Is there a method?

Not sure of the point you are trying to make.....:shrug:

There is really no argument with that regard. I see it as a storm in a teacup because your links [despite sensationalist headlines] actually follow the scientific method, in varying forms....The scientific method is the ground rules, and the foundations...simple as that.

Most will agree that The greatest advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced, and in being so, it sorts out the truth from lies and delusion.
again :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It looks to me like you want to define the 'scientific method' idea very broadly, to refer to pretty much any human interaction with the external world that results in success, even if the success was simply fortuitious, the result or randomly trying things until something worked. If something works, other people copy it.

People have always done that, since the stone age. It's a form of behavior that's pretty much universal among human beings. So if that's what we are talking about, then why call it the 'Scientific method'? What is its connection to the intellectual tradition that we today call 'science', particularly science since the 17'th century? If it predates modern 'science' by a million years and if everyone's already using it, then it would seem to me to be more akin to 'common-sense'.

Philosophically, what's happening here might be better conceived of as an element of epistemology, of the theory of knowledge, something that applies to any process by which sentient beings acquire knowledge about objective reality. Obviously science is going to partake in epistemology and will make use of it. But merely noting the fact that science is an epistemological practice doesn't set it apart from other human cognitive activities, doesn't provide us with a cookbook procedure for scientists to follow, and certainly doesn't help us explain the impressive success of modern science.

Right, that's what it is and it appears to be pretty devastating to the idea that 'the Scientific Method' is 'observe-hypothesize-test'. 'Argumentum ad absurdem' (also called 'reductio ad absurdem') is a valid argument form that's used all the time in logical and mathematical proofs, and less formally in conversation. It's basically the idea that if absurd conclusions can be derived from a particular set of premises, then those premises can't all be true.

In this case, the Muslim seems to be following the 'scientific method' to the letter. He's making an observation of behavior X. He's forming a hypothesis about it, that it's forbidden by God's law, and he's testing that hypothesis by consulting Quran, Hadith and the Islamic juridicial tradition.

My point is that if a particular construal of 'scientific method' is consistent with and exemplified by the practice of Islamic law, then that particular account of scientific method probably isn't capable of performing the tasks that so many people want it to perform.

The question is why. His procedure seems to entirely in accordance with the scientific method. If we still want to call it "pseudoscientific", then there must be some other criterion for use of that word.

I didn't define him as an extremist. I called him a 'fundamentalist', meaning a Muslim who believes that society should be governed by Shariah. We can imagine that the Islamic juridicial traditions that he consults and the conclusions that he draws from them are entirely consistent with the consensus of Islamic legal scholars and hence are peer-reviewed in the Islamic sense.

I don't think that any of us want to embrace this example as a bonafide example of science. The question is that if it is fully consistent with the scientific method, then why shouldn't we? Once again, it would seem that either this particular version of 'scientific method' is too broad and expansive to be helpful, or else it's still incomplete and still in need of additional premises.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have been expressing that. Could you possibly imagine how I would feel if I allowed my tolerance level to be of paramount importance in any and all discussions that I participate in?

That seems to be an excellent interpretation of "the Simplified Scientific Method".

Yes, you did. And I tried to point out to you that the berkeley.edu Links were describing the "The real process of science" which of course, must contain all of the ingredients of "the Simplified Scientific Method", and also the much more complete, extended and detailed processes/methods that encompass the whole of "the real process of science".

Yes, I have accepted it as I explained in my response immediately ^^above^^.

Again, yes you did. and that "restating" was a great "broadest possible overview" of "the Simplified Scientific Method" - It would however, not be such a great "broadest possible overview" of berkeley.edu's "the real process of science".

The reason that berkeley.edu presents only one flowchart is because they are presenting the flowchart of "the real process of science", which berleley.edu clearly states.

Again, Trippy, it would seem to make perfect sense that the flowchart presented of "the real process of science" would have to incorporate all of the steps or methods of "the Simplified Scientific Method". Is that not a sensible deduction/conclusion?

Again, yes you have. And I read those Posts.

Yes, Trippy, berkeley.edu only made "reference" to (Bold by me) : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

When berkeley.edu makes references using the words "linear" or "simplified " (or variations of those words), it seems to me, at least, that they are probably referring to what they described as "the Simplified Scientific Method".

I am not really sure what to make of your ^^above quoted^^ !

If it was meant as a question, and you merely put a (.) at the end, instead of a (?), then yes I would think that you could give many examples.

And, if it was meant as a statement (in which case you may have merely reversed the first two words), then I would agree that you should be able to give examples.

1.) - I concur.

2.) - I concur.

3.) - I do not completely concur, I have stated that what you have said is similar to what berkeley.edu states, thought they get much more in depth. In some Posts you have made some statements that are, more or less, the same as some of the statements made by berkeley.edu, that much is true.

4.) - I partially concur - I would use the word "similar" instead of "same" in some of the cases.

5.) - ??? - It would seem to me that it is more that you are in complete agreement with berkeley.edu in those details.

6.) - ??? - Again, you seem to be in agreement with berkeley.edu on the iterative nature of the process.

7.) - ??? - Again, you seem to be in agreement with berkeley.edu on the non-linearity of "the real process of science". The berkeley.edu Site seems to only refer to "the simplified Scientific Method" as being "linear".

8.) - As well you, and any other open and honest person who has taken the time to read the links, probably should be.

9.) - I am not sure how to respond to that, other than to say that I was and am currently not aware that the berkeley.edu site, nor myself claimed that any thing along those lines did not exist.

Actually, my position has not changed one bit from what I Posted in the OP :

Actually, it seems, to me at least, that after 7 Pages, what you and other Posters are saying finally "matches up" partially with what the berkeley.edu Site/Pages are saying about "The real process of science".
Although, I am not sure that everyone has figured out that berkeley.edu considers and states that they (and others) make a distinction between "the Simplified Scientific Method", as taught in grade school for instance, and the much more involved and complex processes/methods that they explain as "the real process of science", which are utilized throughout the different Sciences and taught in the higher levels of academia.

I have not been implying anything.

I have tried to make it abundantly clear that I firmly believe that there is a marked difference between "the Simplified Scientific Method" and "the real process of science".

I have also tried to make it clear that I firmly believe that there are a myriad of different processes/methods that are utilized on a regular basis in the many different disciplines of the Sciences.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say in that statement!

The only reply that I can give is the following :

I, dmoe, started this Thread and Posted the OP.

In the OP I supplied the Links to what I believed were pertinent to the Thread, and clearly stated both my position on, and intent in Posting the OP. That position and intent has not changed at all.

I also clearly stated in the OP :

From the first few Posts by paddoboy, in which, it seemed to me, that he was trying to refute the OP, while at the same time appearing to copy/paste articles that were more or less in agreement to the OP. At that point, I was fairly certain that he had misjudged the intent of the OP, or had not fully read and considered the Links in the OP, so I asked paddoboy :

I asked that question to see if paddoboy would state whether or not he was in agreement with the OP.

It does seem to appear that not everyone read and considered the Links, Prior to Posting their responses - I should not be held responsible for any misunderstandings or misconceptions that were the result of their actions or non-action in that respect.

As this Thread has progressed, it would seem that paddoboy and some other Posters have actually read at least some of the content available at the Links in the OP, and have, more or less, come into agreement with most of the berkeley.edu content - even though some cannot come to admit any agreement with my position or my clearly stated intent in the Posting of the OP.

Again, Trippy, I have tried my darnedest to address all of the questions and issues in your Post, to the best of my abilities.

I always try to be open, honest and forthright in my Posts and responses. I have no overt or covert "anti-science" or "anti-mainstream science" agenda of any kind.

 

"Didn't read completely" and "didn't read at all" were not my words in my Post that you quoted.

To be perfectly frank, paddoboy has since admitted that he had not even read the few pages Linked in my OP, prior to making quite a number of Posts in this Thread.

Actually, Trippy, there are at least 50 Pages of content if you continue "link through" using the "next button" at the bottom of each page, beginning with the "flowchart" page.

And, yes, Trippy, I have read all of them multiple times. ( if you care to converse by PM, I will be more than happy to explain that answer, fully)

I am not disputing the berkeley.edu Links.

My interpretation/representation of the berkeley.edu Links is the interpretation/representation that is taught in many classrooms of the higher academia.

If after reading, if only a few of the berkeley.edu pages, members of this Forum are unable to understand that berkeley.edu and many schools and Scientists, clearly see there being a "Simplified Scientific Method" as well as "the real process of science", well, I can do nothing about how anyone understands anything that I did not write/compose myself.

When I have presented the berkeley.edu Linked content to groups of people most of them understand the 2 differentiated concepts.
I have had quite a few of them point out, after reading just the first few pages that is obvious that : although it is true, that "the real process of science" must encompass all of the the "Simplified Scientific Method" - the opposite - that the "Simplified Scientific Method" must encompass all of "the real process of science" is not true.

 

There is a basic scientific method...pure and simple. The rest are simply details.

The basic scientific method encompasses the real process of science.

I'm saying, [1] That the article headline is an example of sensationalistic controversy, just for the sake of controversy, and [2] getting beyond the pedant and sometimes excruciating details, the article follows the simple scientific methodology anyway...Like I said, a storm in a teacup...or making a mountain out of a molehill.

The tone of your posts here and elsewhere certainly do imply some sort of agenda, in my very humble opinion.

I see that as completely wrong. The real process of science follows and broadly uses the scientific methodology as a guide and basis upon which to proceed.

All I have seen in your posts are pedantic examples.

No, I certainly did not read the whole link, for the reasons already stated at the beginning of this post.
I also provided an alternative University link, that gave the scientific method for what it truly is, way back on pages 1 or 2......I'm not that much into pedant to resurrect it, but its there...somewhere. :shrug:

I certainly do not agree with the link headline, and see it as philosophical pedant ranting, but ironically, in presenting its case, it follows the scientific methodology, but arrives at the wrong conclusions.

You do seem to have a habit of expressing and enforcing that in your posts.
I see it differently. But I must admit, most people do have an agenda, or some issue they feel strongly about...Even me.

 

Real eyes realize real lies.

 

the scientific method can be applied across the board to ALL the disciplines of science.
the various methods of science or the methods used in the various sciences cannot.

 

Fair enough. So we agree that you misspoke when you claimed that excising a hemorrhoid is a scientific method, right?

Yes, doctors do use a method related to the scientific method when diagnosing illnesses. As do auto mechanics when diagnosing car problems. As do I when diagnosing what's that smell in my fridge?

But you do agree that none of these have anything to do with the thread, right? Because they aren't The Scientific Method since they aren't being used to find scientific theories.

 

R_W, I am not really sure who the "we" are that you are talking about.

I, myself, dmoe, cannot agree to the ^^above quoted^^, primarily for the paramount reason that I, dmoe, did not misspeak, nor did I claim that "excising a hemorrhoid is a scientific method".

So...no R_W, if you are trying to include me, dmoe, as part of the "we" in your ^^above quoted^^ question, from my perspective at least, "we" do not agree.

The statement I made in my Post #89, that you queried me about in your Post #102 was :

The variety of unpleasant methods that I was referring to were during the Diagnosing, prior to the excision, as I attempted to clarify for you in my Post #109 :

Are you implying that my attempt at clarification was not clear and concise enough for you to understand it?

That, to me, would seem very odd, because you seem to agree with my clarification, which, in and of itself, would seem to indicate full understanding in the next statement :

Alas...no...R_W, I must humbly state that I cannot agree with your final question, nor your final statement, either.

 

It is awfully difficult to accept that a "method...to achieve its excision" isn't the excision itself. But fair enough -- I'll just ask that you be clearer in the future.

Why not? You stated this definition of the scientific method:
"The scientific methods are for (in Layman's Terms) extracting, defining and refining, identifying and establishing as True the Knowledge of the underlying fundamental Laws of the Natural world/Universe that we are a part of."

Clearly, whether or not you have a hemorrhoid is not a "fundamental Law of the Natural world", right? So nothing a doctor does to diagnose it can be the actual scientific method, can it? Heck, what the auto mechanic is doing isn't really even closely related to science at all!

 

Just as you have in the past. And I will always try my darnedest to clarify, just as I have in the past.

R_W, there are Posters on this Forum who liken the scientific method to common sense, have you asked them to be clearer?

And how about the Social Sciences, is there any utilization of the real process of science in any of the Social Science disciplines?

Heck, R_W, computers are not part of the natural world, either - have any of the methods of science been utilized to enable you to Post in this Forum?

Is this Forum part of the Natural World?

Would or could this Forum owe its existence in any way to any application of any scientific method?

 

No. They are all being clear, not doing unhelpful things such as answering a question with a question. Nothing in your response has any relevance to the question I asked. Declining to answer appears an indicator of evasiveness. Again: you violated your own definition.

Trippy responded pretty well to your post though: I have nothing else to add.

 

Indeed, there is! As an example : Quite a few people tell me that "common sense" tells them, that it is not possible to boil water in a paper cup by placing the cup directly onto a burning wood campfire. Their "common sense" in that respect, could be said to be ignoring established scientific facts, if it produces that conclusion.

FR, "followed rigorously" are your words, not mine.

Honestly, I am not sure, either. However, with all due respect, I believe that I will continue to use the term : "natural world", when describing this particular world, which is only a near unimaginably tiny, minuscule part of the Universe.

FR, you can say anything you care to about any "supernatural" this or that.

If there is "zero evidence" for the existence of this "supernatural universe", why have you chosen to introduce it to the discussion?

Are you in someway trying to tell me that I made an assertion - by asking a question? Was the < preceding question an assertion, also?

FR, could you, please, clarify?

 

Maybe...but in many senses they not, not the least of which is : that without the application of quite a number of the processes or methods utilized by Scientists in assorted disciplines, Nature, in and of itself, does not directly manifest or create computers.

Actually, from my viewpoint, you never "needed" to, "go", at all.

In all honesty, no matter how one would choose to interpret that question, is it not, essentially, a rhetorical question?

 

Point taken. Grok'd!

In that case...

Yes, Trippy, I have read all of the 21 pages, multiple times.

 

Same old storm...same old teacup.

The Scientific method is a "common sense" basic framework to facilitate logical reasoning and whose structure and methodology allows for flexibility and variability, in investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, solving problems, and is unkowningly also followed in everyday life.

There is no argument in my opinion on that score.