Is there a method?

Since people are citing Post#23 as if it's especially authoritative, I'll address it again:

Some prehuman hominid is having trouble getting bone marrow out of bones. (observation) He wonders if hitting a bone with a rock might split it open. (hypothesis) He hits the bone with the rock and it either works or doesn't. (test).

Prescientific craft traditions are constructed out of that stuff. Textiles, copper and bronze metallurgy, building construction, animal and crop raising and ceramics all appeared in the neolithic period.

Contemporary laypeople are doing it every day. They call it 'common sense'.

Imagine an Islamic fundamentalist.

He observes some behavior.

He hypothesizes that it's forbidden by Islamic law.

He tests that hypothesis by consulting Quran, Hadith and Islamic juridicial scholarship.

My point is that this hypothesis-testing version of the 'scientific method' doesn't appear to be unique and specific to science at all. Practicing it certainly doesn't qualify one's practice as scientific. I most emphatically wouldn't want to call what the Islamic fundamentalist is doing 'science', but it probably does qualify as a common-sensical within its religious faith context.

Is merely performing the first step equivalent to performing all three steps when we are trying to determine whether or not a particular activity is an example of doing science?

Suppose that the expedition isn't seeking to discover new species. Suppose that it's intended to determine how many known species are found within a particular geographical area, and how many individuals of each species there are? I think that finding out the biodiversity and biomass of particular kinds of organisms in a geographical area is definitely an example of science, even though it doesn't appear to be an example of hypothesis testing. (I'm thinking of some of the work that Edward O. Wilson and company have done with ants in the Amazon basin.)

But before anyone can start hypothesizing about how extrasolar planets formed and got to the sometimes unexpected places where they are found (hot Jupiters), they have to be discovered. That currently involves a number of survey projects, using several different techniques (doppler, transits) in order to generate a catalog of known extrasolar planets and hopefully some information about their characteristics (orbital parameters, mass). Again, I want to say that these observational surveys are entirely bonafide examples of science, even before people start hypothesizing about the sometimes surprising data that they produce. Before people can start hypothesizing in an informed way, as opposed to mere guessing, they need to have some idea what's out there.

So what's wrong with the Islamic fundamentalist example up above? It isn't clear that all observations count as scientific observations. (Religious experience?) Certainly not all hypotheses are scientific. (Hypotheses about conformity to God's Law?) And clearly not all testing procedures are. (Consulting revelation?) It seems to me that there's a lot more going on there than merely observe, hypothesize, test.

And there's common-sense trial-and-error. I'm not sure that we would want to say that simply generating wild guesses at random is a scientific procedure. There's obviously an element of creativity involved in science, but it's informed creativity that's being disciplined somehow. Of course the Islamic jurist can and will say the exact same thing. So it seems to matter a great deal what kind of information informs the speculations and what it is that's constraining the guessing.

Russ and Paddoboy seem to think that there is. From their posts, I get the impression that they see the 'scientific method' as some kind of barrier between reason and truth on one hand, and bullshit on the other.

Right. The problem is that the stereotypical 'scientific method' schema doesn't even address that kind of stuff. That's why I think that it's too simplistic.

It's conceivable that it might be innate, another of our human instincts.

I'm certainly not denying it. What I'm questioning is whether it's unique to and somehow definitive of science. I'm more inclined to think of it as common-sense.

In a way that's what science is, a grand souped-up edition of common-sense, but one that's grown so technical and arcane that few non-scientists can even follow it any more.

Yeah, I've watched small children do that too. I think that you are right that they are exercising their cognitive faculties when they do it. It demonstrates cause and effect. It illustrates that they themselves are agents whose actions can have effects in the world. It allows them to form expectations and then verify their occurrance. It gets mommy and daddy stirred up (which is always fun). And there's probably something aesthetically pleasing about watching your food splatter on the floor and make a big mess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure I have inferred that the scientific method is common sense, and not just applicable to science.
Again, it is the foundation, the basis upon which logical reasoning develops. That in itself will weed out the nutters and Co.
And as I have also mentioned, I see serendipity as sometimes, being a part of that process.
Nothing wrong with a good old fashion, logical guess!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wouldn't any "guess" based on or rooted in "logic" be what most people would consider the definition of a hypothesis?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No logical argument against that definition exists......
Just to add that the same methodology extends well beyond the science disciplines into every day life and interactions.

 

no.
an hypothesis is an educated guess.
i can give an example:
there are certain instances where airplane pilots cannot rely on logic, they must rely on their "education", what they have read or heard from their instructors.

 

@ Trippy

I was under the impression that by your Posting of the "Interactive Flowchart" you were refuting my Statement in the OP :

As to your statement :

Well, I do not believe that I was in any way being "intellectually dishonest", nor "blatantly misrepresenting what you said", nor stating any type of "straw man hypothesis".
Since you have stated , though, that you "will be wasting no further time on it". It would seem that it is of little use for me to state that I do not concur.

I clearly stated why you chose not to include it, or how it seemed that you comprehended it - was, and still is, not for me to assume nor guess.

Trippy, no insult was intended or implied. I am sorry if you perceived anything in my Post as an insult.

And, as an aside, I will not take any of that being "intellectually dishonest", nor "blatantly misrepresenting what you said", nor stating any type of "straw man hypothesis" stuff as an insult, though in all fairness, it could or would be considered much more insulting that anything that I said.

Now as for the "Let's not forget this:" part : from : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02 (Bold by me)

In the ^^above quoted^^ it clearly says "in contrast to"..."the simplified scientific method" which would it seem infer that iberkeley.edu was in someway trying to distinguish "the simplified scientific method" from some other "scientific method", or possibly even "The real process of science".


But, hey does my interpretation of any written documents, or my views, or my considered opinion, mean anything now that, it seems to me, I have been judged guilty of "intellectual dishonesty" and using "straw man tactics"? :

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/goals.htm

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

 

Yep, apart from the philosophical ranting and expected variations, , the basis of the foundation of the scientific method, still exists, and always will.

 

So...if I use "logic", that I learned from my education, or even learned just from living my life, to formulate a "guess", am I then unable to formulate a "hypothesis" from that, as paddoboy referred to it : (Bold by me)

???

If a hypothesis can be formulated from a "logical deduction", can't a hypothesis also be formulated from a from a "logical guess"?

Realistically, if "logic" was the only method used, or even the primary way of thinking about or understanding and considering the issue about which the hypothesis was formulated - is there a major difference between whether it is called a "logical deduction" or a "logical guess"?

 

The scientific method, the application of commonsense and logic, leads us on a path into the discovery of reality, via laboratory-controlled and everyday experiments to weed out the true nature of the Universe/space/time from pseudo quackery, and other lame-brained concepts.

 

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_03

The scientific method, as the foundation stone of science and beyond, is backed and supported 100% in the above link....

* Scientific testing is at the heart of the process.
The process of science involves many layers of complexity, but the key points of that process are straightforward:
There are many routes into the process — from serendipity (e.g., being hit on the head by the proverbial apple), to concern over a practical problem (e.g., finding a new treatment for diabetes), to a technological development (e.g., the launch of a more advanced telescope) — and scientists often begin an investigation by plain old poking around: tinkering, brainstorming, trying to make some new observations, chatting with colleagues about an idea, or doing some reading.

* The scientific community helps ensure science's accuracy.


* The process of science is intertwined with society.

The scientific methodology in all its glory:

Again, this appears to be a storm in a teacup.
The links agree in fact with the scientific method, despite their claims to the contrary.
This appears to be a case of a controversial stand, just for the sake of being controversial. :shrug:

 

I would say that any method/procedure/approach that minimizes personal bias and subjective interpretations is 'scientific'....assuming the subject matter/observations are amenable to such objective/unbiased treatments. Pure 'philosophy' and 'religionism' can build on and extend 'scientific' results, but they cannot produce them in the first instance, but only compare/contrast to them for whatever personal/logical treatment 'beyond science applicability/reasons are being engaged in by pure philosophy logicians and self-referencing religionists.

The scientific method exists as soon as and wherever/whenever one or more intellects employ objective means and observations/interpretations at any stage or situation under study.

Sorry, that's all I had time to write; ran out of time. Cheers!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

my post was to show that an hypothesis does not rely solely on logic, it takes into account the accumulated knowledge of the observer.
my pilot example shows this to be a fact.

 

As i stated in a Previous Post :

Trippy, I apologize again for my mis-perception of the reasoning behind your Posting the "flowchart".

Again, Trippy, I was under the impression that by your Posting of the "Interactive Flowchart" you were refuting my Statement in the OP, when I asked you :

Again, you seem to have shown that my previous impression or perception of the intent of your Post was a mis-perception on my part.
So, again, Trippy I apologize.

The following is the rest of my Post after the "how an "Interactive Flowchart" proves conclusively" question quoted ^^above^^. :

Trippy, the ^^above quoted^^ to me, at least, is not proceeding "to argue against" any position attributed to anyone!

Trippy, the rest of that my Post was pointing out the omitted parts of the berkeley.edu page linked in your Post, and how I did not believe that it was a full and accurate representation of the content at that berkeley.edu page : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

To be completely honest, I was under the impression that the berkeley.edu page was referring to the "simplified scientific method" and that that simplified method was the one described in your own Post #23, which described the method as (a very brief synopsis- i see no need to quote the whole Post - since anyone can simply click on it!) :

I hope that was not to brief.

I can see no reason why anyone who completely reads it would fail to agree with it.

And,yes, Trippy, the berkely.edu page does indeed present only "The real process of science". But it does prominently point out (again, Bold by me) :

I figured that they had their reason or reasons for only mentioning "the simplified scientific method" instead of including what berkeley.edu evidentally considered a : from : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

...and on the flowchart Page : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

Trippy, I have tried my darnedest to honestly answer all of your points, questions and assertions to the best of my ability.

I have apologized, and again I sincerely apologize for any mis-perception on my part that appeared insulting or derogatory or in any way offended you.

I will even apologize for anything that I actually Posted, that caused you to mis-interpret, or mis-perceive, or mis-construe, or even simply mis-read because of any difference in my writing style. I have spent all of my adult life in, shall we call them "Jobs(?)"
where I was either expected to, or commanded to be very precise, very in depth and very complete in my "Job".

So, this being my very first foray into "Posting on social or science web-sites", my "virtual social skills" and "virtual writing/composing skills" are necessarily the same as everyone else's.

I profusely apologize for those "personal foibles" also.

Way too long a Post!

If I have missed anything, i am pretty sure that it will be pointed out to me.

I am sorry to have taken up so much of your (and all the other Members) time and Posting space.

 

Do you suppose that this Thread would have appeared "to be a storm in a teacup" if everyone had read all of the berkeley.edu Links, Prior to Posting any responses?

Also, I do not believe that berkeley.edu would make "a controversial stand, just for the sake of being controversial".