Is there a method?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Juanchogespacho, Jan 11, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    In Post #180 of this Thread, a very helpful Poster, saw fit to Post, what appeared to be the contents of :

    I had referenced that Link in my Post #96 of this Thread :
    For the simple reason that I do not Post anything that I have not read : nor do I soon forget what I read - it seemed to me that apparently some content was missing in the Post #180.

    For that reason, I believe that the missing content should me Posted in context.

    I am going to to Post the first part of the content of the Page - which contains content, that for whatever reason, got omitted in Post #180.

    ***NOTE*** being new to this stuff - I am unable to Post the .gif or diagram ***NOTE***

    I will now Post the the beginning of the content and will Bold what seems, to me at least, was somehow omitted.

    -the following is from (Bold by me) :
    It would seem, to me at least, that the simple omission of this small phrase, from (again, Bold by me) :

    Well, it somehow just seems, to me at least, to , shall I say...affect the gist of the content.

    This is especially true concerning the overall gist of Post #180 - to me at least.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    I utilized Trippy's description, from his Post #23, of what I considered to be "the Simplified Scientific Method", in my Post #109 - and clearly stated that.

    To Wit (Bold by me):
    You know, R_W, there just might be some Posters "desperately trying" something on this thread!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    OMG !
    he's starting to crack.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Right: thereby rendering your point superfluous.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Thank you....Being the poster that posted that link at 180, the part left out, purposely, was just the step by step method of the said simple scientific method. Reason? I would assume those that generally come to a science forum are familiar with that step by step I am generally quite reluctant in posting lengthy replies and only see the need to post whatever illustrates the point I want to make.
    It certainly in no way alters the overall gist of the link.
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists

    "The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

    One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

    Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

    Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."===

    "Myth #4: Scientists follow the scientific method as it was taught in high school: Observation, Question,
    Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion.

    Truth: In reality, the way scientists work is more like: Fiddle Around, Find Something Weird, Retest It, It
    Doesn’t Happen a Second Time, Get Distracted Trying to Make It Happen Again, Go to Chipotle, Recall
    the Original Purpose of Your Research, Start Over, Apply for Funding for a Better Instrument, Publish
    Some Interim Fluff, Learn That Someone Has Scooped You, Take Your Lab in a New Direction, Apply for
    Funding for the New Direction, Collaborate With an Icelandic Poet, Eat Chipotle With an Icelandic Poet, Co-
    Write Scientifically Accurate Ode to Walrus, Get Interested in Something Unrelated, Apply for Funding for
    Something Unrelated, Notice That 20 Years Have Passed."--

    by Percy W. Bridgman (From: Reflections of a Physicist, 1955)

    "It seems to me that there is a good deal of ballyhoo about scientific method. I venture to think that the people who talk most about it are the people who do least about it. Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other people or even they themselves may say about it. No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method. When the scientist ventures to criticize the work of his fellow scientist, as is not uncommon, he does not base his criticism on such glittering generalities as failure to follow the "scientific method," but his criticism is specific, based on some feature characteristic of the particular situation. The working scientist is always too much concerned with getting down to brass tacks to be willing to spend his time on generalities.

    Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it. These people have been able to uncover various generalities applicable to at least most of what the scientist does, but it seems to me that these generalities are not very profound, and could have been anticipated by anyone who know enough about scientists to know what is their primary objective. I think that the objectives of all scientists have this in common--that they are all trying to get the correct answer to the particular problem in hand. This may be expressed in more pretentious language as the pursuit of truth. Now if the answer to the problem is correct there must be some way of knowing and proving that it is correct--the very meaning of truth implies the possibility of checking or verification. Hence the necessity for checking his results always inheres in what the scientist does. Furthermore, this checking must be exhaustive, for the truth of a general proposition may be disproved by a single exceptional case. A long experience has shown the scientist that various things are inimical to getting the correct answer. He has found that it is not sufficient to trust the word of his neighbor, but that if he wants to be sure, he must be able to check a result for himself. Hence the scientist is the enemy of all authoritarianism. Furthermore, he finds that he often makes mistakes himself and he must learn how to guard against them. He cannot permit himself any preconception as to what sort of results he will get, nor must he allow himself to be influenced by wishful thinking or any personal bias. All these things together give that "objectivity" to science which is often thought to be the essence of the scientific method.

    But to the working scientist himself all this appears obvious and trite. What appears to him as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists."===

    Problems with "The Scientific Method"‘-scientific-method’

    Myth of The Scientific Method
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2014
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    Where in the full content of that page does it in any way state that the author is describing anything other than :
    The ^^above quoted^^ is from :

    I cannot seem to find, anywhere on that page, that the author stated that he was in any way switching, at any time, to describing anything other than, "the simple version".
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    @ Magical Realist !!!

    Got to give you 3-cheers for your very insightful Post #187!!!

    The Links also seem to be quite pertinent to this Thread.

    Thank you.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I have not a clue as to what you are on about. :shrug:

    Once again, the Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to make these conclusions.
    Sometimes the same processes are used in every day life.
    The article supports that.
    The scientific method is a refinement of everyday logical thinking and procedure and weeds out the nutty conspiracy, and pseudoscience brigade.
    It does appear though that the subtlety and everyday logical aspect of the method, has bypassed a few.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Despite their takes on it, and their criticisms, and their rather silly analogies, false claims and the like eg: check out the following all encompassing silly statements....
    " The standard description of the scientific method makes it sound like an almost machine-like process for sifting and separating truth from error. The method is typically described as involving the following steps:"

    " Copernicus did not use the scientific method described above, nor did Sir Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin."

    " The molecular structure of benzene was discovered initially, not in a laboratory but in a dream, as was Einstein's theory of relativity."

    "Science is a human endeavor, and real-world scientists approach their work with a combination of imagination, creativity, speculation, prior knowledge, library research, perseverance and plain old blind luck-the same combination of intellectual resources, in short, that scientists and nonscientists alike use in trying to solve problems.

    I mean we have examples of a couple of misinterpretations at best, and lies at worst, and the rest are variations on the basic scientific method anyway. Serendipity?? Of course it is part and parcel of the method and I have included it a couple of times.

    I'll stay with the logic and common sense approach of the simple scientific method as I have mentioned.

    We also have many articles on the web refuting SR/GR and the BB. They are also wrong.
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Are you a scientist? If so, how often do you use the scientific method?
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm not a scientist [as you well know] but I would unconsciously use the scientific method many times a day.
    Afterall, it is common sense and logic.
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    So you must generate quite a few scientific theories every day. What theories have you validated with the scientific method?
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    The words "I have not a clue...", huh...
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    A couple of late, re the motivation, mentality and objective of a few posters
    The rest are common sense logical methodolgy of every day decision making.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Well to be kind your posts are somewhat confusing, off beat, agenda laden and off topic to say the least.

    It's them trees again.....thousands of them...yet you miss the forest.
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    And your Post ^^quoted above^^ is on topic? And not agenda laden?
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    I would like to know where scientists use the scientific method when an experiment is carried out, and completely unexpected results are obtained, which turn out to be useful in, well, unexpected ways.
    First of all, are there any examples of this kind of serendipitous discovery (I believe I can think up several)?.

    Of course, the design of an experiment constitutes a "step" in the so-called method, so what happens when the actual results are not predicted at all (which means the results were not part of an hypothesis)?
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Gosh, if only someone had thought to point that out earlier:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the "scientific method" is used by almost everyone every day.
    you see something you don't quite understand and then you "wonder about it".
    you are unconscieously fitting what you know to the observation, weeding out all but the most logical and reasonable.
    thist is the gist of "the method".
    the only area of science where this doesn't apply is research for the sake of research, gathering data.
    for example the census.
    it gathers data then orders that data in various ways.
    there is no "scientific method" involved.

Share This Page