, not the Earth, which is always "gravitationally pulling" on the moon, more than the Earth is.

 

I see this whole sorry debate as the proverbial storm in a teacup!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

maybe.
i'm not privy to every single theory ever made so i can't say for sure.
it's my opinion that theories come either from direct observation or they are outgrowths of other theories.

no.

 

R_W, may I be allowed to clarify?

The example I gave was somewhat brief and I will freely admit may be in need of further clarification. Also as you stated, "The "method" a doctor uses when excising a hemorrhoid is not related to finding the "fundamental Laws of the Natural world". The scientific methods are utilized prior to the excision, during the examination and final diagnosis.

For the reason that hemorrhoids are somewhat easy to diagnose, I will use the other example that I used, distinguishing between a benign and malignant tumor - if that is alright with you.

I will use the 3 Steps Posted by Trippy, in his Post #23 of this Thread - I hope that Trippy does not mind! :

1) Make an observation.
2) Develop a hypothesis.
3) Test the hypothesis

- Something is bothering someone, so they visit the doctor.
- The doctor performs an examination - 1) makes an observation
- The doctor makes a preliminary diagnosis - 2) develops a hypothesis
- The doctor then orders a biopsy to confirm his preliminary diagnosis - 3) tests the hypothesis
- The results of the biopsy may lead to a confirmation of the preliminary diagnosis, or may lead to the necessity to repeat some or all of the 3 steps until the actual cause of the bother is properly identified and whether or not the bother needs to be addressed with any surgery or further treatment.

R_W, I hope that my clarification has been clear and concise enough that you realize that I was not trying to imply that any and all action(s) "taken by a doctor in the performance of his duties" utilizes scientific methods.

I do however believe that I am correct in my view that what I explained in my clarification is an example of applied scientific methods in the precise actions of the Doctor during the diagnostic stage of properly identifying the bother.

 

Grok'd!

 

I will not say more on this, but think it is on subject, just a my comments that most people falsely believe things have certain color, that the sky is blue, etc. was.

The thread's topic is how, by what method, are facts or knowledge learned / justified.
As I noted in prior post, many "facts" are based on visual observation by a person (really most people, not just a few) with accurate / well functioning vision, but that alone does not make them true. "Seeing may be, often is, believing" but that is how false "facts" usually arise - like the "fact" the sun goes around the earth did for 99.9999% of the people once.

In case you missed it, here is part of post 83's text, from Stanford encyclopedia / Epistemology:

"... Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK, (traditional or common POV about knowledge) because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. ... Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there.
There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge. ...
Cases like that — known as Gettier-cases[5] — arise because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient for ensuring that a belief is ... true ..."

I will add a large set of "Gettier case" examples: ..."{I'm omitting them here. - See in post 83}

DO YOU STILL THINK MY POSTS ARE "OFF TOPIC"? if so, why? Epistemology IS the topic, even if most don't know what that means.
Epistemology is the study of the METHODS by which knowledge (and beliefs) are acquired and justified.

I think nearly half the posts here have NOTHING to do with epistemology - are either semantic arguments or thinly disguised name calling or personal attacks. If you agree, that ~ 50% are "off topic" why not give them the warning you gave me for postings that were directly on topic?

 

The berkeley Link : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php - as I read it clearly makes the assertion about a Misconception :

The other link also clearly contains the assertion : http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/goals.htm (Bold by me, dmoe)

Trippy, I do not honestly believe that I am confounding anything, nor do I believe that any of the Links that I Posted, "precisely support the assertion that there is only one scientific method".

The links that I posted exist on there own merits, and I, for one, find no confounding or confusion in any of them.

In all of my schooling, from grade school through college, I was always taught "The Scientific Methods" and that the basic steps in those methods were not always linear, and could, within certain parameters, necessitate using the basic steps in a different order or in a repetition of the basic steps in different orders.

Trippy, prior to starting this thread I asked someone about starting it, and was told : "Feel free, far be it for me to stand in the way of a robust debate".

It would seem that this Thread has, indeed, produced a somewhat "robust debate".

It would seem that on certain portions of this debate, I can only accept that some of us (possibly only myself!) will have no choice but to agree to disagree.

 

actually the debate is about the difference between the scientific method and the methods used by scientists.
dmoe is confusing the 2.
there is only ONE, repeat ONE, scientific method and that method was outlined by trippy in post 23,

 

I would hope that all of the members know exactly what Epistemology is, but...

Billy T, although the Topic of this Thread would be at home in, or could be a part of any discussion of Epistemology, Epistemology is not a required or necessary component in this Thread.

So...I must agree with Trippy on this issue.

If you feel the need to discuss the myriad of ways that the different types of knowledge are developed and utilized, there is nothing stopping you from starting a Thread on it.

Just like I was told (and I am tipping my hat to him and hope he realizes that I am attributing this quote to him!), : "Feel free, far be it for me to stand in the way of a robust debate".

So...yes Billy T, it might just be better to follow Trippy's suggestion. Heck, there is no reason to get a "Ban" over a simple misunderstanding or difference of opinion, especially when you can start another Thread, just as easily as you can Post in this one.

 

Bingo!!!!

 

I'm still not sure why there's such a hostile response to the idea that there might be a whole tool-kit of scientific methods as opposed to one single scientific method.

It's a widely shared opinion. Here's the results of a simple Google search for the phrase "single scientific method" on .edu (American university) websites.

Obviously the idea that there are multiple scientific methods may or may not be correct. But merely expressing the view certainly isn't sacrilege or heresy.

 

It presents an "Interactive Flowchart" that clearly illustrates the non-linearity of the different basic methods used by the Sciences.

I "got it" nearly 40 years ago, and have had no problem utilizing the various methods, in various capacities and disciplines through the ensuing years.

Maybe, you can explain how an "Interactive Flowchart" proves conclusively "...that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".

Trippy, I know that pointing out obvious details can lead to being falsely accused of "trolling" and being "banned" - but one little, minor, insignificant and evidently worthy of ignoring (since you failed to include it) detail is what is CLEARLY PRINTED PROMINENTLY at the top of the page containing the "Interactive Flowchart" that you Posted your PNG.'s of: link : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02 (Bold by me) -

Again, the ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

Exactly why you chose not to include it, or, it seems, to fully comprehend what is written there in plain English is not for me to assume nor guess.

So... :

Yes, Trippy, I do get exactly what you Posted!

However, what you Posted in your Post #118 is not a full and accurate representation of the content at the berkeley.edu page : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

Where , again, it clearly states (again, Bold by me) :

 

you are now moving the goal posts.
your original post (the OP) implied that there is more than one "scientific method".
you now seem to be implying that there is more than one method scientists use to gain knowledge.
there is indeed more than one method scientists use to gain knowledge BUT there is only ONE "scientific method" (see post 23).

 

leopold, I am moving no "goal Posts". My OP implied nothing, it clearly stated my views and the views of the entities whose content I Posted.

I have read Post #23. Have you completely read the content at the Links that I Posted in the OP? If you want to "argue" their content - "argue" it with them and not me.

Possibly, you could re-read the OP, and read what I clearly stated - instead of reading "some implied perception" into the OP.